United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/155
September 1991
oEPA
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Fibers Public Supply Wells, PR
-------
S0272-tl
| REPtRT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1. REPORT NO.
EPA/ROD/R02-91/155
X RBdptonTs Acceulon No.
4. TMeendSuMM*
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Fibers Public Supply Wells, PR
First Remedial Action - Final
5. Report Date
09/30/91
7. AutrarW
8. Performing Organization Rapt No.
9. P*i foimliiy OrgaMzallon Name end Addie**
ia Pro|tcVTnk/Work UnH No.
11. Contnct(C) or Gr*nt
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/155
Fibers Public Supply Wells, PR
First Remedial Action - Final
Abstract (Continued)
private site investigations in 1983 revealed the presence of elevated levels of organics
and inorganics in soil and ground water. Between 1984 and 1985, AWPI remodeled the
facilities, and in 1985 began pharmaceutical manufacturing operations. Also in 1985,
AWPI excavated portions of the settling lagoons and enlarged the stormwater retention
pond to encompass the lagoon area. AWPI excavated 2,500 cubic yards of the lagoon sludge
and asbestos-contaminated liner material, and deposited the material at an onsite soil
disposal area. This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses a final remedy for source
contamination in the soil disposal area and ground water. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs including PCE and TCE;
other organics; metals including chromium and lead; and other inorganics including
asbestos.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating 9,010 cubic yards of
contaminated material from the soil disposal area and transporting the soil offsite to a
landfill authorized to accept asbestos; conducting soil sampling; controlling dust during
remediation to prevent exposure and to protect workers and the local community during the
transportation of asbestos-containing material (ACM); restoring and covering the
excavated area with 6 inches of fill and 6 inches of top soil, followed by revegetating
the area; onsite pumping and treatment of the 200-acre contaminated ground water plume
from five recovery wells using filtration and air stripping, and discharging the treated
water onsite to a nearby irrigation canal to recharge the aquifer; and installing
monitoring wells near the coastline to monitor potential salt water encroachment. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $6,686,591, which includes an
annual O&M cost of $270,868 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Soil goals for asbestos are based on NESHAPs under the
CAA, which consider that materials containing asbestos in concentrations exceeding
1 percent be regarded as ACM Ground water clean-up goals are based on State and Federal
MCLs. Goals for soil include asbestos 1 percent by volume. Chemical-specific ground
water goals include PCE 0.005 mg/1 (MCL) and TCE 0.005 mg/1 (MCL). EPA may invoke an
ARAR waiver for ground water if the remediation program indicates that reaching MCLs in
the aquifer is technically impracticable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location/State:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
O&M/Year:
Present Worth
(10 years)
Present Worth
(30 years)
Responsible parties:
Primary Contact:
PRP Contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Estimated Quantity:
Fibers Public Supply Wells Site
Guayama, Puerto Rico
35.34
406
September 30, 1991
Aquifer restoration by pumping five
production wells, air stripping volatile
organics, and discharge to an irrigation
canal.
Excavation with off-site disposal of
asbestos-contaminated soils pile.
$ 2,522,684
$ 270,868
$ 3,383,256
$ 5,455,591
Phillips Petroleum Company, Chevron Chemical
Company, and American Home Products
•»•
Adalberto Bosque, (809) 729-6951
Frank H. Crum (813) 968-5882
Volatile organics in groundwater and
asbestos in soils.
Groundwater and soils
The volatiles originated from a wastewater
settling pond and the asbestos from the
pond liner which was excavated.
200-acre groundwater plume and 9,000 cu.
yds.
-------
DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site ("Site11) in Guayama, Puerto
Rico, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances" Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the
remedy for this Site.
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) concurs with
the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from EQB is
appended to this document. The information supporting this
remedial action decision is contained in the Administrative
Record for this Site, the index of which is also appended.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected by this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The remedial alternative presented in this document is the only
operable unit for the site. It focuses on groundwater
contamination as well as soil contamination. "~
The major components of the selected remedy include the
following:
Contaminated groundwater will be pumped from five recovery
wells at a combined flow rate of approximately 1,400 gpm.
However, the actual pumping rate will be determined during
the Remedial Design (RD) .
The treated groundwater will be discharged to the PREPA
irrigation canal where it will also serve to recharge the
aquifer unless it is determined during the RD stage that a
more appropriate option exists for all or portions of the
treated groundwater. In any event, the method .of discharge
must provide a beneficial use of the water.
-------
Sediment/particulate filtration and air stripping will be
installed to remove Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs).
A long-term monitoring program will be implemented to track
the migration and concentrations of the contaminants of
concern and assess performance of the groundwater extraction
wells.
Chloride monitoring wells will be installed near the
coastline to monitor potential salt water movement.
A system monitoring program will be implemented which
includes the collection and monthly analysis of influent and
effluent from the air stripping tower and periodic
collection of well-head samples.
EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the ARARs if the
remediation program indicates that reaching Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in the aquifer is technically
impracticable.
8 The Soil Disposal Area will be excavated and the
contaminated soils will be transported to an authorized
landfill for disposal.
Dust control and worker health and safety measures will be
taken throughout the excavation process.
The Soil Disposal Area would be restored once excavation
activites are completed.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with Federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action (ARARs) and is cost effective. This remedy
utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This remedy
satisfies the statutory preference for remedies that employ
treatment that reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of
contamination as their principal element for the groundwater.
However, since treatment of the excavated soil was not found to
be practicable, the remedy for the soil Disposal Area does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal
element of this aspect of the remedy. Because this alternative
will result in contaminants remaining on Site above health based
limits, CERCLA requires that this action be reviewed at least
once every five years, to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide adequate protection.^.
Constantine Sidamon-Eris
Regional Administra*t5r~A, / /
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE OF CO«Tj£BTS
DECI8IOH SUMMARY PAGE
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 4
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION WITHIN
SITE STRATEGY 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 12
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 19
IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 26
Z. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS. . 28
XI. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 30
ATTACHHgHTS
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - TABLES
APPENDIX C - COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
Site Location and Description
The Fibers Public Supply Wells Site ("Site") is located in the
municipality of Guayama, approximately 2 miles north of the
Caribbean Sea on the south coast of Puerto Rico. The Site is
located on Route 3 approximately 1.6 kilometers southwest of the
Town of Guayama, Puerto Rico (Figure 1). The area of
investigation for the Remedial Investigation (RI) (study area)
shown on Figure 2, encompasses about 540 acres, and includes a
former synthetic fibers manufacturing plant, five public-supply
wells owned and operated by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer
Authority (PRASA), the Anaquest Caribe, Inc. facility and
adjacent areas. As noted in Figure 2, the plant, which is
presently operated by Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceutical, Inc. (AWPI),
and the Anaquest facility are located on the north side of Route
No. 3, and the wells are located on the south side.
The Site is surrounded by agricultural land, an electrical sub-
station, a government correction facility, and a refinery. The
PRASA wells are located about 2 miles north of the south coast of
Puerto Rico. The population of Guayama in 1980 was about 41,000.
The permanent population in the vicinity of the study area is
small. Along the eastern boundary of the study area (identified
as the Reunion Area), six dwellings associated with sugar cane
operations house approximately twenty residents. Outside the
study area to the south, along the coastal road (identified as
the Las Mareas Area), the dwellings also house approximately
twenty residents.
In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Fibers International
Corporation/Chevron Chemical Company (FIC/CCCPR) facility and the
Phillips Puerto Rico Core, Inc. facility were the only industrial
operations in the area. A Puerto Rico Department of Corrections
facility was constructed in the mid 1970s. In the early 1980s,
the facilities of Anaquest Caribe, Inc. and Smith, Kline and
Beecham (SK&B) Laboratories were constructed at or near the Site.
The current work force at the three manufacturing facilities
within the study area is approximately 1200 and the prison is
currently being expanded to house a population of about 600. The
current work force at the Core facility is approximately 350.
Construction of a new pharmaceutical facility by Whitehall
Laboratories has recently been completed.
Two principal geological formations are present in the study
area: alluvium and bedrock. The bedrock consist of on-the-site
volcanic breccia and lava, volcanic-derived sandstone and
siltstone. The groundwater is contained in both the alluvial
deposits and the underlying bedrock in the creek. Groundwater
flow in the study area is to the south and southeast.
Groundwater within the vicinity of the study area is recharged
from stream flow, rainfall and irrigation return flow. The
-------
Guamani River, which is located approximately .5 miles in the
easterly direction, is often dry. Examination of topographic
contours indicates that superficial (overland) flow of surface
water from the Site is controlled by a series of drainage ditches
which direct the surface flow to the west, away from the river.
About 5 percent of the annual rainfall recharges the aquifer and
about 30 to 50 percent of irrigation water percolates back to the
aquifer.
II. Site History and Enforcement Activities
The manufacture of nylon fibers was initiated by FIC in November
1966 and continued until February 1976. Phillips was the
majority stockholder of FIC. The property on which the plant was
constructed and operated was, and remains, owned by the Puerto
Rican Government (P.R. Southern Industrial Development Co. a
wholly owned subsidiary of Puerto Rico Industrial Development
Corpany). In February 1976, CCCPR, a subsidiary of Chevron,
purchased the facilities (not including the real property) which
were later expanded to include the production of polypropylene
fibers. Manufacturing by CCCPR continued until October 1980.
The facilities were subsequently remodeled by AWPI and the
pharmaceutical operations began in 1985.
Based on a review of company records and employee interviews, FIC
and CCCPR operations included the purchase and use of solvents
containing tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene, (TCE)
and other organic chemicals. Degreasing solvents were also used
to clean the spinning machinery. Wastewater containing these
solvents was directed to two settling lagoons located near the
southwestern corner of the plant property through the process
sewer system. The piping of this sewer system failed an
integrity test and was replaced by AWPI. The lagoons were lined
by FIC in 1969 to reduce the seepage of wastewater from the
unlined lagoons. The two lagoons provided settlement as the
preliminary treatment of the wastewater generated at the plant.
This water was subsequently piped to an off-site biological
treatment system located at the Phillips Core Plant.
CCCPR completed installation of an on-site wastewater treatment
system for process and sanitary wastewater in July 1978. Treated
effluent from this new system was diverted to the settling
lagoons prior to discharge to the sea under a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. CCCPR ceased
operations in October 1980.
The five PRASA wells which are located south of P.R. Route No. 3
were constructed in 1966 to provide drinking water to the
residents of the Salinas-Guayama area and were constructed prior
to the initiation of manufacturing at the FIC facility. The
wells average about 125 feet in depth and 12-inches in diameter.
-------
In 1976, citizens using the public supply system in the vicinity
of the study area complained that the water had a bad taste and
odor. PRASA sampled Well No. 3 and as result of detecting
contamination, pumped Well No. 3 for about a week in an attempt
to clear the well. This attempt was unsuccessful as the water
continued to have odor and taste problems, and PRASA Well No. 3
was subsequently removed from service.
Water samples obtained by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) in June 1982 and in January and February 1983, indicated
that water from PRASA Well No. 2 contained three organic
compounds above detection limits. The PRASA Wells were sampled
by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
contractor, NUS Corporation (NUS), in January and February 1983.
Volatile organics were found in four of the wells at
concentrations up to 2100 ppb and subsequently PRASA Well Nos. 2,
4 and 5 were removed from service. PRASA Well No. 1, which was
found to be uncontaminated, continues to produce potable water
for use in the PRASA system. Phillips Core and SK&B Laboratories
have wells for industrial use within the plume area. AWPI also
pumps the aquifer outside the plume area for industrial and
potable uses.
On September 1, 1984, the Site was placed on the National
Priorities List, established under Section 105(a)(8)(b) of CERCLA
42 U.S.C. §9605(a)(8)(B).
When AWPI obtained the lease for the plant in 1984, two
wastewater settling lagoons existed near the stormwater retention
pond. Prior to the acquisition of the facility by AWPI, the
lagoons were settling ponds for wastewaters containing waste
chemicals, including, but not limited to, tetrachloroethene
(ethenes are also known as ethylenes) and trichloroethene.
In May and June of 1985, AWPI excavated portions of the lagoons
and enlarged the stormwater retention pond to encompass the
lagoon area. Asbestos fibers were a component of the liner under
both wastewater lagoons. This liner material was excavated
together with the sludge that had settled to the bottom of the
lagoons. The excavated soil/sludge material was then deposited
at the Soil Disposal Area (SDA) in the northwest section of the
AWPI plant Site. The SDA is approximately 1.4 acres in size with
a reported average soil/sludge depth of approximately 1 foot. A
total of approximately 2500 cubic yards of soil and sludge were
excavated and deposited on the land surface at the disposal area.
In December 1985, Phillips Petroleum Company and Chevron Chemical
Company entered into an Administrative Order on Consent with EPA,
pursuant to the authority of Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.
§9606, in which they agreed to undertake a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study ("RI/FS") of the site. The
reports submitted pursuant to the Order determined the extent of
-------
contamination at the Site and identified the appropriate remedial
alternatives.
In September 1986, American Home Products Corporation (AHP),
parent company of AWPI, entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent with EPA, pursuant to the authority of Section 3013 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §6934. Under the Administrative Order, AHP
agreed to conduct monitoring, testing and analysis at the SDA to
determine the presence of contamination in that area. Following
the detection of metals, phenol, cyanide and the PCB isomer
Aroclor 1260 in the soil samples collected in 1987 from the SDA,
negotiations for a second Administrative Order under CERCLA were
initiated.
In September 1989, AHP entered into a new Administrative Order on
Consent with the EPA pursuant to the authority of Sections 104
and 122 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. §§9604, 9622. Pursuant to such
Order, AHP agreed to conduct additional monitoring, testing and
analysis to ascertain the nature and extent of contamination
caused by the excavation of the two lagoons and relocation of the
contents of the lagoons. Analyses revealed the presence of
chromium and asbestos in the SDA. Pursuant to the Order, AHP
agreed to cooperate with Phillips and Chevron in the formulation
of the FS for the entire Site.
In October of 1990, Anaguest Caribe Inc. advised EPA that
Anaquest's products, Isoflurane and Enflurane, hazardous
substances pursuant to CERCLA, which belong to the halogenated
ether family were, detected in SK&B wells at a concentration of
up to 786 ppb. In addition, these hazardous subtances were
detected in Anaguest wells aproximatelly 100 feet from the study
area, in the same aquifer in which the solvents were detected.
In October 1990 and November 1990, the Remedial Investigation
Report (RI) and the Modified Remedial Investigation Report (MRI),
respectively, were provided to EPA. Approval of those reports
was granted by EPA.
All of the above referred to parties have been identified as
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP's). In addition, the Puerto
Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO) has been identified
as a PRP through its ownership of the property on which AWPI is
located.
III. Highlights of Community Participation
The RI/FS Report and the Proposed Plan for the Fibers Public
Supply Wells Site were released to the public for comment on July
23, 1991. These two 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 Field Office, and at the Town of
-------
Guayama Municipal Library located at Derkes Street West End,
Guayama, Puerto Rico. The notices of availability for these
documents were published in the El Nuevo Dia Newspaper on July
23, 1991 as well as in the San Juan Star Newspaper on July 25,
1991. A public comment period was held from July 23, 1991
through August 21,. 1991. In addition, based on a request for
extension of time, thirty additional days were granted up to
September 20, 1991. The notice for the extension of time was
published in the El Nuevo Dia Newspaper on August 21, 1991. A
public meeting was held on August 6, 1991 at the Municipal
Assembly Room in Guayama, Puerto Rico. At this meeting,
representatives from EPA presented the findings of the RI/FS and
answered questions from the public about the Site and the
remedial alternatives under consideration. A response to the
comments received during this period is included in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is appended to this ROD.
IV. Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within
Site Strategy
EPA has separated the response actions at the Site into two
different areas. Those areas include groundwater contaminated
with volatile organics above MCLs and the SDA which contains
asbestos and metals. The remedial action described in this ROD
will address both areas. The goal of the remedial action for the
SDA is to remove the contaminant mass to prevent any current or
future health risk.
The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund approach to groundwater
remediation as stated in the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300 (NCP) is
to return usable groundwater to their beneficial uses within a
time frame that is reasonable. The goal of this remedial action
is to halt the spread of the groundwater contaminant plume and
return usable groundwater to beneficial uses within a time frame
that is reasonable. However, EPA recognizes that the selected
remedy may not achieve this goal because of the technical
difficulties associated with treating contaminants to groundwater
cleanup levels. The result of this remedial action will ce
monitored carefully to determine the feasibility of achieving
this final goal. This remedial action will permit the further
collection of data on the aquifer without delaying initial
remediation measures.
EPA's Superfund Program uses EPA's Groundwater Protection
Strategy as guidance when determining the appropriate remediation
for contaminated groundwater at CERCLA sites. The Groundwater
Protection Strategy establishes different degrees of protection
for groundwater based on their vulnerability, use, and value.
For the aquifer at the Fibers Site, which is classified by EPA as
a Class II aquifer, the final remediation goals will be Federal
Safe Drinking Water MCLs. Class II aquifers include current and
-------
potential sources of drinking water and groudwater potentially
available for drinking water, agriculture, or other beneficial
use.
V. fiiMHiary of site Characteristics
A. Site Geology and Hydrology
Surficial soils in the study area consist primarily of silty
loan, silty clay loam, and loam and are classified by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Chemistry and Soils,
University of Puerto Rico, as San Anton soils.
The geology of the study area consists of alluvial deposits
underlain by bedrock. The alluvial deposits consist of clays,
silts, and sands containing small to medium sized gravel and
larger broken and weathered bedrock boulders in a clay and silt
matrix. The bedrock underlying the alluvium is a blue andesite.
The aquifer underlying the site, which is classified as a Class
II aquifer, acts as a single artesian aquifer contained within
the alluvium and includes the upper weathered portion of the
bedrock underlying the alluvium. The artesian aquifer is
overlain throughout the study area by a series of clays, which
act as a semi-confining unit at the top, and by bedrock at the
bottom. The groundwater flow through the bedrock formation is
restricted to the fractures of the otherwise nonporous rock and
is not considered an aquifer within the vicinity of the study
area. Four hydrogeologic units are described for the site:
1. Sands and silts to depths of 10 to. 40 feet (thicker to the
south) .
2. Clays and sandy clays (semi-confining unit) ranging in
thickness from about 10 to 20 feet. (Perched water was
observed in some of the RI soil borings above this unit.)
3. Alluvial aquifer ranging from 50 to 100 feet thick.
4 . Bedrock
The USGS (Torres-Gonzalez, 1987) described the first unit
(perched water zone) as a shallow water-table zone that is
relatively permeable but is not sufficiently thick to provide the
amounts of groundwater required by agriculture and established
industries in the area.
The general permeability of the entire aquifer is approximately
30 feet/day. Based on measurements taken during the RI,
groundwater flows to the south/ southeast at a calculated flow
velocity of 3 feet/day. However, groundwater flow within the
study area is influenced by industrial well pumping at the SK&B
and Phillips-Core facilities. Analyses of the geologic cross
sections of the study area indicate that, under natural
-------
conditions, groundwater may flow in a more southwesterly
direction.
B. Nature and Extent of the Contamination
1. Groundwater
The groundwater quality of the aquifer underlying and
downgradient of the Site was assessed by two rounds of water
quality sampling in 1987 and a third round of sampling in 1990.
Tables 1 through 3 present the results of the analyses of
groundwater samples from the PRASA, monitoring, and private/
industrial wells, during the three RI sampling rounds and the MRI
of the SDA.
The following halogenated alkane/alkene compounds are hazardous
substances pursuant to CERCLA and are also the principal organic
contaminants detected during the RI groundwater monitoring
program.
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Vinyl Chloride
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tetrachloroethene (PCE), a hazardous substance, pursuant to
CERCLA, was the principal organic contaminant detected in the
groundwater underlying and downgradient of the Site. The
concentrations detected ranged from an estimate of 0.5 ppb to 240
ppb, 48 times the proposed MCL. Figures 3 and 4 display the PCE
contaminant plume based on round 2 and round 3 data. As noted in
these figures the approximate extent of the plume is 200 acres.'
The settling lagoons and sections of the process wastewater
piping system represent the most probable pathway for
contaminants to have entered the groundwater.
Elevated metal concentrations were detected in unfiltered
groundwater samples collected from several RI monitoring wells
and PRASA Well No. 5. Existing or proposed MCLs were exceeded
for arsenic, barium, cadmium, and chromium, in unfiltered
groundwater samples. Unfiltered samples collected on round 3 for
PRASA well number 5 do not exceed MCLs. The monitoring wells
that were sampled in the initial two rounds of sampling were
subjected to limited periods of pumping and the water collected
from the majority of the wells was turbid and contained
significant particulate matter. This may be the cause of the
higher metal concentrations on the unfiltered samples. Metal
concentrations in the filtered groundwater samples do not exceed
MCLs.
-------
The occurrence and distribution of contamination demonstrated by
the analytical results of the RI and MRI sampling effort indicate
that migration through environmental media is occurring. The
major fate and transport mechanisms affecting the VOCs at the
Site are summarized in Table 4.
2. Soils and Sediments
Sediment samples were collected from the former wastewater
settling lagoons and the former stormwater retention area. A
total of six sediment samples were collected. The locations of
the sediment samples are identified in Figure 5. These samples
were analyzed for VOCs, metals and pesticide organics (including
PCBs). Table 5 is a summary of metals analyses of the sediment
samples and Table 6 indicates PCBs detected in the sediment
samples. PCE was not detected in any of the sediment samples.
However, a few VOCs were detected in some samples at low
concentrations.
Site-related organic contaminants such as tetrachloroethene and
trichloroethene were detected in the deep soil borings advanced
in the vicinity of the former lagoons. According to field gas
chromatography (GC) results, the maximum levels of PCE and TCE
detected were 65 mg/kg and 67 mg/kg, respectively. Other
volatile organic contaminants (methylene chloride, 1,2-
dichloroethene, chloroform) were detected in less than 2 percent
of the soil samples analyzed using the field GC. Site-related
volatile organic contaminants were not detected in the shallow
boring samples.
Summaries of soil boring results in the wastewater lagoons and
the SDA are presented in Tables 5 and 7 respectively. Chromium
contamination (maximum concentration = 2,110 ppm) was detected in
surface soils and sludges collected at the SDA and wastewater
lagoons. Besides chromium and cadmium, other metals were not
detected at concentrations significantly above background. PCBs
and asbestos were detected in several shallow composite borings
at the 2 to 4 foot depth in the SDA. PCBs were (maximum
concentration =1.7 ppm) detected in the SDA soil samples.
Asbestos was detected in several soil samples collected at the
SDA. The concentrations detected (2 to 4 percent) renders the
soil asbestos-containing material, pursuant to NESHAPs
regulations.
Air monitoring conducted during the MRI indicates that metals and
VOC concentrations detected downwind of the SDA are similar to
concentrations detected upwind of the SDA.
VI. summary of Site Risks
EPA conducted a Risk Assessment of the "no-action" alternative to
evaluate the potential risks to human health and the environment
8
-------
associated with the Site in its current state. All the
contaminants identified above detection limits in the sampling of
environmental media at the Site were selected as contaminants of
concern. The contaminants of concern and their indices of
toxicity are listed in Table 8.
EPA's Risk Assessment identified several potential exposure
pathways by which the public may be exposed to contaminant
releases from the Fibers site under a current land-use scenario.
In addition, the potential future risks associated with use of
contaminated groundwater use were evaluated. The actual and
potential pathways and populations potentially affected are shown
in Table 9.
The potential exposure routes identified in the Risk Assessment
include:
0 exposure to contaminants from ingestion, inhalation and
dermal contact of contaminated surface soils at the SDA.
0 ingestion, inhalation and dermal contact exposure to metals
and organic compounds from contaminated groundwater beneath
the Site as a source of potable water.
The potentially exposed populations in all cases were the
residents (adults and children) of the neighborhoods surrounding
the Site and industrial workers within the study area.
The Risk Assessment evaluated the maximum and average contaminant
concentrations detected in the environmental media at the Fibers
Site. Additionally, the upper (95 percent) confidence limit on
the arithmetic average for third round groundwater result was
evaluated.
Table 10 presents the maximum and average concentration of PCE in
the PRASA wells, monitoring wells, and private/industrial wells.
Table 11 presents the range and average concentration detected
for the other chlorinated alkane/alkene compounds. Table 7
presents the soil boring analytical summary for the SDA.
Asbestos was detected in several soil samples collected at the
SDA. The concentration detected (2 to 4 percent) renders the
soil as asbestos-containing material pursuant to NESHAPs
regulations.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and non-carcinogenic effects due to exposure to
Site chemicals are considered separately. It was assumed that
the toxic effects of the Site-related chemicals would be
additive. Thus, carcinogenic and.non-carcinogenic risks
associated with exposures to individuals were summed to indicate
the potential risks associated with mixtures of potential
carcinogens and non-carcinogens, respectively.
-------
Non-carcinogenic risks were assessed using a hazard index ("HI")
approach, based on a comparison of expected contaminant intakes
and safe levels of intake (Reference Doses). Reference doses
(RfDs) have been developed by EPA for indicating the potential
for adverse health effects. RfDs, which are expressed in units
of milligram per kilogram per day (mg/kg-day), are estimates of
daily exposure levels for humans which are thought to be safe
over a lifetime (including sensitive individuals). Estimated
intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the amount
of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) are
compared with the RfD to derive the hazard quotient for the
contaminant in the particular medium. The HI is obtained by
adding the hazard quotients for all compounds across all media.
A HI greater than 1 indicates that the potential exists for non-
carcinogenic health effects to occur as a result of site-related
exposures. The HI provides a useful reference point for gauging
the potential significance of multiple contaminant exposures
within a single medium or across media.
The His for the potential ground water exposures at the Fibers
Site are presented in Table 12. The HI calculated for a resident
using maximum organic contaminant levels in all groundwater wells
exceeds unity (HI = 12.5). The total HI values for all ground-
water contaminants is when maximum contaminant levels are
evaluated.
Potential carcinogenic risks were evaluated using the cancer
slope factors developed by the EPA for the compounds of concern.
Cancer slope factors (SFs) have been developed by EPA's
Carcinogen Risk Assessment Verification Endeavor for estimating
excess lifetime cancer risks associated with exposure to
potentially carcinogenic chemicals. SFs, which are expressed in
units of (mg/kg-day)~l, are multiplied by the estimated intake of
a potential carcinogen, in mg/kg-day, to generate an upper-bound
estimate of the excess lifetime cancer risk associated with
exposure to the compound at that intake level. The term "upper
bound" reflects the conservative estimate of the risks calculated
from the SF. Use of this approach makes the underestimation of
the risk highly unlikely. For known or suspected carcinogens,
EPA considers excess upper bound individual lifetime cancer risks
of between 10"* to 10"6 to be acceptable with 10"6 being the point
of departure. This level indicates that an individual has not
greater than a one in ten thousand to one in a million chance of
developing cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a
carcinogen over a 70-year period under specific exposure
conditions at the Site.
The cancer risk levels for ground water exposures are presented
in Table 13. The cumulative upper bound risk for adult residents
using contaminated ground water is 2 X ICT3-, greater than EPA's
acceptable cancer risk range.
10
-------
Risk analysis results for the SDA and lagoon soils indicate that
adverse non-carcinogenic health effects are not anticipated for
site workers or adolescent trespassers.
Asbestos was detected in several soil samples collected at the
SDA. The concentration detected (2 to 4 percent) renders the
soil as asbestos - containing material, pursuant to NESHAPs.
These asbestos concentrations in soils present a potential public
health concern.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this
evaluation, as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide
variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of
uncertainty include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
- environmental parameter measurement
- fate and transport modeling
- exposure parameter estimation
- toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media
sampled. Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to
the actual levels present. Environmental chemistry analysis
uncertainty can stem from several sources including the errors
inherent in the analytical methods and characteristics of the
matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with
the chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such
exposure would occur, and in the models used to estimate the
concentrations of the chemicals of concern at the point of
exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by
making conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure
parameters throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk
Assessment provides upper bound estimates of the risks to
populations near the Site, and is highly unlikely to
underestimate actual risks related to the Site.
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Fibers 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.
11
-------
VII. Description of Alternatives
The Superfund law requires that any remedy selected for a Site
must be protective of human health and the environment, cost-
effective, and in accordance with statutory requirements.
Permanent solutions to contamination are to be achieved wherever
possible, and there is a bias for treating wastes and applying
innovative technologies. The remedial alternatives considered
for the Site are summarized below.
The time to implement refers only to the actual construction time
and excludes the time needed to design the remedy and negotiate
with the Potentially Responsible Parties.
Alternatives for the Contaminated Groundwater
Alternative 1 - No Action
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act ("CERCLA") requires that the "No Action"
alternative be considered at every Site to provide a baseline of
comparison among alternatives. The No Action alternative assumes
no additional actions would be taken beyond the current
activities at the Site. All wells that are currently pumping are
assumed to continue to pump at their current rates. The costs
for the No Action alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $0
Annual O&M $0
10-year Present Worth $0
30-year Present Worth $0
In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions that
leave hazardous substances at the Site are to be reviewed at
least once every five years to assure that the remedial action is
protective of human health and the environment. The No Action
alternative would have to be reviewed by EPA at least once every
five years.
Alternative 2 - Deed Restrictions with Monitoring
This alternative involves registering deed restrictions to limit
the land use activities at the entire affected Site as well as
periodic groundwater monitoring to track the movement and
concentration of the VOCs. Groundwater use restrictions would be
implemented in the affected area in an attempt to prevent the use
of contaminated groundwater. These institutional controls would
alert future property owners to potential Site related risks.
Deed and groundwater restrictions would be implemented by
Commonwealth and local officials. As the owners of record, the
deed restrictions would have to be filed by the Land Authority
and the.Puerto Rico Industrial Development Company (PRIDCO).
12
-------
PRASA wells would have to remain closed. Annual sampling of
eight monitoring wells would provide assessments of the extent
and mobility of the VOC's. Six of the monitoring wells would be
located within the PCE plume and two monitoring wells would be
located downgradient of the PCE plume. Annual status reports
would be filed with the appropriate regulatory agencies. The
costs for this alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $89,000
Annual O&M $14,000
10-year Present Worth $196,000
30-year Present Worth $303,000
This alternative has the same aquifer cleanup effectiveness as
Alternative 1.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on Site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at least once
every five years.
Alternative 3 - Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with Surface
Water Discharge
This alternative was evaluated at two different flow rates, each
flow rate targeted to a different level of groundwater
remediation. Alternative 3-1 is evaluated assuming that 300 gpm
is pumped from one recovery well located in the most concentrated
area of the plume. Alternatives 3-II and 3-III evaluated
assuming that a total of 1,400 gpm is pumped from five recovery
wells located throughout the areal extent of the plume. However,
actual pumping rates will be determined during the remedial
design. Air releases from the treatment system would comply with
air emission standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act and P.R laws
and regulations.
Deed restrictions and well construction controls would attempt to
restrict the installation of water supply wells and limit the use
of groundwater in the area during the implementation phase for
Alternatives 3, 3-1 3-II, and 3-III. These restrictions would
also alert future property owners of potential site related
risks.
Alternative 3-1 - Extraction Well and Treatment with Discharge to
the Caribbean Sea
Contaminated groundwater would be pumped from PRASA Well Mo. 3,
which is in the center and most contaminated portion of the
plume, at a flow of 300 gpm. The pump and associated equipment
currently installed in PRASA Well No. 3 would be removed. The
well would be cleaned and redeveloped to ensure that the required
yield is available and the discharge is clean and relatively free
of sediment. A new pump would be installed along with the
13
-------
associated pipes and fittings. The discharge would be directed
to a pipe leading to the treatment system. The connection to the
existing PRASA distribution pipe would be capped and secured.
The well house would be repaired and a chain link fence would be
installed around the well house for security. Preliminary design
calculations included as Appendix F of the FS report, indicate
that the tower would be 5 feet in diameter and have 5.5 feet of
packing material. The overall height of the tower is estimated
at 9 feet. The process diagram of this alternative is shown on
Figure 6. The water would flow under pressure, through a
sediment filter, to remove particulates originally present in the
groundwater or created by the subsequent aeration, then to a
packed tower for aeration. The effluent from the tower would
flow into a sump from which it would be pumped through piping to
discharge at the channel leading to the Caribbean Sea as shown in
Figure 7. System monitoring includes collecting and analyzing
monthly influent and effluent samples from the water and
periodically collection of wellhead samples. The air stripping
system would be capable of treating 300 gpm of water having the
projected influent concentrations and would comply with the
quality criteria for discharge to the Caribbean Sea. The costs of
this alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $536,000
Annual O&M $126,000
10-year Present Worth $1,607,000
30-year Present Worth $2,468,000
The time to implement (complete construction) this alternative is
approximately one year, which does not include the time for
design. At this time it is difficult to predict the ultimate
concentration to which contaminants in the groundwater may be
reduced with Alternative 3-1.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on Site above health based limits, CERCLA requires that this
action be reviewed at least once every five years.
Alternative 3-II - Five Extraction Wells and Treatment with
Discharge to the Caribbean Sea
Contaminated groundwater would be pumped from five recovery wells
at a combined flow rate of approximately 1,400 gpm. This water
would be piped to a treatment system. The utilization of five
wells to contain the plume and extract contaminated groundwater
is an active approach to the problem. The water would flow under
pressure, through a sediment filter, then to an air stripping
tower for aeration. The effluent from the tower would flow into
a sump from which it would be pumped through piping to discharge
at the channel leading to the Caribbean Sea in compliance with
the water quality criteria for discharge to the Sea. The layout
of this alternative leading to the Caribbean Sea is shown on
14
-------
Figure 8. Preliminary design calculations included in the FS
indicate that the tower would be 10 feet in diameter and have 3
feet of packing material. The overall height of the tower is
estimated at 9 feet.
An alternative that would have placed treated water in the PRASA
water distribution system was not evaluated because PRASA stated
that it has enough water at the present time.
Four of the proposed recovery wells are PRASA Well Nos. 2, 3,4
and 5. PRASA Well Nos. 2 and 5 each pumping at 300 gpm would
provide lateral control to prevent further migration of PCE in
the easterly or westerly direction. PRASA Well Nos. 3 and 4 each
pumping at 300 gpm and located closest to the center of
groundwater contamination would remove the highest concentrations
of PCE from the aquifer. The new recovery well, to be located
between the Core and SK&B facilities, is positioned to capture
the leading edge of the PCE plume as well as the undefined
haloether plume from Anaquest, and as a factor of safety to
prevent PCE from migrating toward SK&B. Operation of the five
recovery wells would not have an adverse impact on the aquifer.
Based on the RI, the capture zones for these wells are small,
which indicates that groundwater is not lowered over large areas
of the aquifer through pumping.
Pumping the existing recovery wells at the proposed rates is
identical to the situation which existed before the wells were
shut down by PRASA. For this alternative, it will be necessary
to install chloride monitoring wells near the coastline to
monitor potential saltwater encroachment.
The costs of this alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $1,009,000
Annual O & M $ 254,000
10-year Present Worth $2,972,000
30-year Present Worth $4,916,000
The time to implement this alternative (complete construction) is
approximately two years, not including the time for design.
At this time it is difficult to predict the ultimate
concentration to which contaminants in the groundwater may be
reduced with Alternative 3-II.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on Site above health based limits, CERCLA requires that this
action be reviewed at least once every five years.
Alternative 3-III - Five Extraction Wells and Treatment with
Discharge to the Irrigation Canal
15
-------
This alternative has been developed by EPA and Commonwealth
agencies based, in part, on a Commonwealth statute (P.R
Department of Natural Resources Law 136) that requires the
beneficial use of water resources in Puerto Rico. The
Commonwealth main-cains, that discharge of treated water to the
ocean is not a beneficial use. This Alternative is a
modification of Alternative 3-II. As in Alternative 3-II,
contaminated groundwater would be pumped from five recovery wells
at a combined flow rate of 1,400 gpm. The water would flow from
the wells to an air stripping tower, and then it would be
discharged to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority irrigation
canal which provides water for agricultural and potable use. The
treated groundwater will be discharged to the PREPA irrigation
canal where it will also serve to recharge the aquifer unless it
is determined during the Remedial Design (RD) that a more
appropriate option exist for all or portions of the treated
groundwater. In any event, the discharge must provide a
beneficial use of the water. Because the water is to be
discharged to an irrigation canal which may be used in part as a
drinking water source without treatment and will infiltrate the
ground thereby recharging the aquifer, the discharge water will
have to meet MCLs. Because the irrigation canal also recharges
the aquifer to some extent, placing the treated water in the
canal will provide an added beneficial use of the treated water.
For this alternative, it will be necessary to install chloride
monitoring wells near the coastline to monitor potential
saltwater encroachment. The costs of this Alternative are as
follows:
Capital Cost $1,291,684
Annual 0 & M $ 270,868
10-year Present Worth $3,383,256
30-year Present Worth $5,455,591
The time to implement (complete construction) this alternative is
approximately two years, not including time for design.
At this time, it is difficult to predict the ultimate
concentration to which contaminants in the groundwater may be
reduced with Alternative 3-III.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on Site above health based limits, CERCLA requires that this
action be reviewed at least once every five years.
This alternative has been included by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency based on input from the Puerto Rico Department
of Natural Resources, the United States Geological Survey, PRASA,
EQB and the Commonwealth law that requires the beneficial and
appropriate use of the natural resources of Puerto Rico.
Alternative 4 - Groundwater Extraction and Treatment with
Reinfection
16
-------
The extraction of groundwater in Alternative 4, as shown in
Figure 9 is for the same wells and volume as described for
Alternatives 3-II and 3-III. Because the water is to be
reinjected into the ground, several modifications have to be made
to the treatment system described in Alternative 3. First, the
injection quality criteria would be MCLs which is more stringent
than the discharge quality criteria for the ocean. Second, the
effluent from the air stripping tower would flow into a 50,000
gallon clear well to give any particulates formed by aeration of
the water an opportunity to settle. Lastly, the water would be
pumped from the clear well through three 20,000 pound activated
carbon columns prior to reinjection to guard against accidental
releases or breakthrough of VOCs from the air stripping system to
the aquifer. Nine reinjection wells would be located north of
the Site to reinject the treated water to the aquifer with
injecting capacity of 200 gpm each. Seven wells would be
operating at any time with the two other wells serving as back up
wells. Reinjection would resupply the aquifer with treated
water. The process layout of Alternative 4 is shown on Figure
10. For r.iis alternative, it will be necessary to install
chloride monitoring wells near the coastline to monitor potential
saltwater encroachment. The costs of this alternative are as
follows:
Capital Cost • $2,457,000
Annual o&M $ 441,000
10-year Present Worth $5,861,000
30-year Present Worth $9,233,000
The time to implement (complete construction) this alternative is
approximately three years, not including time for design.
At this time it is difficult to predict the ultimate
concentration to which contaminants in the groundwater may be
reduced with Alternative 4.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining
on Site above health based limits, CERCLA requires that this
action be reviewed at least once every five years.
Alternatives for the Soil Disposal Area (SDA)
Alternative 1 - No Action
The No Action alternative requires no changes to the presently
existing conditions at the SDA. Periodic air sampling would be
conducted to monitor for airborne asbestos and the SDA
would be visually inspected monthly by a certified inspector.
The costs for the No Action alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $ 0
Annual O&M $ 11,000
30-year Present Worth $169,000
17
-------
Because this alternative would result in hazardous substances
remaining on Site, CERCLA requires that the site be reviewed at
least once every five years.
Alternative 2 - Deed Restrictions. Physical Restrictions and
Monitoring
This alternative involves obtaining a deed restriction, in
compliance with Puerto Rico Law, to state that the land has been
used for disposal of asbestos-containing waste material. It also
involves securing the site by installing a 6 foot high industrial
grade chain link fence and posting warning signs on it, at 100
meter (378 feet) intervals which are 20 by 14 inches in size.
The signs would read: "Asbestos Waste Disposal Site. Do not
Create Dust. Breathing Asbestos is Hazardous to your Health".
Air monitoring for asbestos would be conducted semiannually
upwind and downwind of the SDA. The SDA would be inspected
visually every month by a certified inspector who would look for
soil disturbance and exposed asbestos. The costs of this
alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $ 63,000
Annual O&M $ 11,000
30-year Present Worth $232,000
The time to provide site security fencing and obtain deed
restrictions under this alternative is approximately three
months, not including the time for design.
Because this alternative would result in hazardous substances
remaining on Site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at
least once every five years.
Alternative 3 - Capping. Deed Restrictions. Physical Restriction
and Maintenance
Under this alternative, fill would be placed and compacted to
level the irregular surface of the SDA. Six inches of top soil
would be placed over the fill, graded so that the top surface is
level and the sides do not exceed a slope of 1:2, and then
compacted. The SDA would then be seeded with an appropriate
mixture of native grasses. Signs identifying the SDA as an
asbestos disposal area would be posted at 100 meter intervals.
The cap would be inspected annually by a professional engineer to
monitor the integrity of the cap and identify needed repairs.
The costs of this alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $354,000
Annual O&M $ 6,000
30-year Present Worth $450,000
The time for capping the SDA and implementing the additional task
18
-------
under this alternative is approximately six months, not including
the time for design.
Because this alternative would result in hazardous substances
remaining on Site, CERCLA requires that the Site be reviewed at
least once every five years.
Alternative 4 - Excavation of SPA and Disposal at an Authorized
Landfill
This alternative consists of excavating the SDA and transporting
the soil to a landfill authorized to accept asbestos. It is
currently believed that the material can be disposed of at the
Browning-Ferris Industries landfill in Ponce, Puerto Rico. Waste
characterization sampling and analysis would be conducted on the
soils by the receiving landfill prior to acceptance of the soil.
The amount of soil to be excavated is approximately 9,010 cubic
yards. Dust control and worker health and safety measures would
be taken throughout the excavation process which is expected to
require about three months. The excavated area would be restored
by covering it with 6 inches of fill and 6 inches of
top soil, then it will be mulched, seeded and fertilized. The
costs of this alternative are as follows:
Capital Cost $1,231,000
Annual 0 & M $ 0
30-year Present Worth $1,231,000
The time for excavating the SDA and transportation of the soil to
an approved landfill is approximately 12 months, not including
the time for design.
VIII. summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
EPA has developed nine criteria (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. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether a remedy provides adequate protection
and describes how risks posed through each pathway are
19
-------
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
. engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance vitb Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether or not a
remedial alternative would meet all of the applicable
or relevant and appropriate (ARARs) requirements of
other federal and state environmental statutes and/or
satisfy the criteria for invoking a waiver as set forth
in Section 121 (a) of 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. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence focuses on any
residual risk remaining at the Site after the
completion of the remedial action. This analysis
includes consideration of the degree of threat posed by
the hazardous substances remaining at the Site and the
adequacy of any controls (for example, engineering and
institutional) used to manage the hazardous substances
remaining at the Site. It also considers how effective
and permanent the remedy is in the long term.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment is the anticipated performance of the
treatment technologies a particular remedy may employ.
5. Short-term Effectiveness addresses the effects of the
alternative during the construction and implementation
phase until the remedial response objectives are met.
It also considers the time required to implement the
remedy.
6. Implementability addresses the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing an
alternative including the availability of various
services and materials required during its
implementation.
7. Cost includes estimated capital, and operation and
maintenance costs, both translated to a present-worth
basis. The detailed analysis evaluates and compares
the cost of the respective alternatives, but draws no
conclusions as to the cost-effectiveness of the
alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is determined in the
remedy selection phase, when cost is considered along
with the other balancing criteria.
Modifying Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as
"modifying criteria", and are to be taken into account after the
20
-------
above criteria have been evaluated. They are generally to be
focused upon after public comment is received.
8. State Acceptance reflects the statutory requirement to
provide for substantial and meaningful State
involvement.
9. Community Acceptance refers to the community's comments
on the remedial alternatives under consideration, along
with the PP. Comments received during the public
comment period, and the EPA's responses to those
comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary
which is a part of this ROD.
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
Groundwater: Contaminant concentrations in groundwater underlying
and downgradient of the Site exceed MCLs for tetrachloroethylene
(PCE), trichloroethylene, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride,
Enflurane and Isoflurane. Alternatives 1 and 2 are not
protective of human health and the environment because they do
not eliminate, reduce or control the contaminants at the Site.
Since they do not meet this threshold .criterion, these
alternatives will not be discussed further. Alternatives 3-1, 3-
II, 3-III and 4 for the groundwater media would provide overall
protection by permanently reducing the toxicity, mobility and
volume of contaminants, through treatment of the contaminated
water to meet Federal and Commonwealth water quality criteria.
Alternatives 3-II, 3-III, and 4 provide for greater protection of
the environment than Alternative 3-1 because the extraction wells
proposed under Alternatives 3-II, 3-III, and 4 are capable of
removing greater portions of contaminants from the aquifer,
thereby expediting aquifer restoration than under Alternative 3-
I. These alternatives will provide the greatest overall
protection of human health and the environment.
Soil Disposal Area: The no action alternative requires no change
to the existing conditions at the Site and as such would not
provide overall protection of human health and the environment.
Therefore, it was eliminated from further consideration and will
not be discussed further. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would provide
overall protection of public health and the environment. Under
Alternative 2, deed restriction, physical restrictions and
monitoring would be implemented while leaving the soil at the
SDA. Alternative 3 would afford greater protection than
Alternative 2 since it includes the steps done under Alternative
2 plus capping of the SDA. Alternative 4 would provide the best
21
-------
V
overall protection because it would eliminate the presence of
asbestos at the Site through excavation and off Site disposal,
and no residual contaminated soil will remain at the Site.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Groundwater: The groundwater underlying the Site is a past and
potential future potable water supply source. Therefore, MCLs and
non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) are ARARs. The
Puerto Rico MCLs are relevant and appropriate for the cleanup of
the aquifer. Tables 14 and 15 present the Federal and
Commonwealth chemical-specific groundwater ARARs for the Site.
Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III and 4 will comply with these ARARs.
The treatment systems are equally capable of treating extracted
groundwater to MCLs. The air-stripping system proposed under
Alternatives 3 and 4 is equally capable of meeting federal and
state requirements for air emissions. Air emissions .of the air-
stripping system will comply with Puerto Rico Rule 419,
Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution, which is an
ARAR.
Direct discharge of treated water to the Caribbean Sea and the
PREPA irrigation canal under Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, and 3-III
will comply with Rule 4282 of the Puerto Rico Water Quality
Standard. Law No. 9 is relevant and appropriate to these
discharges. The Federal NPDES regulation promulgated pursuant to
the Clean Water Act Section 402(a) for discharges is however,
applicable.
PRDNR Law 136 requires a beneficial use of the waters of Puerto
Rico, thus avoiding waste. This is not an ARAR, but rather a To
Be Considered (TBC) criterion. Alternatives 3-1 and 3-II do -not
provide a beneficial use of the treated water. Alternative 3-III
provides a beneficial use of the water and will also comply with
Federal and Commonwealth drinking water standards.
Groundwater reinjection under Alternative 4 will comply with the
Underground Injection Regulations pursuant to the Commonwealth
Law No. 9 and the Federal Underground Injection Control
Regulations, whichever is more stringent.
Soil Disposal Area: The alternatives that would comply with the
federal ARARs for asbestos-containing material in the SDA are
Alternative 2, 3, and 4. The SDA contains asbestos at
concentrations between two per cent (2 %) and four per cent (4
%). The NESHAPS regulation, promulgated pursuant to the Clean
Air Act, requires that materials containing asbestos in
concentrations exceeding one percent (l %) be regarded as
"asbestos-containing material". Alternatives 2 and 3 would
provide warning signs, Site security throughout with a fence to
restrict access by the general public and a deed restriction to
22
-------
advise property owners and users of possible risk associated with
the SDA. Alternative 3 would additionally provide for capping
the SDA. During the implementation of Alternative 4, stringent
controls would have to be implemented during remedial activities
to assure compliance with ARARs for airborne asbestos
concentrations and reduce any threat to the community from
transport of asbestos waste.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness
Groundwater: Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III and 4 would provide
long-term effectiveness while attaining MCLs thereby resulting in
minimal risk from contaminant residuals in groundwater.
In addition, Alternatives 3-II, 3-III and 4 more actively contain
the plume and extract contaminated groundwater. They provide the
most reliable long-term effectiveness, due to the location and
pumping rates of the extraction wells.
However only, alternative 3-III and Alternative 4 provide for a
beneficial use of the water by recharging the aquifer with
treated groundwater.
Soil Disposal Area: Alternative 4 would be the most effective and
permanent alternative since it would eliminate the risk of long-
term exposure through the excavation and the transportation of
the soils to an authorized landfill. The effectiveness of
Alternatives 2 and 3, which leave the asbestos-containing
material in place, are dependent upon the implementation of the
deed restriction which may be difficult to enforce in the long
term. The area in which the SDA is located is currently owned by
PRIDCO and operated by Ayest-Wyeth. Alternative 2 would be the
least effective remedy, as it requires a monthly inspection and
extensive monitoring to assure that the asbestos remains
undisturbed. Alternative 3 will also require continual
maintenance (although less than Alternative 2) to assure its long
tern effectiveness.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume Through Treatment
Groundwater: Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III and 4 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility and volume of contaminants permanently through
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
Alternatives 3-II, 3-III, and 4 would provide maximum reduction
of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment due to the
higher extraction rates and location of the extraction wells.
Reducing the level of toxicity in the aquifer will reduce the
cancer risk posed to future unauthorized users of the aquifers,
should institutional controls fail.
23
-------
Soil Disposal Area: Alternative 2 would prevent the Site from
being disturbed, which may prevent dispersion of asbestos. The
mobility of any asbestos in the SDA would be further reduced in
Alternative 3 through installation of a soil cap and vegetative
cover. The toxicity and volume of any asbestos in the SDA would
not be reduced by Alternatives 2 or 3. Alternative 4 would
eliminate the presence of asbestos at the site thus restricting
the mobility of the asbestos at the Site more effectively than
the other alternatives. None of the alternatives comply with the
statutory preference for treatment.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
Groundvater: Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III and 4 are not
expected to cause any short-term adverse impacts to human health
during the construction of the treatment systems. Although it is
difficult to predict the amount of time it will take to achieve
MCLs, Alternatives 3-II, 3-III and 4 have higher extraction
rates, thereby expediting aquifer clean up.
Soil Disposal Area: Alternative 2 is protective in the short term
by securing the site with a fence and by installing warning
signs. This could be implemented in approximately 3 months.
With capping, under Alternative 3, some risks due to remediation
may occur during cap construction but are lower than the short
term risks posed by Alternative 4. Remedial response objectives
could be achieved approximately one year from completion of the
design. Alternative 4 would reguire the implementation of
preventative measures to provide short-term effectiveness during
the excavation and disposal of the soil. Dust control and worker
health and safety measures would be taken throughout the
excavation process which is expected to take about three months.
6. Implementability
Groundwater: Deed restrictions for Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III
and 4 would be obtained with the cooperation of PRIDCO and the
Land Authority although they may be difficult to enforce.
Alternatives 3-1, 3-II, 3-III and 4 are technically feasible as
the necessary equipment, services and materials are readily
available for constructing the system. Packed tower aeration and
GAC are commercially available, demonstrated and common
technologies. These alternatives will require obtaining an
agreement with PRASA for the use of the PRASA wells. Alternative
3-111 reguiresan agreement with PRIDCO for use of the land for
the treatment systems and with PREPA for the use of the
irrigation channel to discharge the treated water. In addition,
permits may be required by PRDNR for the chloride monitoring
wells under Alternative 3-II, 3-III, and 4 if they are located
off-site. Alternative 4 would be the most difficult to implement
in comparison to Alternatives 3-1, 3-II and 3-III, because it
24
-------
requires more operation and maintenance activities than the other
Alternatives.
Soil Disposal Area: Implementation of Alternative 2 is dependent
upon the ease with which the deed restriction can be obtained.
Administrative difficulties may be encountered because
negotiations would be required with several administrative
authorities. The property owner would have to implement the deed
restriction. In addition, this area had not been permitted for
solid waste disposal which may create administrative, difficulties
in obtaining the deed restriction. Alternative 3 has similar
problems in implementability. In addition to the problem of
Alternative 2, it may require a permit for closure of a waste
disposal area from EQB. Alternative 4 is technically feasible.
Soil excavated would be transported and disposed of in an
appropriate landfill and no residue would remain at the Site.
7. Cost
Groundwater: Alternative 3-1 is the least costly with a capital
cost of $536,000, annual O&M of $126,000, 10-year present worth
of $1,607,000 and a 30-year present worth of $2,468,000.
Alternative 3-II has a capital cost of $1,009,000, annual O&M of
$254,000, 10-year present worth of $2,972,000 and a 30-year
present worth of $4,916,000. Alternative 3-III is similar to
Alternative 3-II in cost. Its capital cost is $1,291,684, annual
O&M of $270,868, 10-year present worth of $3,383,256 and the 30-
year present worth of $5,445,591. Alternative 4 is the most
costly with a capital cost of $2,457,000, annual O&M of $441,000
and a 10-year present worth of $5,861,000 and a 30-year present
worth of $9,233,000.
Soil Disposal Area: Alternative 2 has a capital cost of $63,000;
O&M is $11,000. Its 30- year present worth is $232,000.
Alternative 3 is the next most costly with a capital cost of
$354,000; O&M is $6,000. Its 30-year present worth is $450,000.
Alternative 4 is the most costly with a capital and present worth
cost of $1,231,000.
8. State Acceptance
Concurrence letters from EQB are attached to this Record of
Decision at Appendix c.
9. Community Acceptance
The local community expressed opposition to Alternatives 1 and 2
and is in favor of an expedited restoration of the aquifer to the
maximum extent practicable which will be attained with
Alternative 3-III. The local community is in favor of the
elimination of the asbestos containing material in the SDA. All
comments are addressed in the responsiveness summary, which is
25
-------
appended to this ROD.
IX. Description of the Selected Remedy
Based on the results of the RI/FS reports, as well as a detailed
evaluation of all comments submitted by interested parties during
the public comment period, and the rest of the administrative
record for the Site, EPA has selected Alternative 3-III for the
groundwater contamination and Alternative 4 for the SDA, as the
selected alternative for addressing the contamination problem at
the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site. Specifically, the selected
alternative will involve the following:
Groundwater Contamination
0 Contaminated groundwater will be pumped from five recovery
wells at a combined flow rate of approximately 1,400 gpm.
However, the actual pumping rate will be determined during
the Remedial Design.
0 Sediment/particulate filtration and air stripping will be
installed to remove VOCs.
0 Treated groundwater will be discharged to the PREPA
irrigation canal where it will serve to recharge the aquifer
unless it is determined during the RD stage that a more
appropriate option exists for all or portion of the treated
groundwater. In any event, the discharge must provide a
beneficial use of the water.
e A long-term monitoring program will be implemented to track
the migration and concentrations of the contaminants of
concern and assess performance of the groundwater
remediation.
0 Chloride monitoring wells will be installed near the
coastline to monitor potential saltwater encroachment.
0 A system monitoring program will be implemented which
includes the collection and monthly analysis of influent and
effluent from the air stripping tower and periodic
collection of wellhead samples.
0 The Site conditions will be evaluated at least once every
five years to determine if a modification to the selected
alternative is necessary.
0 EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the ARARs if the
remediation program indicates that reaching MCLs in the
aquifer is technically impracticable.
Soil Disposal Area
26
-------
0 The soil disposal area will be excavated and the
contaminated soils will be transported to an authorized
landfill for disposal.lt is estimated that approximately
9,010 cubic yards of soils will be excavated and disposed
of.
0 Dust control and worker health and safety measures as well
as measures to protect the local community during
trasnportation of asbestos-containing material will be taken
throughout the excavation process.
0 The SDA will be regraded once excavation activities are
completed.
The ultimate goal of the EPA Superfund Program's approach to
groundwater remediation as stated in the NCP is to return usable
groundwater to their beneficial use within a reasonable time
frame. Therefore, for the Fibers aquifer which is classified as
a Class II aquifer, the final remediation goal will be the MCLs.
EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the groundwater ARARs if the
remediation program indicates that reaching MCLs in the aquifer
is technically impracticable.
Alternatives 3-III and 4, with their network of five extraction
wells, are capable of removing the most contaminants, providing
for the most control of contaminant migration, and restoring the
aquifer the fastest. Given the uncertainties that saltwater
intrusion could be a problem and the costliness of Alternative 4,
which is approximately twice the cost of Alternative 3-III, it is
uncertain whether the actual need for reinjection would be
necessary to avoid saltwater intrusion and as such, did not
justify the added cost of Alternative 4. Therefore, EPA cannot
determine that Alternative 4 would be a cost-effective
alternative. If at any time it is determined that saltwater
intrusion is occurring to an extent which is detrimental to the
freshwater aquifer, the selected alternative will be reevaluated
and may be modified.
On the other hand, Alternative 3-III, with a network of five
extraction wells and treatment with discharge to the irrigation
canal, is capable of reducing contaminant concentration levels in
the most heavily contaminated portion of the aquifer. Also it
will provide for control of contaminant migration, restore the
aquifer faster than Alternatives 3-1 or 3-II, and provide a
beneficial use of the treated water, avoiding its waste while
resupplying the aquifer.
During the design process, the pumping rates and exact locations
will be determined in order to reach an optimal groundwater
extraction scenario.
27
-------
X. Statutory Determinations
EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund sites is to select
remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. CET
-------
At the present time it is expected that air emissions from the
air-stripping tower will not be a problem. Air emissions will be
monitored and if necessary controls will be implemented.
With the implementation of the selected remedy for the SDA,
Federal Clean Air Act NESHAPS requirements for asbestos-
containing materials will be met.
3. Cost-Effectiveness
EPA believes the selected remedy is cost-effective in mitigating
the principal risk posed by contaminated groundwater within a
reasonable period of time. 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 aalth and the environmer :,, against three additional
balanc ng criteria of long-tern effectiveness and permanence;
reduc : .on of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment; and
short: - cerm effectiveness. The selected remedy meets these
criteria and provides for overall effectiveness in proportion to
its cost. The estimated cost for the selected remedy has a
capital cost of $2,522,684, annual O&M of $270,868, and 30-year
present worth of $6,686,591.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy for the groundwater satisfies this criterion
by the use of an air stripping system to treat contaminated
groundwater. The selected remedy for the SDA will be the most
effective and permanent alternative since it would eliminate the
risk of long-term exposure through the excavation and the
transportation of the soils to an authorized landfill. This
alternative does not meet the statutory requirements to utilize
permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable because there is no method to treat asbestos.
5. Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The selected remedy satisfies the statutory preference for
remedies employing treatment that permanently and significantly
reduce the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances.
The selected remedy includes the installation and operation of
groundwater extraction wells for contaminant recovery.
Since treatment of the ecavated soil was not found to be
practicable, the remdy for this area does not satisfy the
statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the
remedy for the SDA. Therefore, the only protective remedy for the
SDA is to properly dispose of the materials in an appropriate,
permitted landfill.
XI. Documentation of Significant Changes
29
-------
The Proposed Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site was
released for public comment in July 20, 1991. The Proposed Plan
identified Alternative 3-III with five extraction wells and
treatment with discharge to the irrigation canal, as the
preferred alternative for the groundwater contamination.
Upon review of the comments received during the comment period,
EPA decided to provide some flexibility with regard to how the
treated water should be handled. Unless the RD shows a more
appropriate option, all or a portion of the treated water will be
transported to the existing PREPA irrigation channel to the north
of the Site as was described in Alternative 3-III.
30
-------
FIGURES
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX A
-------
FIGURE NO. 1
*, j t • •
I TREATMENT LAGOONS
PRASA'CIMARRONA^Vi • '•'
APPROXIMATELY. 1.5 MILES
V • ••••*•-••« v-rf"
:'V,-A C # E T
\;
Of'-iVrVAii^^**
: Barrancas
Las Mareas-'
# PRASA FIBERS PUBLIC
SUPPLY WELL
BASE MAP IS A PORTION OF THE U.S.G.S. CENTRAL AGUIRRE, PR. QUADRANGLE (7.S MINUTE SERIES. 1970, PHOTO-
REVISED 1982, CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 METERS)
LOCATION MAP ^^51—J
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAYAMA.PUERTO RICO
SCALE 1: 20,000
NUS
CORPORATION
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
FIGURE NO.2 STUDY AREA AND AREA FACILITIES
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAYAMA. PUERTO RICO
FORMER WASTEWATER
TREATMENT LAGOONS ,'
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
r1** Guavama. Puerto Rico
Figure No. 3 EXTENT OF DISSOLVED PCE IN THE GROUND WATER—1988
•OTI: • CO«CINT»«T«. «MC»|| «>t OITICTIO 0* i«lO» MTNOO OfTICTKJ"
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Guayama. Puerto Rteo
Flew* He. 4 EXTENT Of DISSOLVED PCC M THE (MOUND-WATER-1080
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Guayama, Puerto Rico
SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE NO. 5
FORMER LAGOON
BERMS
BORING
BORING NUMBER
PRASAWELL
WELL NUMBER
SCALE
=E=E
0 FEET G5
MONITOR WELL
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Cmyaim, faM%% *U»
N*. f. coHctPTOAi fioecss ouaMu or unMUTivt »-l
TO ATMOSPHERE
t
SUUP
TO
CARIBBEAN
SEA
LEGEND
PRASA |3 RCCOVEltr WELL
» '.WATER n.OW
— *•— AIM fVOW
PRESSURE CAUCE
SAMPLE VALVE
6ATE VALVE
@ aow UCIER
M CHECK VAUVC
/8^ AIR-ROW SENSOR
0 et.owL.1
Q PUUP
uocrm. MAMUO * WAIUM. K.
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Cuoyamo. Putrte Rica
neur» No. 7 UTOUT OF ALTERNATIVt 3-1
I TREATMENT
SYSTEM
LOCATION A
LEGEND
• MUHOI
——— ur or oar MA
uocrm. tuaam < CUMU. «e.
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Cuoyomo, Pmrlo Rico
Flgur. No. 8 UTOOT OF ALTERNATIVE i-fl
LEGEND
4 m •nmrm
UCCCTTL MUSIOtS • UAM4M. «C
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
Guoyomo, Puerto Rtco
Figure No. 9 - LAYOUT OF ALTERNATIVE 4
TREATMENT
SYSTEM
LOCATION B
CARIBBEAN SEA
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
H*. 1 0 eoMCcnvu rnoecss OUGMM or AUMHATM 4
PKAS4
t* Q |'^> •'••' t>»-(BHM->-
IP/MM /J Q H-»—-L—t^MB^-f-*-*—
^» ' cxMSM^i-*-
H— WATtR O.OW
— *- — AIR now
PRCSSUAC CAUCC
SAUPtf VALVE
CATt VAtVE
LEGEND
@ n.OW UCTtf)
M CHCCK VAI-/E
A AID FlOW SEKSOR
Q
PUUP
CARBON POUSH
uoocm. MUHUn •
-------
TABLES
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX B
-------
HIHS ruiuc sum» ucus sue
oao. fuerto Xto
SUNMMV Of GHOUHO-UAHt OUAUIV. HOUNDS 1 AMB 2
lobU 1 (Continued)
NKRIIf fOUUUMI WUIU0
£M<
MKMIIV MUIMM Mtuu
Mmury
Nldwl
IlM
CMcrkb
felfeU •• «ft
•iriu*
•IcwtmUl
felclut
Otelt
Inn
§•
IMM
tort
tO/l
<•*
M/l
•0/1
MfM
tl
9.7
2*
4M
0.01
io
404
14.4
o.otr
M»
IJ
4 .OS
M-M
•am)
•.00
4 .2
41
Ml
O.OJ
•.OH
Ml
0.4
4 .01
an
•.r
MCI
•nio t
II/MMT
M
27.2
SM
41
2»
Ml
O.tt
If.l
0.004
27.0
0.11
It
MO
•TIM)
IVMMT
22
l.»
23.4
21
0.07
4 .2
24
MO
1M
M>
007
ii.r
o.on
Ml
I.I
4 M
240
f.r
Mil
n
O.I
o.i
u
400
77.2
Ml
40.0
0.40
10
t.O
44.0
4 .Ol
400
M
ONE 4
MMMMM
00 io 2
li/ioyw
II
.01
n
uo
41.2
Ml
Ml
u.r
.01
Ml
0.4
o.ir
w>
•.2
oat I
•UMti
II/HVOT
20
421
.01
U
MO
W.I
Ml
M)
11.7
.on
Ml
1.2
r.4
Wl
MUO2
2/MMO
r
Ml
Ml
M)
41
JO
O.Oi
4 .»
4.0
210
41.2
Ml
0.01
U.f
•.007
to
•.r
K.4
4 .«
BD
II
WI-R2
•Ito2
2/
M>
M>
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
»ro
4 .4
»
400
n.4
Ml
0.0
0.0
Ml
0.4
t».2
4 .0
MMO>
2AM
M.I
•.I
4 .2
M
UO
40.1
M»
O.Oi
n.*
•.oat
Ml
0.4
M.4
•.n
4.2
M-I
M
22.1
u.o
•.04
4 J
21
n
n.s
Ml
O.OI
12.1
•.cat
Ml
01
J1.2
4 .0
IM-I
M>M*2
2A/M
17.*
la
Of*
•.07
4 .2
24
UD
24
Ml
•.0
11.7
O.OK
Ml
•.4
JO.l
4 .0
24*
IM 10
10*02
2/
-------
rims rustic
Cu>y>«».
wins ciff
0-lco
SUHNAII Of MOUND -MAIE* OUAIIIV. ftOUMDS 1 «M0 >
labU • 1
,
J
-o
O
00
jj »jj
OD
*5" C—
«fc- "Ts
^> -*^
1 £-
-<
MUM*!
*^4«M«
NHOMI* NIUJIAM WU1IU*
4C/M
fMmdlbivavtim
Otlorelm
HHH4«)t'*l«7l!fc'<
• IfMlllHMltBltHM
lrl»« •»!>!»
taMui
•ullMi M 0
••*•( *l«Mt««4 Mt4> (M)
«(•*•
UHlt
t^^t
^^o'l
«•/«
t^o*l
Uo/t
•«yi
iO>l
•««
«•/!
t^^l
t^^l
t^^l
«0ii
««yi
1*1
•/!
«0ft
s»
•tfl
S!
i^i
•0/1
•*!
*4Xl
••'I
••/I
••/I
•tfl
«ort
K»
«0*0l
•mm
10
10
•n
•.9
U >
M.C
17.7
- .
a.t
u
n
44
m
sn
24
•.a
ai
lo
SB
4 1
yt
4*7
W.I
»
1.4
200
M.4
10*
ai
*v*
b<
1.4
ao
4 .1
410
124
U-l
o»o 2
lt/M/17
10
IO
10
on
10
»
aw
.
24.4
28
4*4
0
.01
0.2
177
WO
41
•.a
M.I
1.4
10
•.7
It
« .Ol
11O
».»
roi
«M> 1
•aw
10
M>
10
on
M
on
•
IO
»
10
o>
12
to
IO
IO
n
10
44
22
2*
4t4
10
2.7
•.4
44
220
44
to
1.47
19.*
0.1
10
O.4
V.9
•.or
IM
17
U7
oa*o 2
11/14/47
IO
M>
IO
MB
14
on
7
••
••
to
IO
IO
IO
IO
IO
IO
M>.
1.1
24.7
a
4«
IO
.0
4 .2
11
2W
to
•.01
O.I
10
•.4
n
•.OS
Ito
II
IW
•OK) 1 •
•/27/W
M>
IO
IO
IM
IO
on
•
IO
•
to
IO
17
12
10
.10
10
IO
s
22.1
24
4VO
IO
2.4
4 .2
M
210
44.)
M>
l.M
20.7
0.2
ID
O.4
U.4
•.04
IM
17
ua>
MMt 2
II/UUV
IO
M
to
no
on
*
»
IO
21.7
71
*W
H>
.OB
4.2
11
)IO
4t.«
M>
M
W.I
.OS
to
0.4
11.9
4 .04
100
II
f»
•010 1
•ana
M>
Ml
10
on
21.2
10
on
•
M
M
44
72
tw
%M
It
•IO
MB
10
724
22.9
•1
Ml
IO
291
4 .2
W
2M>
IM
1/9
KB
M>
11.4
11.4
•. W
410
919
Ml
MM 2
II/I9/B7
M»
IO
10
to
•|
10
on
IO
IO
IO
10
IO
Mt
IO
10
IO
20
2.9
*>
24
a
«•
M>
0.1
.Oft
R
no
0.01
20.1
1.4
M>
I.I
J/.4
« .A
m
24
M»
MM> 1
4/24/07
10
IO
10
on
on
|O
IO
•
IO
»
44
O>
M
4IB
17
IO
ta
to
•»
41.1
41
411
IO
217
4 .2
WO
410
va
ni
It9
229
• • ID
7.*
4M
1.1
4>0
1110
U4
•0*02
II/MVBT
4
44.4
19
711
IO
.OS
4 .2
n
270
44
HI
10
29.4
.a
io
•.7
44.1
« .01
4M
M
ro
•ruol
•/ir/v
to
m
|0
w
SO 4
H>
IO
•
••
M
IO
24
B
24*
IO
Ml
12
IO
Mt
Jf.t
n
4B
w
74.4
4 .2
491
MO
M4
12
no
49.4
1.1
M>
1.1
M.7
0.4
400
Ml
Ml
MM 7
ll/M/47
IO
on
O0
on
24
on
M>
M>
to
10
•
M>
W
10
2.1
M»
M»
H>
M>
M»
244
a
404
IO
.01
•.2
179
m
41.9
Mt
0.02
24.1
' .12
M»
1.1
4 .m
MO
II
M*fl*«4«ICt
-------
•'on ic sumv wins sue
fuowoao. fuorto MtO
SUWAII Of MOUNO-UAIH WJAUIt. MOUNDS 1 AND 2
lob to 1 (Continued)
CK
3? ^
OC
in
foram oaiWMA UXAINU
CDM
(Mi
pamirr NUUUM ACM turn
maun IOUJUM MJIMS
AfMnU
SIlMT
(MvMi
Mf«l« •> M
%«lllc CnlKUnoo
MriwJ Ml* (Ml
UHM
•ovi
•VI
«•*
*•*
•VI
•vi
•VI
•VI
•VI
•VI
•VI
•VI
HMM-I
WIIU
n
Ml
44
41
tt.r
m
•.4)
4 1
•.I
49
4.2
o.oir
w.r
IftW/V
1.1)
.•i
9.4
9MM-I
M
299
M
2T.»
SI)
•.a
4 .2
44.9
Ml
0.29
0.1
M
.OS
no
II/IWW
a
4)1
.2
11
NO
U.f
0.4
M.I
210
9.)
I9AM-)
WHit
IN)
4.S
U
MO
OOW
Ml
0.4
29
I .0*
ntei
ID
41
SI
a
K9
.2
II
MO
o.ir
.o»
Ml
o.r
2/4
4 .m
200
4.0
MM* »
Ml
Ml
Dm
r
2.4
B.4
a
in
Ml
0.01
4 .2
n
MO
Ml
1.41
M.I
O.t
Ml
O.I
2»
« .ov
240
rut* I
41
10.2
n
m
Ml
4 .2
II
MO
H.O
Ml
o.ir
n.*
.09
Ml
o.r
2r.2
4 .0>
UO
4.9
HUM 4
MINI 1
«/«/•/
S.)
n
19.4
•m
0.)
Ml
Ml
Mt
Mt
Ml
Ml
Ml
o.r
M
Ml
Ml
sr
».4
a
191
21.9
O.K
4 .2
M
MO
J0.4
Ml
o.w
14
o.on
Ml
O.I
10.9
4 .Ol
210
Mt
MUO2
II/24/V
ID
H.
Dm
Dm
a
Dm
Ml
Mt
Mt
Mt
Ml
Ml
Ml
M>
Ml
M>
Ml
4
a.r
21
M
Ml .
Ml
4 .2
11
M*
XM
Ml
O.22
11.9
.M
Ml
O.4
20.0
4 .01
220
4.)
9MM-S
MMOt
Witt
M>
4
Ml
W
M)
Ml .
Ml
Ml
Mt
Ml
lift
M4
,0
MJ
Ml
*
»•
'?
4H
Ml
•.04
4 .2
n
1ID
B.I
Ml
0.99
M.I
•.020
ID
0.)
M.I
4 M
290
1.1
MM02
it/a/os
•
•
Ml
Dm
Mt
ID
M>
Ml
Ml
W
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
0
».•
20
4W
Dm
.11
•.2
II
UO
n.i
Ml
O.O*
12.9
.02
Ml
O.t
20.9
4 M
210
0.0
M
M1MII
0/2MT
Ml
Ml
ID
Ml
ID
Ml
Ml
«
Ml
Ml
4.2
Ml
Ml
49
B.4
20
£0
Ml
•.Ot
4 .2
M
no
n.o
Ml
0.0*
U.I
M>
Ml
O.I
2F.4
4 M
210
Ml
'12
*1M» 2
It/uyor
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
M>
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
Ml
S.I
Ml
ID
10
M
W.4
14
111
Ml
Ml
0.)
tr
no
22.4
M>
Ml
10 1
.001
Ml
0.4
tr
•.or
2a»
0.2
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
CUAYAMA. PUERTO HTCO
TABLE 2 . .
ROUND 3 SUMMARY - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
8AHPI4SS COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL, 1990
nclhm lrl<*lw*llfefla Irldtlerellueraaetliine Cle-1.2-OltMet»etl>en« Irene-1.2 Oldllereellxn* CMereler*
MASAI HO MO MO m IB NO
MAS* J IMC ».1 4.1 ».7 t.f M>
MAS* KOO leb diluted MO/10 MJ/IO 10J/IO HP/10 NO/10 MO/10
PIAMS tettdlluted-1 110/10 *>/10 »/!• 0.4J/10 10J/W i.U/IO
rebruerytefe diluted •»/»• 1>J/>0 MO/SO 1IJ/SO H»/M M/10
rCMI-1 Aprll-2. S MO MO MO MO MB M*
KMJ-2 r*brawyl«b diluted MO/10 MD/IO MO/10 MD/IO MO/ID HO/10
KMI-2 April >t«b dllwt«4 140C/S.O 2.U/3.0 t.*J/».O /.»/».• 7.4/1.0 MO/J.O
KNU-ZIM.) Apr II -Icb diluted MO/10 MO/tO MO/10 MD/IO HP/10 MO/10
rOM-20 Aprll'OtvllMM HOC 2.r 7.2 7.4 7.4 MO
KMt-ZB Aprll'frt MU-2 >.A HO HO NO HO MO
Cere M Oemetlc HO HD MO MO HO MO
Corel 9.4 0.18J O.UJ O.UJ IB O.ilJ
Core J J It O.AVJ NO O.MJ MO HO
Cere 5 1 4.1 O.UJ HO NO NO 1.B
Core* 9 MO 2.8 NO J.O 2.1 5.1
Cere 7 O.MJ HO NO HO NO NO
«» 711 2.0 NO NO NO NO t 0
i*» 722 4 l.ff 0.21J MO HO .HO O.AIJ
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
riBBRB PUBLIC SUPPLY WBLLB 8ITB
gOAYAMA. PUERTO RICO
TABLE .2
ROirND 3 SUMMARY - VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOOND8
flAMtPLBB COLLECTBO IN FEBRUARY AMD APRIL, IttO
(Continued)
USCS A- 1
uses *•*
uut e-i
UMSC-2
HO
MO
M>
•tyllcau
«.MJ
HO
O.liJ
•-I4J
D.UJ
111
i «iMlytlc«l r«Milt» ln«lcr«trMi «*r Illar i*r«Blk«w
J • C»«lMt«4 MlM k«l«M *IMll«« MBit.
I • f*ilMi«d v*lM, «if«ld* InltUI
HO • «•!
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAYAMA. PUERTO RICO
ROUND 3 SUMMARY -
Ana lye*
Aluminum
Ant Imony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Coppar
Iron
Lead
Magnealum
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zlno
PRA5A-1
U
51.6
31.3
0.8
9.3
0.1
1.0
32.400
3.8
6.8
67.1
1.260
12. 5
15.400
61.8
0.1
2.0
530.0
0.7
5.1
37.300
1.9
0.0
13.3
F
32.5
31.3
0.8
8.5
O.I
1.0
32.200
3.8
6.8
41.1
511.0
5.2
15,200
42.2
0.1
2.0
515.0
0.7
5.1
37.500
1.2
3.9
21.8
TABLE 3
METAL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL, 199O
rMASA-3
U
32.5
31.3
0.8
19.0
0.1
6.8
26.800
3.8
6.8
3.8
20.000
6.0
12.300
131.0
0.1
3.9
322.0
0.7
5.1
25,600
l.l
a.4
52.6
F
32.5
31.3
0.8
11.0
0.1
1.0
27.200
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.6
12.700
12.7
0.1
2.0
213.0
0.7
5.1
26,600
l.l
3.9
25.9
PRASA-5
U
32.5
31.3
0.8
17.0
O.I
1.3
39.900
3.8
6.8
43.2
8.370
7.4
16.300
145.0
0.1
2.0
217.0
1.1
5.1
33.000
l.l
15.2
122.0
F
32.5
31.3
0.8
10.8
0.1
1.0
38.900
3.8
6.8
12.6
48.2
l.l
15,900
8.5
0.1
2.0
236.0
0.7
5.1
32.800
1.1
4.4
14.9
rcMV-i
U
34.700
31.3
4.1
271.0
0.8
1.0
48.800
117.0
25.5
185.0
67.000
38.0
28.400
2.740
0.2
111.0
1,560
0.7
5.1
41.000
1.1
154.0
163.0
F
32.5
31.3
1.0
60.7
0.1
1.0
42.500
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
l.l
17,200
1.560
0.1
3.9
395.0
0.7
5.1
39.600
l.l
3.9
25.5
PCHV-2
U
2,070
31.3
0.8
41.5
0.3
1.0
45.100
80.5
6.8
14.8
4.190
10.5
19.100
398.0
0.2
110.0
377.0
0.7
5.1
30.800
1.1
16.7
174.0
F
32.5
31.3
0.8
25.5
0.3
1.0
48.000
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.1
20,300
143.0
O.I
24.8
300.0
0.7
5.1
35.000
1.4
4.9
43.1
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC ftUpPLY WELLS SITE
OUAYAMA. PUERTO RICO
TABLE 3
ROUND 3 SUMMARY - METAL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL, 1990
(Continued)
Analyte
Aluminum
Ant Loony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magneaium
Menganeae
Mercury
Nickel
Pocaaalum
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
FCMV-4
D F
23.700
31.3
A.I
131.0
1.0
1.0
130.000
1.140
39.0
91.1
61.600
35.3
54.000
1.000
0.1
337.0
1.260
0.7
5.1
44.400
l.l
154.0
110.0
32.5
31.3
0.8
36.2
O.I
i.O
77.500
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.1
39.400
58.3
0.1
11.3
385.0
5.3
5.1
55.100
1.1
6.6
3.3
PCMU-5
U F
13.100
31.3
2.1
91.5
0.2
8.8
57.100
33.7
11.0
61.3
26.800
3.6
27.700
722.0
O.I
46.0
1.630
0.7
7.1
24.900
l.l
77.9
285.0
32.5
31.3
0.8
75.1
0.1
1.5
46.600
21.6
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.1
23.400
21.8
0.1
3.3
1.350
0.7
5.1
32.600
l.l
9.6
9.8
AUPI-5
U F
32.5
31.3
0.8
16.8
0.1
1.0
21.100
3.8
6.8
6.2
48.2
1.1
9.900
1.3
0.1
2.0
490.0
0.7
5.1
23.200
1.2
4.7
16.5
32.5
31.3
0.8
14.0
0.1
1.3
19.700
3.8
6.8
6.3
48.2
1.1
9.310
1.3
0.1
2.0
649.0
0.7
5.1
21.900
l.l
5.1
9.3
uses
U
524.0
31.3
0.8
18.7
0.1
1.7
40.400
3.8
6.8
10.5
1.620
5.9
16.800
41.6
0.1
4.6
872.0
0.7
5.1
30,200
l.i
13.0
221.0
!•
A-l
F
32.5
31.3
0.8
14.5
0.1
1.0
41.000
3.8
6.8
3.7
48.2
1.2
17.100
17.5
0.1
2.0
911.0
0.7
5.1
31.600
1.1
6.8
127.0
^^^^^•^•MHMI
uses
U
9.140
31.3
1.5
79.1
0.1
5.8
43.400
5.0
8.1
37.3
16.400
1.1
21.200
461.0
0.1
6.0
647.0
0.7
5.1
28.200
1.5
49.8
60.0
i.
A-2
F
"^""^•^^•••^^^•^"^••i™
1.880
31.3
0.8
44.7
0.1
1.0
44.100
3.8
6.8
11.1
2.490
3.7
19,600
79.2
0.1
2.0
240.0
0.7
5.1
30.400
1.1
12.4
16.1
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SOfPLY WELLB BITE
GUAYAMA, PUBRT,O RICO
TABLE 3
ROUND 3 SUMMARY - METAL SAMPLES COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL,
{Continued)
1990
Analyte
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnealum
Manganeae
Mercury
Nickel
Potaaslum
Selenium
Sliver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
USGS C-l
U F
1.410
31.3
0.8
27.3
0.1
1.0
35.600
8.3
6.8
10.6
2.920
30.3
13.500
112.0
0.1
4.1
1.350
0.7
5.1
28.100
l.l
11.9
463.0
32. S
31.3
0.8
19.0
O.I
1.0
35.100
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
3.2
13,100
36.8
0.1
2.0
1.250
0.7
5.1
28.700
1.1
3.9
270.0
USCS C-2
U F
10.700
31.3
0.8
93.4
0.1
6.8
51.800
5.8
8.9
41.6
22.500
2.9
20.000
606.0
0.1
2.0
940.0
0.7
5.1
23.200
1.1
74.6
59.1
32.5
31.3
0.8
33.7
0.1
1.0
50.800
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.1
16.500
1.3
0.1
2.0
200.0
0.7
5.1
24.700
1.1
4.7
8.0
USGS C-2
(DUPLICATE)
U F
14.800
31.3
2.3
109.0
0.2
9.2
55.300
10.3
13.7
53.5
28.600
2.2
22.0OO
771.0
0.1
7.4
1,190
0.7
5.1
23,900
l.l
94.1
81.0
32.5
31.3
0.8
34.9
0.1
1.0
53.100
3.8
6.8
3.5
48.2
1.1
17.200
1.5
0.1
2.0
180.0
0.7
5.1
25.100
1.1
4.8
3.7
WELL 113
U F
32.5
31.3
0.8
4.3
0.1
1.0
44.100
3.8
6.8
12.9
48.2
l.l
15.500
1.3
0.1
2.0
304.0
0.7
5.1
28.500
l.l
9.3
15.8
32.5
31.3
0.8
2.5
0.1
2.0
41.600
3.8
6.8
4.5
48.2
l.l
14.600
X.3
0.1
2.0
407.0
0.7
5.1
27.300
1.2
8.2
8.1
Notes: U - UnClltered
F - Filtered
: All value* In mlcrograms per liter.
-------
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OP ENVIRONMENTAL PATE AND TRANSPORT MECHANISMS
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAVAMA, PUERTO RICO
ChaMlcal Class
Chlorinated Aliphatic Hydrocarbons
Mon-Malogaaeted Phenols
Metala
Pat* and Transport Summary
e Volatilisation and biotransforMat lon/biodegradation are potentially
significant (ate/transport processes.
• Tetrechloroethene volatilisation half-lives for typical bodies of water i
ponds, 7 days; river. 1.4 days} lakes. S.e days.
e Generally Moderately Mobile in surface water and groundwater (Moderately
adsorbed to soils and sediments). Experimentally Measured soil sorption
coefficients (Hoc) for tetrnchloroethene range (ron IJ2 to J*J.
e Hydrolysis May occur for saturated aliphaties (alkanas).
• •iodegradation and hydrolysis May be the Most important transformation
processes (or tetrachloroethene.
e •lotransformatlon/blodegradat ion and soil-catalysed onldatlon are
potentially significant fat* piocesses.
• Volatilisation is not significant. Phenols are transported In air via
airborne paniculate soils or dusts.
• Mobile In groundwater and surface water.
• Biosccumulat ion is not significant. ' •
• Hydrolysis/photolysis Is not significant.
• Solubility and Mobility are dependent on chemical speciation and fora
(carbonate, osid*. etc.).
• Adsorb to soil .organic Matter and clay.
• Cations are mobile in qroundwater in an acidic environment, while anionic
forms are Mobile in alkaline environments.
• Mobile in surface water, but will precipitate out in an oaidiiing
environment.
e Some metals are bioaccuMulat ive.
• Volatilisation Is not significant. Transported in-air via airborne
partlculate soils ^•fflusts.
0
29
O
8
30
o
-H
-------
JIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GPAYAMA. PUERTO RICO
. TABLE 5
SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SETTLING LAGOONS
AKD 6TORMWATER RETEKTIOK ARE?.
COLLECTED ID FEBRUARY AKD APRIL, 1990
METALS ANALYSES
Aaalvte
Aluninua
Antiaony
Arsenic
iariun
Btrylliua
Cadmium
Calcium
Chroalun
Cob* It
Copper
ion
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Rickel
Petassius
Stleniua
Silver
Sodium
Thalliua
Vanadium
line
E-l
20,200
6.3
3.6
118.0
0.5
13.3
5,720
417.0
21.5
147.0
48,500
22.2
10.500
652
0.2
11.6-
1.780
0.5
1.5
390
0.2
132.0
335.0
Z-2
16,100
6.3
4.4
68.9
0.5
11.8
7,970
2,110
14.9
124.0
35,800
17.1
9,860
528
0.3
9.2
957
0.3
2.0
103
0.2
119.0
540.0
K-l
10,500
6.3
1.9
120.0
0.4
7.5
85,900
172.0
11.1
88.8
24,700
21.2
10,100
565
2.3
15.5
722
0.1
3.2
647
0.2
68.5
144.0
M-2
13,500 •
6.3
2.9
105.0
0.6
12.8
7,590
60.7
18.7
92.2
34,600
3.4
9,850
754
0.1
10.8
594
0.4
1.4
, 150
0.2
134.0
116.0
M-2(D)
15,100
6.3
2.9
84.6
0.6
12.3
5,040
66.1
16.7
75.1
43,000
3.2
8,440
607
0.1
19.2
516
0.4
2.2
131
0.2
139.0
104.0
¥-1
23,800
6.3
2.6
107.0
0.6
15.3
5,240
830.0
23.4
124.0
54,600
18.3
11,400
740
0.1
10.9
869
0.1
2.0
148
0.2
154.0
494.0
V-2
14,000
6.3
3.2
64.2
0.4
9.8
4,380
64.9
15.7
64.7
33,800
3.5
7.100
616
0.07
6.1
745
0.3
1.0
119
0.2
96.4
86.9
Kotes: (D) - Duplicate sasple
All values in milligrams per kilegraa.
-------
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUXYAM*. PUERTO RICO
TABLE 6
SEDIMENT SAMPLES FROM SETTLING LAGOONS
AND STORMWATER RETENTION AREA
COLLECTED IN FEBRUARY AND APRIL, 1990
PESTICIDBS/PCB'S ANALYSES
Saapl*
No.
E-l
1-2
H-l
M-2
M-2(D)
W-l
W-2
ETC
I.D. No.
CA2980
CA2986
CA2981
CA2982
/ CA2983
CA2985
CA3573G
Aroelor-1260
0.20
ND
0.13
ND
ND
1.1
0.56
Axoclor-1254
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.29
Notes: (D) - Duplicate sample
ND * Not detected
All values in milligrams per kilogram.
Only compounds above detection limits
are shown.
-------
TABLE 7
SOU. DURING ANAI.VTICAL SUMMAflV FOR SOIL DISPOSAL ABKA
MANGE OP POSITIVE DETECTIONS
PIBEHS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAVAMA, PUERTO Ml CO
^•(••«l«r
(bellow S*apl«
CMfM*ll«
1- 10 4 -fool Ovplftj
O*«p f4»pl* Caapotitit
• - to 4 -fool O«jn«i
»- I* 0-foHI 0*plh
Ditch £••»!•
»/2
••ckflc*u»4 >Mpl«*
>••(•!•
••11*4 Ct*l*4
Oach«,rouiia
INORGANICS (ng/kq)
Ar •••!€
ChfUBlu*
Coppat
taad
H«f cuf y
Mick. I
Sit laniuat
Til* 1 1 1 uo
line
Cyaaidn
I.IIM-l.t
««.OJ4-TJM«
)».«.!•-•*. IJ4
• .1-H
no io.iui-a.e*
4.1CJ4-I . »»J4
HO |O.1«U-0.4IU|
HO 10. liU-4).4IU|
•Y.IJ4-11CJ4
•o i«.»4u-a.t«u|
I.KM 4.0
II.IJ4 •\.».I4
1*.«J4-«».SJ4
X.I JO. /
O.O4M O.44>
4.4»J4 *.«J4
HO (4). I4UH| 0. >JM
HO |O. I»UM O.»/U(
4V.4J4-I *»J4
HO 10.1)11 «.*>U|
1 .t»N-4.V
IU.VJ4-IO.IJ4
*«. I.4-»^.4J4
O.»i»-4.l
HO |O.O4Ut-O.OM
t.»J4 •*).*J4
HO |O. IIUHI-O.444)
HO |O. l>Ut-O.44k»
44.0J4 «0.1J4
MO (Q.14U-O.44U)
J.4H/4.IH
I1.*J4/II.»
It.2J«/*».IJ«
1. >/!».>
HO |O.IU|/«.»?
T.CJ4/12.0J4
HO |O.4IUM/O.4)UH)
HU I0.4IU-O.4)U|
I44J4/IC4J4
HO IO.SIII/ O.IIUJ
1.1N-2.M
II.2-I4.4
I*. 1-104
».»-/.»
HO |*.IUI O.0»
4. /•-•.)
HO 4«.1>UH-*.1*UH|
NO |«.1»U-O. 1*U|
I4.1-ll»
HO |*.»1U-O.1«U|
<«.l-?l |f. 4)
1-1,000 |»1|
*CU|-1)4*
Aioclx -I2S4
AracUi-ll»0
HO (U«0|-lt0
210-1. 104)
HO |UI*0|
HO |U*0|
HO (UI40I-IIUJ
HO (UlkOI- I/OJ
'HO (UtU|
HO |III«O|
HO |UI»O|
HO |UIO|
HO IUI40)
ltO/1,100
HO |U40)
HO (UI40I
HO|UUO|-I20J
ASBESTOS
Chi r»»i>i«
AMlll*
1-4*
>-4l
2-4%
2 4»
HO | HA»«il
HO | HA V«il
HO
HO
- Background value not «v«ildbl«>.
NAvai 1 - Sample results ate not available. yet.
•B* - Indicates that analytical result is bel ween, inst runent detection limit and contract required detection linit.
'N* - Indlcatea that 4)|>iked sample recovery in within control linitu. Data are validated as estimated values.
'U* - Indicates the uanple was analysed (or but not detected. The value presented is the sample quantitation
limit.
•J4' - Data are validated as estimated values biased hiqh.
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
table 8
RKflULATORV RROHIRFMKNTfl ANO DO9K HKflPOHSR PARAMETERS
PIUKHB Mini. 1C Bllfl'LV MKI.l.tt ttlTK
OUAVAHA, IHICHTO RICO
• It* C*nt*lM**t
t
T*IMCM*f**lkCM
*tlckUi*«ik*M
t
•l*fl (klctld*
C«ck**
»t UhUc*ll**i«-
MtMM
•»k ION* IUlU«f«*
.IM/U
HI»DM
•k
M
Ml
t
•ft
•ft
NCI
HI
t
in
i
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
•
M
NCtO
HI
HI
•
;;:
HI
"V
HI
•ft '
•M OtUklM «•«•• •••Ilk
M«U*rl*i
1 ft /*•!
l-/tt-4»t, ckl!4i l.M*
11.41
•ft
l-/l«-«*>. eklltfi >.•••
t««««f -!•!•! •4*111 ' »•
HI
l-tfir. iklMi 4.M*
!••«•>, ckll«i !••
!«•«•• -«•§•. cMtdl 1*
III
•ft '
••ft
OHIL
H*l
tM
HI
II*
III
•ft
M
HI
•ft
*••*••••! ftBbUiit M«t*i OiMllty
Crlliil* |yf/t|
NiMun •••Ilk
l«t*>ll«K •» «•«•«/
Infollon •( u*t«r
•1 ftqu»tte Lit*/
fti|u«ile Lll* o*lf
• .i*/.
*.*!
a.v/
•*.l 1*1
i.«n/
i/
sa*
••/
*.«4
H.a*i
M
i
Kqtllll* 1.1 !•
41*
UC H.lll
!••••/
•ft
UC l».ll|
•ft
;::u:
• .
•»
cir/NM
HU
0«»l, Ml
>.lll*->
l*k.*Ii
Oial, Mil
i.i.i*-a
1. !>!•-*
H.4|
Oc»l, fti
2 )
l«k, fti
in
ink. Mi
I.I.I*'!
HI
•ft
•IB
H'1
•
Ot*l.
•ubchloloi
I.K-I
i*i*-a
HI
Nft
•ft
oi*l,
•ukcki**lai
til*'l
Of*l, «tlf*Bl*l
1*1*-*
HI
Oi«l, chfaitlei
InKi
InU-l
HI
llul"
Qucllty
•
»
5*
I*
•ft
•ft
POOR QUALITY
ORIGINAL
-------
Table 8
MKGULATORV MKQUIHEHEHrS AND DOSE RHSHON9B PARAMKTKRS
tineas PUULIC SUPPLY wtfLLa BITB
GUAVAMA. PUERTO RICO
fAUli TMU
Ill* CCMCIUMBI
•
Ck,.,.,.,.
•lk«M |Clf|
•tkIM ITMMtl
Cl.l»l» !•••••
ixirii;1"^
IM IDUA tl**i*t4*
"',T
letui
HA
HA
HA
M
MCI.
tft«tl»|
HI
HA
It
Ml
itt
IH
Ml
HA
t.l
I'l
Ml
MCUI
(ItMutl
1*1
HA
•It
1*1
Itt .
"*
in
Ml .
»A Oll*kl«1 «•«•• •••lib
HA *
it-*«r «kini i.tot
eklU/Xultl l.Stt
LlUtlMI It
Ml
!•«•». ckll4i It.OM
lt-**r> ohlKl . l.tBt
LlllllMI 1*0
Ml
HA
L*Bf«f -!•!•. >il«ILl 4
ff»
DUEL
HA
400
tot
HA
HA
r.««*i «-.!•«« M.i.r au»iii(
Crl».,l. ||,,/L|
"— "•
• I A<|UMla Lll»/
iDfCIII** *t
Aquttlc LI I* 0*1 1
It.'l
HA
HA
MA/
It.l
l«.
•A/
t.il» •*,/!./ '
t.tl* l^/L
Aqucllo LH«
AeuU/CkfmU
it.tto/
1.140
l».lt|
II. tM/
HA
IK (l.lll
ll.ttt/
HA
ttC I*. Ill
1.4tt/
HA
14.11
t.tl4/lt
ci r /woe
MU
•
Of«l. til
•.lllt-1
iBfc. til
HA
HA
Oltl.Cl
l.tllt'l
Illb.Cl
l.tllt-l
01
01*1. til
1.1
01
HID
Mil
Of*l, chrculei
uit-i
111
HA
lilt'*.
Oral.
Illt-l
|t|MI
HA
HA
• 1C*
Ouilllf
HA
HA
HA
MA
1
"D
08
-------
h
Table 8
NUIIILATOMV •BOUIIIIXENTS AND OOSK RESPONSE PARAMtrTEKS
riHBHS PUDI.IC BUPPI.V NELkt) B1TB
GIMVAMA, PUERTO HICU •
PACK TURKIC
Ill* c*m*lM**t
••!>••(•• •
<•*"-
chi**)iv> it*uii
„.,
•lek*l
••"•4I-
irk IMM •t«M*t<*
IM/M
MltOM
HI
Mk
II
HI
M
HI
HI
M
•k
MCI.
|fl*tu*)
>•!•*
llk«l*/t
>!• «•
in
HI
in
in
IM
HI
in
HI
IM
HI
.•ft
HCLO
|ft*tui|
1*1
>»!•*
llk*t*/t
»!• IM
in
HI
in
HI
IM
in
HI
o
in
HI
IM
m
HI
•k
••ft OiUklM «••••« M**llh
lM/t|
•k •
1 -/!•-*•*. chlldi «•
l*M*l"t*'*< cklU S
La»««t-l*t*i. *4*lti !•
HI
t*M*f-t*i». chl!4i 10k
HI
•k
l-/l«-4*r. cKIMl I.***
L«M" ->•'•< *4*lll •••
HI
Mk
OMIit
0*1
Mk
HI
lit
HI
•k
•M.
HI
Mk
••'•••lc~::;. ::£,-""
MUBM H«llh
lii«»*llo« ml M*l*(/
I****!!** •! H*t*l
•( ftquttlo til*/
|H«**I|B« *t
ki|u*&lo til* Only
Mk
M/l*/Mk
HI
•k/M/Mk
HI
•k/St/Mk
HI
IS. «/!!.«
•ft
ft^usllo til*
k*ut*/Cbr*iila
M
l.t/l.l
U/ll
•1/1.1
IU.lt!
11/1. •
H*l
•k
cir/WM
l**/k«-4.r|-l
nu
ft
t.l
HI
1*11 .
•1
l*bi •
1.* !•! i*|
•••« •
l«*(l**tf
in
Mk
•
MID
H*l
Mk
Oi*l, chr**lci
HI
Oc*l, cki**lei
1>I«-1|»I|
III** Hill
Oi*l, ch«**lei
I.4HI-1
ckf*>loi
HI "
01*1.
•ykchf*Blci
Or* 1, cki*»l*l
HI
ru*ft«
•Ic*
M«l*>
Ou*lllf
•(•n4*tftf*
Mk
Mft
•k
•ft
•ft
•ft *
f
-1
08
3030
-------
• o
oo
gopo
oo
z£
>>
Table 8
Mtnill.ATOHV BEQIIIflWtENTS AND DOSB RESPONSE PARAMETERS
riBRRS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITU
GIIAVAMA. PUERTO RICO
PAGE POUR
N» Het avallahta ar eitakilahed.
if r»«p««o4.
r rlaai.
!>!' KM - Drlaklaa, Malar Mfulatleaa cud Health Mvltoilea NeanraniliM. April, lit*. Soiiroai U.S. KM Otflce al UrUkUf Mater, Me. lea III
•hllcdolptila. feaaaylvaiila.
l>l »« federal Mfllter tl. Meaday, Nay >1, III* prepeied rule*.
Ol Health If lent* aeieeaMat •uaaaiy Tahlaa. rliil/laeonil Quaitcr, l**0. '
Ml lnt*«f>l«4 rUk UfciMtUa IMtM. July l»»t. July 1*19.
1*1 Th* ««luit that at* In4lcata4 aa -IXC" ai« aol crltatl*. but a>« lh» lauait affacl !•*•!• lau«4 la tha lltatatuia. IValuaa piataatad lar (talk
• Hatac at aaltvatac apaolaa vklekaoat la lover. |
1*1 rat tha •aalww ptatactlon lia» tha pataatlal carclaoa,anle prapaftlaa ol tha chialcal, tfca aaklant vatac canca«tiatlaa akeuld ka tat*i Movavat,
•ara My nat ka attaliukla at tkla tliM, a* tha cacaawanda)! oilKila faptaianta all I*-* aatlaatad laaraawiital laeiaaaa af caaeac flak avac •
lllatlM.
|?| HiriNM • Hatlaaal latarla atlmty Qilnklaf Matar ••fulatlan*.
III NCI. • NaalaMM Camanlaaat La«al.
|«| MCMI • NaalaiM Canlaal«aat Laval Baal.
|ia| «»• OMIL • KiivlcaMMiatal •tatavllaii A«aaay Or I •* I of Mitar Bqulvalanl Laval.
(Ill CSr/MUK • Cafelaa«a»l« »ataiu| Vacta>/Mal)ht al KvUaaca Claaalllcatlan for Caielaafaaa.
I III HID • •efataaoa Daia.
(Ill 4» radacal Hailatar 131. PfUay, Mavaafaar It, Itl*. »a«a 1»1«§, 1*1*1, 1*111.
|H| ' »«aaoy la< Taalc lukatancat aM DUaata Maflatcy, M.S. rukllo Maalth laivlca. ToilcolDf loal riadla (at Vinyl Chlatlda |MUrr| Jaauacy tills
Hotel tva eepotate KM daeaewHta olte*.
|l*l •upatfuaa' »ubllo Health Maauel, 1*14, aM updetaa.
I Itl SO taa-etal Heflatai 14», MeMey, July I*, IMS.
|UI Ctltada y>i«aaata4 aaaiwaa that thai natai kaideaaa la III Bf/L •• C«Coj. fa calculate Oflteila lai atkaf haidaait la*al*i
,alu*
. • |l.lll|l«|hatd*aii||-l.lllt acuta value
|ll| Cfltafla praaeated ae*ue» that thai vatat hacdaeaa la !•• an/l. aa CaCa). Ta calculate Cflteila Cai tha baidaaaa leveln
• ll.l««|lathar«.eia||-«.a»l| cktaalc value
, |l.aea|U|hat*«eaa||-l.«l«| .ou«e value
11*1 tl radaial latlater «1, Tuaiaat, Natck II, Hit.
|ll| luallty Ciller la let Mater 1*14. KM 44a/»-i.-e»l. Nay !•*•.
|ll| Afaaey (ar Tealo 'lubrtaace* aad . olaaaaa Neflitfy, «.«. Publla Health farvlce. roilcaleflcal Predlc fee Tatrachletaethyleae
Uacaaber 1*11.
-------
Table 9
rMOPUSKU HUMAN CKI-OSURB SCENAMIOS POM IIISM AMALVSIS
PIKNS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITK
CUAVAMA, PUEMTO HICO
facility •• •«•*••!•
vllkl* Ik* ••«!» ••••
M»4*MI*I -
w»ll» toll! ••
*>*•*!If oUklH Ik*
•••I* •<
l*t**tl*«
l*k*l«tl«*)
•*«•»! C*MMl
•••••1 CwilMI
>*l*l«ll«*« IfM
Ik*
l«« ItM
lv*l*l
lkf*M«k Ik* »kt*
•III !••!••• •!
«t
• • **M**«l»
!*•••! >•• ••!•
• !• k« M'll
«•»••••• •«€•!• 4«llk( •felt
Mfkt*« III* |4«
»• «•••*/(••••
ra
M
•€€•<• > «*f*/M
m*l*t»mt»t CM. !**••.
I L/«*v - Mail
I l/tf»v • Ckll«
I* k« • Ckll«
|M«lll«. •»•••
l««ia*.
*k>««»ti«a IktMifk (Hi !•
'• »«
• k*«t >•>•<•€• *i**i U.IM »>
• •"••«••• *l ••••••••t !• •!•.
• ••|M»«I* •€€«!• <*tlf •••• •
•*i*i**c*i tr». it***.
roc«i*i« c*Mtwr •!• tcnuuiie.
I*I t*Clllll*«
»• <«»««*1*I*«
•tiki* Ik* »\•
•*!•• *Mf*ily ••<••••.
•**••••. •••l*«l**ll*« k**
«r»4, |« *••!• Ik* *kii|«*«
•« •••• fMllll* ••!•• »«•*>• |
•Mil*.
C**l*Bt*«*l •Ifftll** Mf
••••liMlly «t(*cl *lk*l •xkll*
••<•• ••••If will*.
_
-------
Table 10 Maximum and average concentrations of PCE. in the PRASA,
monitoring, and private/industrial wells.
Sampling
Round
1
2
3
PCI Concentration (vg/t)
PRASA
Wells
Maximum
103
62
150
Average
25
22
90.2
RI Monitoring
Wells
Maximum
154
205
240
Average
43
53.2
83.2
Private/Industrial
Nells
Maximum
NA
22
11
Average
MA
3.5
2.7
Federal
SOWA MCL
ug/L
5
(1) The maximum concentrations presented for PCS in the PRASA and RI monitor-
ing wells, Round 1 and Round 2, are the average of duplicate samples.
NA: Not analyzed.
Table 11 Alkane/a2ken* ranee and detected concentration in
rounds 1 . 2, and 3
CojpounC
It :t: <•.)» ret mint
7r*Ki-l, J-Oic.1.orc«l.l«n»
c:i- 1 ,?-Dichioro»th«n»
Vinj>: ehloridt
1 . J, J ,5-7ltr»eMototlh««t
»t;fij:tn» enlotidt
Cirser t»lr»fMcll««
1,1.! -Tr :r>.l»re«tr.*.-.t
C*rctr.::tc:»r. (jf/l)
KojnS 1
«««,«' ll
»«tirt*4
J.J-JT.7
:.S'U.}
*D
21.1
tie
He
. »e
•0
AMItft
J.J
).J
»e
3.1
»8
n
MB
•8
tOKIM J
•*Sf t 1 1 )
Bcttctt*
}.$
7.1-17
•e
}t
J.J
110
•e
J.S
AvtMft
0.44
1.1
•P
I.I
«.]
4.1
•e
0.1
»«jn« J
UM*'"
DctvetM
0.14-Jl
:.i-i'
3.J-U
*D
ra
•e
0. 11-10
e.ii'O.]*
A*CfM*
:.(
2.1
J.O
•D
•e
•e
• .45
O.Oi
IU*iru!>
e*nt«c>MHt
L*v*l
U«/l)
» (fl
100 (»)
70 (H
2 (f)
V*
1 (T)
> If)
200 (D
•0: Me: tftitcttd
•A: He: tv«>:*Dl*
(1) TM r*n;t of »ciiti»t 0«:tc:td it yttttattd.
V:
f:
t: Ttat*li*t
GUAM
ORIGi^L
-------
Table 12:
HAZARD INDICES (HI) RESULTING FROM POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF
CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER BY RESIDENTS AND WORKERS.
SAMPLING ROUND
ROUND 1 (MAXIMUM)
ROUND 2 (MAXIMUM)
ROUND 3 (95% UCL)
RESIDENT HI
12.5
0.87
2.6
WORKER HI
4.2
0.29
NA
NA Not Available
-------
Table 13
CANCER RISKS RESULTING FROM POTENTIAL FUTURE USE OF CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER BY RESIDENTS AND WORKERS.
SAMPLING ROUND
ROUND 1 (MAXIMUM)
ROUND 2 (MAXIMUM)
ROUND 3 (95% UCL)
RESIDENT RISK
2 X 10"3
2 x 1CT3
1 x 10-*
WORKER RISK
4 X ID"*
5 X 10-*
NA
NA Not Available
-------
Table 14
FIBERS PUBUC SUPPLY WELLS SITE
GUAVAMA. PUERTO RICO
Fodwel Ch«mlc«l Sp.cWic Siandarde ConaUerad for
Ground-Water Clean-up Criteria)
Compound
Carbon Tetrad.' or Ide
Chtoroforai
tnfturene O-Chloro-1.1.2-
trifluoroethyl dlflueromtliyl
•thcr)
laoflurane
O.OOi
0.1«
M
MR
O.OOi*
0.005
0.002
HCIC'*'
<«g/O
0
Ml
M
M
0*
0
0
SHCl's*
(•9/1)
N«
M*
m
M
HN
KM
MR
/ 40 CM I 141.11. 141.12. HI.41 and 141.42.
40 C» f 1*1.50.
/ 40 cm i us.3.
MR Not regulated.
• loial TrlhaloHcthane* cannot exceed 0.1 *9/l.
• "National Primary Drinking Water Regulation*; final Rule", federal Register, Volute 54, Nurticr 20. January 30. 1991. effective July 30. 1992.
phil.tbl/phil table dltk
LK<;<;KTTK. URASIIRARS & GRAHAM. INC.
-------
Table 15
FIBERS ruauc SUPPLY vmis SITE
OUAVAMA. PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico Chemlcet-Kpeclfic Slondeni* Co»«Uete4 for
ter CI«on-
CoMfxtinf el concern
Carbon Tetrechlorlde
Oil or of on*
fnllurene <1-CMor*-1.1.2-trlfluoreelhyl alltuoroaethyl
ether)
leollurene (1-Chlere-?.Z.Z-trlflu»re*lhyl tfllluereMtltyt
•lh«r)
let rechl eroelhy 1 ene
trldiloroclhylcrw
Vinyl Chloride
CAS nutter-
5A-7J-i
Ar-M-S
1UU-I6-9
ZMn-u-r
i?7-ta-«
7V-01-A
n-oi-4
Pu*rto «lc« Slamtord1' *
Drinking water MHO.**
<"9/«)
O.OM
O.W*
•.»•
O.OJ«
0.005
O.OW
0.002
MNClC's
<*9/l>
0
0
0 '
0
0
0
\l Ne«uUtlon t* Prelect the Purity «f the Peteble Wetere el Pwerte die*. *«tuletlon o» the S«lnetl«n el these contvilnenle le 0.100
"O
OO
?3 ::n
O Q
—1
.M;<;KTTK. RRASIIKARS & GRAHAM. INC.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX C
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Environmental
Quality Board
September .17, 1991
Kathleen Callahan
Director
Emergency and Remedial
Response Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II - Room 737
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10278
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY (EPA) DECLARATION
FOR RECORD OF DECISION OF
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
SITE, GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
Dear Ms Callahan:
The Superfund Core Program of the Air Quality Area, received
the Declaration for the Record of Decision of Fibers Public Supply
Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico for evaluation and comments. This
document, prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
presents the selected remedial action for this site.
The document explains the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy or alternative previously selected on the
Preferred Remedial Action Plan (PRAP).
The evaluation and selection of the preferred alternative for
cleaning up a contaminated site will provide the best balance among
the alternative selected and the nine criteria which EPA uses to
evaluate them. This nine criteria can be resumed as follows:
1. Overall protection of Human Health and the
Environment
2. Compliance with the Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume
OFFICE OF THE BOARD: NATIONAL BANK PLAZA / 431 PONCE DE LEON AVE. / SANTURCE. PUERTO RICO 00910
P.O. BOX 11488 / SANTURCE. PUERTO RICO 00910 / TELEPHONE: 767-8181
-------
Comments f ra Fibers Public Supply September 17, 1991
Wells Site, uayama, Puerto Rico Page 2
5. Short-term effectiveness
6. Implementability
7. Cost
8. State Acceptance
9. Community Acceptance
The Superfund Law, (CERCLA), requires that any selected remedy
for a site must be protective to human health and the environment,
cost effective and in accordance with ARARs to be in compliance.
The selected alternative for groundwater contamination is
Alternative 3-III: Five extraction Wells and Treatment with
Discharge to the Irrigation Canal.
The selected Alternative for the Soil Disposal Area (SDA) is
Alternative 4: Excavation of SDA and Disposal at an Authorized
Landfill. Alternative 4 will provide the best overall protection
because it will eliminate the presence of asbestos at the Site
through excavation and off-site disposal, and no residual
contaminated soil will remain at the Site.
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) concurs on
the selected alternatives and request that EPA inform EQB of all
future activities at the site.
PREQB also requests that the following specific information be
provided as it becomes available:
1. Details referring to the implementation of Alternative
4: "Excavation of SDA and Disposal at an authorized
landfill" including :
a. Re-evaluation of asbestos quantity to be excavated
b. Soil characterization and asbestos classification
c. Asbestos quantity-disposal feasibility on an
approved landfill in Puerto Rico
-------
Comments from Fibers Public Supply Wells September 17, 1991
Guayama, Puerto Rico Page 3
d. Detail description and certification of asbestos
transporter
e. Any other additional information that may be
helpful to ensure that the Responsible Parties are
in compliance with EPA and EQB standards and
regulations for asbestos management or disposal
Is there any question about this comments please contact me at
phone number (809)767-8056 or Miss Eileen C. Villafane of the
Superfund Core Program at (809)767 8071.
Cordially,
Pedro A. Maldonado, Esq.
Acting Chairman
cc: Eng. Adalbert© Bosque
Mr. Melvin Hauptman
Miss Eileen C. Villafane
Adrew Praschak, Esq.
-------
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
Environmental
'Quality Board
September 26, 1991
William McCabe
Deputy Director
New York/Caribbean Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York/ New York 10278
Dear Mr. McCabe:
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received and evaluate
the new changes to be included in the Record of Decision (ROD) of
Fibers Public Supply Wells Site at Guayama Municipality based on
the public comment period. This changes states:
"The treated groundwater will be discharged to the PREPA
irrigation canal where It will also serve to recharge
the aquifer unless it ia determined during the Remedial
Design (RD) stage that a more appropriate option exists
for all or portions of the treated groundwater. In any
eventi the discharge must provide a beneficial use of
the water."
EQB concurs with the changes added to the ROD and requests
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} inform and consult
EQB of any future decisions as to method of use of the treated
water to be performed at the site.
Is there any question, please contact me or Mrs. Carmen Carr6n
at phone number (809)767-8056.
Cordially
Pedj» A. Maldonado, Esq.
Acting Chairman
cc: Mr. Melvin Hauptman
Eng. Adalberto Bosque
Andrew Praschaki Esq.
Mrs. Carmen Carr6n
Miss Eileen C. Villafane
OFFICf Of THf tOAAO NATIONAL tANK KA£A / 4)1 fONCt OK UON AVI. / SANTU^Cl KjMTO KICO OOf 10
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE
GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO
APPENDIX E
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 1
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Oocunents
Document Number: FIB-001-0080 To 0180 Date: 12/10/86
Title: Addendum to Site Operations Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fibers Public
Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0277 To 0428 Parent: FIB-001-0276 Date: 04/01/86
.Title: Site Operations Plan. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well
Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0596 To 1116 Date: 04/15/87
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils Contamination Report (Fibers Public Supply Wells
site, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: DATA
Author: none: Dames & Moore
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-1118 To 1265 Parent: FIB-001-1117 Date: 11/01/89
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Plant, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 2
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Hunter: FIB-001-1267 To 13U Parent: FIB-001-1266 Date: 10/01/85
Title: Work Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well Field. Cuayaraa,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears t Graham
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-001-1315 To 1496 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Report for the Modified Remedial Investigation for a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plant, Volume I - Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-H97 To 1715 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Plant, Volune II, Appendices - Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Hone Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-1716 To 1881 Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volune I. Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none -••"
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 3
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-1882 To 2306 . Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volume II. Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayasia,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: F1B-002-0568 To 0997 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Interim Feasibility Study Report - Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site
Document Number: F1B-002-1000 To 1000 Date: 07/23/91
Title: (News Announcement: Notice of Public Meeting and Opportunity to Comment on the Proposed Plan
for Fibers Public -Supply Wells • in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: El Nuevo Dia
Document Number: FIB-002-0505 To 0511 > Date: 04/19/85
Title: (Response to 104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Alivernini, John M.: Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Recipient: Diamond, Lawrence V.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 4
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-0181 To 0181 Date: 11/20/86
Title: (Letter forwarding the proposed Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bly, Herbert A.: American Home Products Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA .
Attached: HB-001-0182
Document Number: FIB-002-0998 To 0999 Date: 04/18/91
Title: (Letter noticing Anaquest, Inc., that it nay be a responsible party at the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Document Number: FIB-001-2372 To 2373 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying ARARs)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Document Number: FIB-001-0034 To 0034 Date: 08/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the Sampling Trip Report, Inorganic Laboratory Data, Organic Laboratory
Data, and Work/Sampling Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Well Field site, Guayama)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Clarke, Arthur J.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: Messina, Diane: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0035 FIB-001-0036 FIB-001-0037
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 5
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Oocunents
Document Nunt>er: FIB-001-2376 To 2383 Date: 06/18/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached comments on the Fibers Public Supply Wells Feasibility Study •
in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Claudio, Eduardo Sanchez: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico
Recipient: Gelabert, Periro A.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0276 To 0276 Date: 04/07/86
Title: (Letter forwarding Site Operations Plan and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fibers
Public Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0277
Document Number: FIB-001-0429 To 0595 Date: 06/05/90
Title: (Letter forwarding attached results of sampling from 2/90 and 4/90 at the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: DATA
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears t Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA •
Document Number: F1B-001-1266 To 1266 Date: 09/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the revised Work Plan • Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the
Fibers Public Supply Well Field, Guayama. Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crun, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: various: various
Attached: FIB-001-1267
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 6
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-2307 To 2312 Date: 05/10/89
Title: (Letter pertaining to the Proposed Sampling Plan for the Fiber* Public Supply Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears S Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-2317 To 2340 Date: 06/02/87
Title: (Letter in response to a May 27, 1987, meeting discussing the five monitor wells described
In the Site Operations Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears S Graham
Recipient: Czapor, John V.: US EPA
Document Nunter: FIB-002-0389 To 0407 Date: 12/27/85
Title: Administrative Order Index No. Il-CERCLA-50301. In the natter Fibers Public Supply Wells
Site - Phillips Petroleum Company, Chevron Chemical Company - Respondents
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various PRPs
Document Number: FIB- 002-0423 To 0495 Date: 09/30/86
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II - RCRA-3013-60301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Bly, Herbert A.: American Hone Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-2374 To 2375 Date: 06/21/91
Title: (Letter consenting to • preliminary endorsement of discharging treated well water into the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's Pat Hits Irrigation Channel, as long as certain conditions
are met)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DelValle, Jose A.: Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority
Recipient: fielabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 7
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-1117 To 1117 Date: 01/30/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the rewritten Work Plan to conduct Modified Remedial Investigation for
• Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plant)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kelly, William P.: American Hone Products Corporation
Recipient: Niles, Joan: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-1118
Document Number: FIB-002-0499 To 0501 Date: 07/29/85
Title: (107(8) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Culligan, John V.: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-002-0502 To 0504 Date: 07/29/85
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Douce, William C.: Phillips Building
Document Number: FIB-002-0512 To 0519 Date: 03/08/85
Title: (104(e> Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-002-0408 To 0422 Date: 09/28/89
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II - CERCLA-90303 (Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Muszynski, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Kapp, Roger W.: American Home Products Corporation
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Nam Order Page: 8
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Docunent Number: F1B-001-0075 To 0079 Date: / /
Title: NUS Corporation Project Work Plan, Guayama Well Field
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Neal, Bill: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-002-0546 To 0567 Date: 03/21/91
Title: (Response to 104(e) Information Request letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Recipient: Bosque, Adalberto: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-2341 To 2371 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter discussing the ARAR determinations for Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Naldonado: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-2388 To 2389 Date: 05/20/91
Title: (Letter commenting on the Interim Feasibility Study Report for the Fibers Public Supply Wells
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Naldonado: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Hauptman, Helvin: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-2384 To 2385 Date: 05/30/91
Title: (Letter containing comment* on the Fibers Public Supply Wells Feasibility Study - in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Dept of Natural Resources
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 9
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-0055 To 0074 Date: 04/25/83
Title: Evaluation of Analytical Chemical Data from Guayama Well Field, Cuayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rosenberg, Michael: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: F1B-002-0001 To 0001 Date: 09/26/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the Draft Final Endangernent Assessment Report for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Alvi, M. Shaheer: US EPA
Attached: FIB-002-0002
Document Number: FIB-002-0527 To 0528 Date: 01/13/89
Title: (Letter forwarding the final revised Community Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: FIB-002-0529
Document Number: FIB-001-0182 To 0275 Parent: FIB-001-0181 Date: 11/12/86
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils. Quality Assurance-Project Plan Short Form (Fibers
Public Supply Wells site, Cuayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: PLAN
Author: Sherlock, Philip: Dames I Moore
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 10
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Oocunents
Document Number: FIB-001-0035 To 0035 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/38/83
Title: (Letter forwarding results of analysis of the duplicate matrix spike results)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0036 To 0036 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 03/03/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Head CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: F1B-001-0037 To 0054 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/28/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChen Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: MB-001-2386 To 2387 Date: 05/29/91
Title: (Letter containing comments on the Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Torres, Arturo: US Dept of the Interior
Recipient: Cetabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0001 To 0033 Date: / /
Title: Preliminary Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Alluvial Aquifer of Jobos Area, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Torres-Gonzalez, Sigfredo: US Geological Survey (USGS)
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Author Name Order Page: 11
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Docunents
zsnssssssssszo
Oocunent Number: FIB-002-0520 To 0526 Date: 11/13/89
Title: Addendum to Preliminary Health Assessment for Fibers Public Supply Wells, Guayama, Puerto
Rico. CERCLIS No. 02PR0980763783
Type: PLAN
Author: various: Agency for Toxic Substances ft Disease Registry (ATSOR)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-002-0002 To 0388 Parent: FIB-002-0001 Date: 09/01/90
Title: Draft Final Endangerment Assessment, Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto. Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Wroblewski, Debra: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-002-0529 To 0545 Parent: FIB-002-OS27 Date: 01/01/89
Title: Final Revised Community Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Cuayama, Puerto
Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Zanzalari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 1
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-0001 To 0033 Date: / /
Title: Preliminary Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Alluvial Aquifer of Jobos Area, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Torres-Gonzalez, Sigfredo: US Geological Survey (USGS)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-001-0075 To 0079 • Date: / /
Title: HUS Corporation Project Work Plan, Guayama Uell Field
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Neal, Bill: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0035 To 0035 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/28/83
Title: (Letter forwarding results of analysis of the duplicate matrix spike results)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0037 To 0054 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/28/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead ConpuChen Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0036 To 0036 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 03/03/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work) —
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChen Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
-------
08/01/91
Index Chronological Order
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
: 2
Docunent Number: FI8-001-0055 To 0074 Date: 04/25/83
Title: Evaluation of Analytical Chemical Data from Guayama Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rosenberg, Michael: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-002-OS12 To 0519
Title: (104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Date: 03/08/85
Document Number: FIB-002-0505 To 0511
Title: (Response to 104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Alivernini, John M.: Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Recipient: Diamond, Laurence W.: US EPA
Date: 04/19/85
Document Number: FIB-002-0499 To 0501
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Culligan, John W.: American Hone Products Corporation
Date: 07/29/85
Document Number: FI8-002-0502 To 0504
Title: (107(8) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Douce, William C.: Phillips Building
Date: 07/29/85
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order ' Page: 3
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Oocunent Hunter: FIB-001-0034 To 0034 Date: 08/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the Sampling Trip Report, Inorganic Laboratory Data, Organic Laboratory
.Data, and Work/Sampling Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Well Field site, Guayama)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Clarke, Arthur J.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: Messina, Diane: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0035 FIB-001-0036 FIB-001-0037
Document Number: FIB-001-1266 To 1266 Date: 09/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the revised Work Plan - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the
Fibers Public Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crutn, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: various: various
Attached: FIB-001-1267
Document Number: FIB-001-1267 To 1314 Parent: FIB-001-1266 Date: 10/01/85
Title: Work Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well Field. Guayana,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Nunber: FIB-002-0389 To 0407 Date: 12/27/85
Title: Administrative Order Index Ho. II-CERCLA-50301. In the natter Fibers Public Supply Veils
Site - Phillips Petroleum Company, Chevron Chemical Company - Respondents
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various PRPs
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 4
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY UELLS SITE Documents
Document Hunter: FIB-001-0277 To 0428 Parent: FIB-001-0276 D.ate: 04/01/86
Title: Site Operations Plan. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well
Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0276 To 0276 . Date: 04/07/86
Title: (Letter forwarding Site Operations Plan and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fibers
Public Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0277
Document Number: FIB-002-0423 To 0498 Date: 09/30/86
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II - RCRA-3013-60301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Bly, Herbert A.: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-0182 To 0275 Parent: FIB-001-0181 Date: 11/12/86
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils. Quality Assurance Project Plan Short Form (Fibers
Public Supply Wells site, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: PLAN
Author: Sherlock, Philip: Dames I Moore
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 5
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-0181 To 0181 Date: 11/20/86
Title: (Letter forwarding the proposed Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bly, Herbert A.: American Home Products Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0182
Document Number: FIB-001-0080 To 0180 Date: 12/10/86
Title: Addendum to Site Operations Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fibers Public
Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0596 To 1116 Date: 04/15/87
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils Contamination Report (Fibers Public Supply Wells
site, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: DATA
Author: none: Dames & Moore
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-2317 To 2340 Date: 06/02/87
Title: (Letter in response to • May 27, 1987, neeting discussing the five aonitor wells described
in the Site Operations Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette. Brashears I Graham
Recipient: Czapor, John V.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 6
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Docunents
Document Number: FIB-002-0529 To 0545 Parent: FIB-002-0527 Date: 01/01/89
Title: Final Revised Community Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama. Puerto
Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Zanzalari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-002-0527 To 0528 Date: 01/13/89
Title: (Letter 'forwarding the final revised Connunity Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: FIB-002-0529
Document Number: FIB-001-2307 To 2312 Date: 05/10/89
Title: (Letter pertaining to the Proposed Sampling Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-002-0408 To 0422 Date: 09/28/89
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II - CERCLA-90303 (Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Nuszynski. William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Capp, Roger W.: American Hone Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-1118 To 1265 Parent: FIB-001-1117 Date: 11/01/89
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for • Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Plant, Guayana, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 7
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-002-0520 To 0526 Date: 11/13/89
Title: Addendum to Preliminary Health Assessment for Fibers Public Supply Wells, Ouayama, Puerto
Rico. CERCLIS No. 02PRD980763783
Type: PLAN
Author: various: Agency for Toxic Substances £ Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Recipient: none: none
Oocunent Number: FIB-001-1117 To 1117 Date: 01/30/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the rewritten Work Plan to conduct Modified Remedial Investigation for
a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plant)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kelly, William P.: American Home Products Corporation
Recipient: Miles, Joan: US EPA
Attached: FIB-OOM118
Document Number: FIB-001-0429 To 0595 Date: 06/05/90
Title: (Letter forwarding attached results of sampling from 2/90 and 4/90 at the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: DATA
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears ft Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-002-0002 To 0388 Parent: FIB-002-0001 Date: 09/01/90
Title: Draft Final Endangerment Assessment, Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Urobleuski, Debra: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 8
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Docunents
Oocunent Number: FIB-002-0001 To 0001 Date: 09/26/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the Draft Final Endangernent Assessment Report for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Alvi, M. Shaheer: US EPA
Attached: FIB-002-0002
Document Number: FIB-001-1716 To 1881 Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I. Fibers -ublic Supply Wells Site, Cuayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT ,
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none
Oocunent Nuitoer: FIB-001-1882 To 2306 Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Voline II. Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears. I Graham
Recipient: none: none
Document Nuiter: F1B-001-1315 To U96 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Report for the Modified Reaadial Investigation for • Soils Disposal Area at the Avers t-Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Plant, Volunt I • Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation _-••
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 9
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
ss3s c ss=sa=aasa = s
Document Number: FIB-001-1497 To 1715 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for • Soils Disposal Arta at the Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
• Inc., Plant, Volume II, Appendices - Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Oocunent Number: FIB-001-2372. To 2373 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying ARARs)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Document Number: FIB-001-2341 To 2371 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter discussing the ARAR determinations for Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Maldonado: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-002-0546 To 0567 Date: 03/21/91
Title: (Response to 104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Recipient: Bosque, Adalberto: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 10
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-002-0568 To 0997 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Interim Feasibility Study Report - Fibers Public Supply Uells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site
Docunent Number: FIB-002-0998 To 0999 Date: 04/18/91
Title.: (Letter noticing Anaquest, Inc., that it may be a responsible party at the Fibers Public Supply
Uells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Docunent Number: FIB-001-2388 To 2389 . Date: 05/20/91
Title: (Letter commenting on the Interim Feasibility Study Report for the Fibers Public Supply Uells
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Maldonado: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Hauptmen, Melvin: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-2386 To 2387 Date: 05/29/91
Title: (Letter containing comments on the Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Torres, Arturo: US Dept of the Interior
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-238* To 2385 Date: 05/30/91
Title: (Letter containing coranents on the Fibers Public Supply Wei It Feas4bflity Study - in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Dept of Natural Resources
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 . Index Chronological Order Page: 11
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-2376 To 2383 Date: 06/18/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached canments on the Fibers Public Supply Wells Feasibility Study -
in Spanish).
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: C I audio, Eduardo Sanchez: Estado Libre Asoeiado de Puerto Rico
Recipient: Celabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: F1B-001-2374 To 2375 Date: 06/21/91
Title: (Letter -consenting to a preliminary endorsement of discharging treated well water into the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's Pat ill as Irrigation Channel, as long as certain conditions
are met)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DelValle, Jose A.: Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority
Recipient: Celabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB- 002- 1000 To 1000 Date: 07/23/91
Title: (News Announcement: Notice of Public Meeting and Opportunity to Garment on the Proposed Plan
for Fibers Public Supply Wells • in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: El Nuevo Dia
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 1
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-0001 To 0033 Date: / /
Title: Preliminary Simulation of Groundwater Flow in the Alluvial Aquifer of Jobos Area, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Torres-Gonzalez, Sigfredo: US Geological Survey (USGS)
Recipient: none: none
Oocunent Number: FIB-001-0034 To 0034 Date: 08/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the Sampling Trip Report, Inorganic Laboratory Data, Organic Laboratory
Data, and Work/Sampling Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Well Field cite, Guayama)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Clarke, Arthur J.: NUS Corporation
Recipient: Messina, Diane: US EPA
: Attached: FIB-001-0035 FIB-001-0036 FIB-001-0037
Document Number: FIB-001-0035 To 0035 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/28/83
Titlt: (Letter forwarding results of analysis of the duplicate matrix spike results)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0036 To 0036 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 03/03/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Number Order Page: Z
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
gsasaa^aaagsaaaggaaagsggggaaagggggeagsaagaaagaaagssagaaagsssgggBaaaggaagggsaaaaaaaaggrsaggsgagsggaaaaaagaagsaaaassssssas
Document Number: FIB-001-0037 To 0054 Parent: FIB-001-0034 Date: 02/28/83
Title: (Letter forwarding the results of analytical work)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Siebert, Rebecca J.: Mead CompuChem Laboratory
Recipient: Thacker, Richard: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0055 To 0074 Date: 04/25/83
Title: Evaluation of Analytical Chemical Data from Guayama Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rosenberg, Michael: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-0075 To 0079 Date: / /
Title: NUS Corporation Project Work Plan, Guayama Well Field
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Neal, Bill: NUS Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-0080 To 0180 Date: 12/10/86
Title: Addendum to Site Operations Plan, Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Fibers Public
Supply Well Field, Guayaiw, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-0181 To 0181 Date: 11/20/86
Title: (Letter forwarding the proposed Quality Assurance/Quality Control plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Bly, Herbert A.: American Home Products Corporation
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0182
-------
08/01/91
Index Document Number Order
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Page: 3
Document Number: F1B-001-0182 To 0275
Parent: FIB-001-0181
Date: 11/12/86
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils. Quality Assurance Project Plan Short Form (Fibers
Public Supply Wells site, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: PLAN
Author: Sherlock, Philip: Dames I Moore
Recipient: none: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-0276 To 0276
Date: 04/07/86
Title: (Letter forwarding Site Operations Plan and Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for Fibers
Public Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto.Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-0277
Docunent Number: FIB-001-0277 To 0428
Parent: FIB-001-0276
Date: 04/01/86
Title: Site Operations Plan. Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well
Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-0429 To 0595
Date: 06/05/90
Title: (Letter forwarding attached results of sampling from 2/90 and 4/90 at the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: DATA
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 Index Docunent Number Order Page: 4
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY UELLS SITE Docunents
Document Number: FIB-001-0596 To 1116 Date: 04/15/87
Title: Analytical Assessment of Excavated Soils Contamination Report (Fibers Public Supply Wells
site, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: DATA
Author: none: Dames t Moore
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-1117 To 1117 Date: 01/30/90
Title: (Letter forwarding the rewritten Work Plan to conduct Modified Remedial Investigation for
a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plant)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Kelly, William P.: American Home Products Corporation
Recipient: Miles. Joan: US EPA
Attached: FIB-001-1118
Document Number: FIB-001-1118 To 1265 Parent: FIB-001-1117 Date: 11/01/89
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Plant, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Document Number: FIB-001-1266 To 1266 Date: 09/20/85
Title: (Letter forwarding the revised Work Plan - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the
Fibers Public Supply Well Field, Guayama, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: various: various
Attached: FIB-001-1267
-------
08/01/91 Index Oocunent Number Order Page: 5
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-1267 To 1314 Parent: FIB-001-1266 Date: 10/01/85
Title: Work Plan Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study. Fibers Public Supply Well Field. Cuayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Number: FIB-001-1315 To U96 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Report for the Modified Remedial Investigation for • Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plant, Volume I • Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Docunent Number: F1B-001-1497 To 1715 Date: 11/01/90
Title: Modified Remedial Investigation for a Soils Disposal Area at the Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Plant, Volume II, Appendices - Draft Final
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Engineering-Science, Inc.
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation
Docunent Number: F1B-001-1716 To 1881 Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volume I. Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Nutter Order Page: 6
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Oocunents
Document Number: FIB-001-1882 To 2306 ' Date: 10/01/90
Title: Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report, Volume II. Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Cuayama,
Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: FIB-001-2307 To 2312 Date: 05/10/89
Title: (Letter pertaining to the Proposed Sampling Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears & Graham
Recipient: Peterson, Carole: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-2317 To 2340 Date: 06/02/87
Title: (Letter in response to • May 27, 1987, meeting discussing the five monitor veils described
In the Site Operations Plan)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Crum, Frank H.: Leggette, Brashears 4 Graham
Recipient: Czapor, John V.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-2341 To 2371 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter discussing the ARAR determinations for Fibers Public Supply Wells cite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Naldonado: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
-------
08/01/91 . Index Document Number Order Page: 7
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-2372 To 2373 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying ARARs)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Document Number: FIB-001-2374 To 2375 Date: 06/21/91
Title: (Letter consenting to a preliminary endorsement of discharging treated well water into the
Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority's Pat i lias Irrigation Channel, as long as certain conditions
are met)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: DelValle, Jose A.: Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: F1B-001-2376 To 2383 Date: 06/18/91
Title: (Letter forwarding attached comments on the Fibers Public Supply Wells Feasibility Study •
in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Claudio, Eduardo Sanchez: Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico •
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-001-2384 To 2385 Date: 05/30/91
Title: (Letter containing comments on the Fibers Public Supply Wells Feasibility Study • in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rohena-Betancourt, Santo*: PR Dept of Natural Resources
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
-------
98/01/91 • Index Document Number Order Page: 8
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-001-2386 To 2387 Date: 05/29/91
Title: (Letter containing comments on the Faasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Torres, Arturo: US Dept of the Interior
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Docunent Number: FIB-001-2388 To 2389 Date: 05/20/91
Title: (Letter consenting on the Interim Feasibility Study Report for the Fibers Public Supply Wells .
•ite)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ojeda, Pedro A. Haldonado: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Hauptman, Kelvin: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-002-0001 To 0001 Date: 09/26/90
Title: (letter forwarding the Draft Final Endangerment Assessment Report for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R-: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Alvi, M. Shaheer: US EPA
Attached: F1B-002-0002
Document Number: FIB-002-0002 To 0388 . Parent: FIB-002-0001 Date: 09/01/90
Title: Draft Final Endangernent Assessment, Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Cuayana, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Wroblewski, Debra: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 9
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Ooeunent Number: FIB-002-0389 To 0407 Date: 12/27/85
Title: Administrative Order Index No. II-CERCLA-50301. In the natter Fibers Public Supply Wells
Site - Phillips Petroleum Company, Chevron Chemical Coopany • Respondents
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various PRPs
.Ooeunent Number: FIB-002-0408 To 0422 Date: 09/28/89
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II - CERCIA-90303 (Fibers Public Supply Wells site)
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Muszynski, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Kapp, Roger W.: American Home Products Corporation
Docunent Number: FIB-002-0423 To 0498 Date: 09/30/86
Title: Administrative Order on Consent Index No. II • RCRA-3013-60301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Bly, Herbert A.: American Home Products Corporation
Ooeunent Number: FIB-002-0499 To 0501 Date: 07/29/85
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, VilUan J.: US EPA
Recipient: Cultigan, John W.: American Hone Products Corporation
Docunent Number: FIB-002-0502 To 0504 Date: 07/29/85
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Douce, William C.: Phillips Building
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 10
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-002-0505 To 0511 Date: 04/19/85
Title: (Response to 104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Alivernini, John N.: Ayerst-Uyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Recipient: Diamond, Lawrence V.: US EPA
Docunent Number: FI8-002-0512 To 0519 Date: 03/08/85
Title: (104(e) Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: none: American Home Products Corporation •
Document Number: F1B-002-0520 To 0526 Date: 11/13/89
Title: Addendum to Preliminary Health Assessment for Fibers Public Supply Wells, Cuayama, Puerto
Rico. CERCLIS No. 02PRD980763783
Type: PLAN
Author: various: Agency for Toxic Substances t Disease Registry (ATSOR)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: F1B-002-0527 To 0528 Date: 01/13/89
•
Title: (Letter forwarding the final revised Community Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Oev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: FIB-002-0529
Document Number: FIB-002-0529 To 0545 Parent: FIB-002-0527 Date: 01/01/89
Title: Final Revised Community Relations Plan for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayana, Puerto
Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Zanzalari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: none
-------
08/01/91 Index Document Number Order Page: 11
FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SITE Documents
Document Number: FIB-002-0546 To 0567 Date: 03/21/91
Title: (Response to 104(e> Information Request Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Recipient: Bosque, Adalberto: US EPA
Document Number: FIB-002-0568 To 0997 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Interim Feasibility Study Report • Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, Guayama, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Author: none: Leggette, Brashears I Graham
Recipient: none: various parties associated with the site
Document Number: FIB-002-0998 To 0999 Date: 04/18/91
Title: (Letter noticing Anaquest, Inc., that it may be a responsible party at the Fibers Public Supply
Wells site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Callahan, Kathleen C.: US EPA
Recipient: Nevarez, Mario: Anaquest, Inc.
Document Number: FIB-002-1000 To 1000 Date: 07/23/91
Title: (News Announcement: Notice of Public Meeting and Opportunity to Ccoment on the Proposed Plan
for Fibers Public Supply Wells • in Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE '
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: El Muevo Dia
------- |