United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R02-91/156
September 1991
«EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Juncos Landfill, PR
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION i. REPORT NO. 2.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R02-91/156
4. Title and Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Juncos Landfill, PR
First Remedial Action
7. Author(s)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and AddreM
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
3. Recipient's Accession No.
5. Report Date
0.9/24/91
6.
8. Performing Organization Rept No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. ContractfC) or Grant(G) No.
(C)
(G)
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
800/000
14.
IS. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
The approximately 20-acre Juncos Landfill site is an inactive municipal waste
landfill in the City of Juncos, Puerto Rico. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential, with a housing development located along the northern border of the
site. Two unnamed tributaries are located outside the eastern and western borders of
the site and flow to the Rio Gurabo. Municipal wastes including broken and/or intact
mercury thermometers, were disposed of at the site from 1957 to 1977, and in 1981,
the site was closed. Several EPA investigations revealed the presence of mercury and
VOCs in the soil, offsite leachate, and air. In 1984, under an Administrative Order,
EPA required the PRP to place a soil cover over some portions of the landfill where
wastes were exposed, and to assess risks posed by potential mercury contamination.
This Record of Decision (ROD) is the first of two operable units (OUs) and addresses
contaminated soil and soil/leachate. A future ROD will provide for remediation of
potential ground water contamination as a result of migrating leachate, as OU2. The
primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and debris are VOCs; other
organics including phenol; and metals including arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Juncos Landfill, PR
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Media: soil, debris
Key Contaminants: VOCs, other organics (phenols), metals (arsenic, chromium,
.. ,.< •« ,«. r_._.T lead, mercury)
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
16. Availability Statement
19. Security Class (This Report)
None
20. Security Class (This Page)
None
21. No. of Pages
96
22. Price
(See ANSI-Z39.18)
See Instruction* on Renno
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R02-91/156
Juncos Landfill, PR
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes constructing a single barrier cap
over the landfill to reduce surface infiltration, prevent direct contact, limit gas
emissions, and control erosion; installing a passive landfill gas venting system, which
could be converted to an active system if monitoring shows this is needed; clearing and
grubbing existing vegetation on the landfill area, and regrading the landfill/-
installing, if necessary, a leachate control system composed of a leachate storage
system prior to offsite treatment of leachate; providing for erosion control
appurtenances including drainage channels, and stilling and sediment basins; conducting
long-term monitoring of air, sediment, surface water, and leachate; relocating families
living in homes located along the immediate north face of the landfill during the
construction phase; and implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions, and site access restrictions including fencing. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $4,420,000, which includes an annual O&M cost of
$176,100.
PERFORMANCE STANDARD?; OR GOALS: Not applicable.
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name:
Location:
HRS Score:
NPL Rank:
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy:
Capital Cost:
O&M/Year:
Present Worth:
LEAD
Responsible party:
Primary contact:
PRP contact:
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Juncos Landfill
Juncos, Puerto Rico
32.57
464
September 26, 1991
Construction of a single-barrier cap which
includes installation of a fabric membrane
liner on the top surface of the Landfill to
reduce surface infiltration, prevent direct
contact, limit gas emissions, and control
erosion.
*
$ 3,465,000
$ 141,000
$ 4,420,000
Becton Dickinson
Jose C. Font (809) 729-6951
Perry Katz (908) 647-4505
commercial, industrial, residential as well as
mercury thermometers
Soil
Disposal at the Landfill of mercury containing
thermometers
Estimated Quantity: 17 to 20 acres
-------
DECLARATION FOR RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Juncos Landfill Site
Municipality of Juncos
Juncos, Puerto Rico
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents the selected remedial action for
Operable Unit One ("OU1") of the Juncos Landfill (the "Landfill")
located in the Municipality of Juncos, Juncos, 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"), and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"). This
decision document summarizes the factual and legal basis for
selecting the remedy for this site. s
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board ("EQJB")
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 to
the administrative record is attached as Appendix E .
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected
in this Record of Decision ("ROD"), may present an imminent and
substantial threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The OU1 remedy for the landfill is a source control remedy. It
consists of covering the landfill with a fabric membrane liner cap,
and undertaking other corrective actions which are designed to
protect human health and the environment. These activities
constitute the first Operable Unit at this Site; the second
Operable Unit will address the possible migration of contaminants
from the landfill property.
-------
-2-
The major components of the selected remedy include:
0 Installation of a security fence around the perimeter of
the landfill property to restrict access to the Site;
0 Placing institutional controls on the landfill property
in an attempt to preclude future development to ensure
the integrity of the cap;
0 Installation of a passive landfill gas venting system
which could be converted into an active system, if
necessary. The decision to convert to an active system
will be made after sampling of the gases is completed;
0 Installation of a leachate control system, as necessary.
This will be decided during regrading operations for
construction when the presence and quantity of leachate
will be more apparent;
0 Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation on the
landfill area, as needed, and regrading of the Landfill
to provide a maximum slope of 3H:1V;
0 Temporary relocation of families living in homes located
along the immediate north face of the Landfill during the
construction phase of this Alternative;
e Construction of a single-barrier cap which includes
installation of a fabric membrane liner on the top
surface of the Landfill to reduce surface infiltration,
prevent direct contact, limit gas emissions, and control
erosion.
0 Provision for erosion and sediment control appurtenances
as needed to be in compliance with any local requirements
in Puerto Rico and best engineering practices. This
typically consists of drainage channels, stilling basins,
and sediment basins.
0 Provision of long-term operation and maintenance of the
landfill cap, including routine inspections and repairs;
and
0 Provision of long-term air, sediment, surface water, and
leachate monitoring to evaluate the remedial action
effectiveness .
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, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable for this site. However, because treatment of
the principal threats at the site was not found to be practicable,
this remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment
as a principal element of the remedy. As this remedy will result
in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based
levels, a review will be conducted every five years after
commencement of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
Constantino' Sidamizta-Erist/dff Da"te
Regional/Administrator /
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
TABLE UF CONTENTS
DECISION 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 RESPONSE ACTION 4
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 5
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
VII. DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 11
VIII. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 18
IX. SELECTED REMEDY 24
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 25
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - TABLES
APPENDIX C - COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO LETTER OF
CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D - RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX E - ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
-------
I. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Juncos Landfill Site (the "Site" or "the Landfill") is located
in the Municipality of Juncos, Puerto Rico as illustrated in Figure
1. The Site includes an inactive municipal landfill which occupies
approximately 17 to 20 acres of land. The northern perimeter of
the landfill is bordered by a residential housing development as
illustrated in Figure 2. The southern boundary of the landfill is
bordered by a high point which is nearly 70 feet above grade.
Outside the eastern and western boundaries, the landfill is
bordered by two unnamed streams. These streams flow to the north
and are tributaries to the Quebrada Ceiba which flows to the Rio
Gurabo. The confluence of the unnamed tributaries with Quebrada
Ceiba is approximately 2,000 feet north of the landfill.
The Landfill is approximately 10 to 30 feet thick with a soil
cover, approximately 1.5 feet thick, and thick grassy vegetation.
Topographically, the landfill slopes are predominantly low to
moderate with a topographic high in the southwest quadrant of the
Site. While superficial runoff will occur radially off the
topographic high, the prevailing directions of runoff are to the
east and west. Surficial runoff from the Landfill ultimately flows
into the two unnamed tributaries of the Quebrada Ceiba. Flow in
the two tributaries is intermittent and is dependent on
precipitation events. There are no apparent marshes or wetland
areas within 1 1/2 miles of the Site.
The Juncos Landfill is underlain by Cretaceous to Jurassic-aged
granodiorite, which is described as a light to medium-grey, medium-
grained rock predominantly composed of plagioclase, quartz, and
bthrocolase. Overlying the granodiorite just to the north and
northeast, and along the western quarter and northeastern limits of
the Landfill are piedmont fan and alluvial terrace deposits of
Quaternary Age, consisting of unconsolidated deposits of sand,
gravel, silt and clay containing cobbles and some boulders
(Broedel, 1961). The remaining deposits overlying the bedrock in
the vicinity of the Site are comprised of either man-made fill
material or residual derived from the decomposition and weathering
of granodiorite. As a result of weathering and decomposition, a
friable bedrock unit developed in place along the contact between
the surficial deposits and the granodiorite.
The predominant direction of groundwater flow in the study area is
to the north-northeast. There is no evidence of the existence of
a continuing unit between the surficial deposits/weathered bedrock
unit and the underlying granodiorite formation. The predominant
horizontal direction of groundwater flow is the same for the
surficial deposits and bedrock unit, i.e., to the northeast.
-------
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Landfill is owned by the Municipality of Juncds, Puerto Rico,
which operated the Landfill between the years 1957 and 1977. It
was closed in 1981. In addition to municipal wastes, the Landfill
contains broken and/or intact mercury thermometers. These
thermometers were manufactured by Becton Dickinson (BD) Puerto
Rico, Inc. located in Juncos, Puerto Rico.
In April 1982, the USEPA Region II Field Investigation Team (FIT)
initiated sampling at the Site. The presence of mercury was
reported in ambient air and soil headspace, but the locations and
concentrations were not identified.
In September 1983, the USEPA conducted a site inspection of the
Landfill. During the site inspection, the USEPA detected mercury
in the air and soil in the southwest portion of the landfill, in
off-site leachate samples, and in soil samples collected in gardens
and behind homes adjacent to the Site. The USEPA FIT also
conducted a more extensive air survey in February 1983, which
indicated the detection of volatile organic compounds. Based on
these findings, the USEPA/Region II listed the landfill on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
On March 15, 1984, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent with BD pursuant to Section 106(a) of CERCLA, 42 USC
§9606(a), which called for BD to perform immediate corrective
actions at the Site (which included some access restrictions and a
soil cover on some portions of the Landfill where wastes were
exposed) and for performance of a preliminary investigation at the
Site to assess the imminent and significant risks, if any, to human
health and the environment posed by the alleged mercury presence at
the landfill.
Pursuant to this Order, BD retained Fred C. Hart and Associates
(HART) to conduct the investigation. Results of this investigation
are presented in the Preliminary Remedial Investigation of Juncos
Municipal Landfill, dated June 28, 1984. The investigation
indicated the following: mercury vapors were datectable in the
ambient air at the Landfill and in subsurface soil pore spaces
adjacent to the Landfill; concentrations of mercury below
background levels were detected in the samples of edible fish
collected from the stream adjacent to the Landfill; and no mercury
was detected in soils or sediments collected from off-site
locations. In addition, mercury levels detected in the soils and
sediments collected from locations near the Landfill were within a
range that is typical for locations with no known point source of
mercury contamination. The investigation also compared household
dust samples collected from residences directly adjacent to the
Landfill with background samples and found slightly higher levels
of total mercury in the household dust. Based on this
investigation, it was concluded that the Juncos Landfill was not a
-------
significant source of mercury exposure to off-site locations. An
evaluation of the results made by the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) as requested by EPA, concluded that the' Site posed no
immediate threat to human health.
On October 9, 1984 BD entered into a second Administrative Order on
Consent ("AOC") with EPA, which required BD to conduct a Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) at the Juncos Landfill.
BD retained HART for this work. Field activities commenced in
October of 1986 and continued at various times in 1987. Following
EPA comments on the first draft RI report, HART conducted
additional environmental sampling and analysis, which included
leachate, air, shallow soil, surface water, ground water and
municipal well sampling at and/or in the vicinity of the Landfill.
In December 1989, HART submitted an Addendum to the Site Operations
Plan (SOP) for additional field investigative activities to address
USEPA concerns regarding leachate characterization and biota uptake
of metals. The SOP was revised in February 1990 in response to EPA
comments, and was approved by EPA in a letter to Becton Dickinson
dated March 22, 1990. Field investigation activities commenced in
August 1990 and were completed in January 1991.
In November 1990, EPA separated the cleanup of the Site into two
(2) phases or Operable Units (OU). The first OU would focus on the
identification and abatement of the source of Site contamination at
the Landfill property. The second OU, which is currently underway,
would assess the nature and extent, if any, of migration of
contaminants from the Landfill property into groundwater. The OU
one RI Report was approved by EPA on November 30, 1990. BD will
perform a separate RI/FS for the second OU pursuant to the October,
1984 AOC.
On August 14, 1991, EPA was notified by a citizen adjacent to the
Landfill that smoke was being released. Concern was raised about
the potential release of contaminants from the Landfill through the
smoke. EPA conducted an investigation on August 16, 1991 which
revealed that an area approximately 50 feet by 100 feet on the
oldest portion of the landfill had apparently subsided. The grass
in this area was dead and several cracks in the surface were
venting smoke. The prevailing winds carried smoke in a westerly
direction parallel to La Ceiba Community. The smoke observed
during the investigation dissipated within 50 feet of the burned
area. Air sampling results for mercury and organic compounds
showed non detectable concentrations for these chemicals. However,
EPA has directed Becton and Dickinson and the Municipality of
Juncos to implement immediate corrective actions at the Site that
include covering the crevices of the Landfill that are smoking with
fill material, posting of signs advising potential hazards posed by
the Site to trespassers and repairing the fencing that currently
exists at the Site to prevent unauthorized access. During the
implementation of the remedy, additional actions may have to be
-------
taken if there is a reoccurrence of fire.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
In June 1991, EPA identified the preferred remedial alternative for
this operable unit and presented it to the public in the Juncos
Landfill Proposed Plan. The RI/FS Reports and the Proposed Plan
for the first operable unit at the Site were released to the public
in June 1991. These documents were made available at two
information repositories maintained at the Juncos Town Hall and
USEPA Caribbean Field Office. The notice of availability for these
documents was published in El Nuevo Dla on June 1, 1991. A public
comment period was originally held from June 1, 1991 through June
30, 1991. This public comment period was extended to July 30, 1991
as requested by local residents. In addition a public meeting was
held on June 15, 1991 to present the results of the RI/FS and the
preferred alternative as presented in the Proposed Plan for the
Landfill. At this meeting, representatives of the EPA presented
the Proposed Plan regarding remediation of the Site and later
answered questions and responded to comments concerning such plan
and other details related to the RI/FS reports. Responses to the
comments and questions received during the-public comment period
are included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is appended to
this ROD.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the problems at the Juncos Landfill
Site are complex. As a result, EPA has divided the work into two
OUs. The OUs are:
0 OU 1: Source control of Landfill
0 OU 2: Study of migration of contaminants from the
Landfill property into the groundwater.
This ROD addresses the First OU at the Landfill. The three
predominant contaminant transport media to be addressed are soil,
air and generation of leachate that may impact the groundwater.
The contaminant transport through groundwater will be addressed in
the Second OU ROD. Source control management of the Landfill will
address the closure of the portion of the Site which was formerly
operated as the Juncos Landfill proper.
The results of the RI revealed that the groundwater beneath and
downgradient from the Landfill has been contaminated with
chloroform, chromium and mercury. The extent of this plume as well
as the need for mitigation, will be delineated in the Second OU
ROD. The remediation of the Site will be complete after EPA has
selected remedial actions for both OUs and these remedial actions
have been implemented.
-------
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The nature and extent of contamination at the Landfill was
investigated during the OU 1 RI.
Leachate Characterization
Site reconnaissance activities revealed the presence of leachate
seeps in the northeast corner of the site. In this area, the
landfill slopes are steep and in several places garbage protrudes
through the slopes. Three (3) soil samples were collected in these
drainage areas, because the seeps were not flowing at the time of
sampling. No priority pollutant organics were indicated in these
samples and metals concentrations were within common ranges for
natural soils. Total cyanide was detected in one (1) leachate soil
sample at 1.7 mg/kg.
Additionally, two (2) leachate samples were collected, consisting
of one (1) sample (LW-l) from a low spot located outside the
southeast corner of the Landfill, and one (1) from a seep (L-l) on
the northeastern side of the Landfill. Leachate sampling locations
are illustrated in Figure 2. Sample L-l is_considered to be more
representative of Landfill leachate than LW-l which was collected
from ponded surface water. The ponded surface water could have
never been in contact with waste material at the Landfill. In L-l,
with the exception of nitrate, all the leachate indicator
parameters were within or below typical sanitary leachate levels
for which ranges are available. In comparison to Puerto Rico Water
Quality Standards (PRWQS), nitrate and total dissolved solid (TDS)
values were elevated. No priority pollutant organics were present
in the samples at concentrations above Federal Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (AWQC) or Federal Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs). With the exception of nickel varies in
excess of AWQC, all other detected metal concentrations were below
the respective PRWQS, MCL and AWQCs. The analytical results for
leachate water and soils samples are summarized in Table 1.
Based on the RI data, leachate from the Site appears to be more
characteristic of municipal landfill leachate than hazardous waste
landfill leachate.
Air Quality
Air sampling for mercury and priority pollutant volatile organics
was conducted in the vicinity of the Juncos Landfill to assess if
the Landfill is impacting ambient air. The analytical results of
air samples under ambient conditions are summarized in Table 2.
Air sampling was also conducted at off-site locations during
drilling for health and safety purposes. Detected values were
compared to Threshold Level Values (TLVs), where applicable. TLVs
are concentrations established for worker safety during routine 8-
hour work days.
-------
Three (3) out of twenty (20) air samples indicated inorganic
mercury downwind of the Landfill during normal Site conditions.
Concentrations of inorganic mercury in these three samples ranged
from 0.5-1.2 ug/m3. All detected levels of inorganic mercury in
air samples collected at off-site locations during drilling
activities were below TLVs.
In addition, ambient air levels of volatile organics during
drilling were approximately one million times below TLVs. Because
there were negligible differences between upwind and downwind
concentrations, the Landfill does not appear to be impacting
ambient air levels with volatile organics.
Shallow Soils Characterization
In the Phase I RI, three (3) soil samples including one (1)
replicate from the top of the Landfill and two (2) soil samples
from the north face of the Landfill were collected to characterize
shallow soils. The Landfill cover soils contained metals in
average concentrations of: cadmium (2.6 mg/kg), copper (168.29
mg/kg), nickel (41.33 mg/kg), lead (63.10 mg/kg), mercury (13.75
mg/kg) and zinc (165.0 mg/kg). Metals concentrations exceed
typical values in natural soils. The elevated metals levels in the
cover soils may be due to the presence of scrap metal, batteries
and/or construction debris which were probably disposed of in the
Landfill. Only two (2) organic compounds were detected in one (1)
cover soil sample: 1,4-dichlorobenzene at 2.97 mg/kg and total
phenols at 0.5 mg/kg. Analytical results for surface soil samples
are summarized in Table 3.
Soils from the north face of the Landfill contained mercury in one
(1) sample at a concentration two orders of magnitude greater than
natural soils and mercury levels found in landfill cover soils.
Since mercury levels in all of the other soil samples collected
within the vicinity of the Landfill were generally within typical
values for soils, the elevated mercury concentrations appear to be
located on the north face of the Landfill. No priority pollutant
organics were detected in soils from the north face.
As a result of the Phase I RI soil sampling results, additional
shallow soil samples for mercury analysis were collected along a
grid system in the vicinity of the sample which contained the
elevated mercury concentration (SS-1). Analytical results for
Phase IA soil sampling are summarized in Table 4. Mercury levels
decreased radially from sample S-6-89 and ranged in concentration
from 0.54 mg/kg to 48.60 mg/kg. As part of the Phase IA RI
sampling program, EP toxicity testing was also performed on the
soil sample with the highest total mercury level. The EP toxicity
test indicated that mercury will not leach out of the soil for this
particular sample. However, there is a potential for the presence
of higher mercury concentrations at greater depths at the Landfill,
-------
due to the fact that wastes were disposed at the Landfill over
time.
Surface Water Quality
Surface water from the two (2) unnamed tributaries flowing along
the east and west sides of the Landfill and Quebrada Ceiba, into
which the two tributaries flow, contained three (3) detectable
metals: lead, mercury, and zinc. Sample number SW-3, located 0.4
miles downstream from the Landfill, contained mercury at a
concentration of 0.6 ug/1 which was below PRWQS, MCLs and AWQCs for
consumption of drinking water but exceeded the AWQC for consumption
of aquatic organisms and drinking water. Since this sample was
unfiltered, and background levels of mercury were detected in the
sediments at this location, it is likely that the detected mercury
value is due to particulates within the surface water.
Concentrations of mercury in surface water samples were lower at
locations closer to the Landfill.
In downstream surface water samples, no other priority pollutant
compounds were detected at concentrations above detection limits.
Concentrations of nitrate as N, chloride and TDS were below PRWQS.
Thus, it is not evident that the landfill is adversely impacting
the surface waters. Analytical results of surface water samples
are summarized in Table 5.
Sediment Characterization
Sediment samples collected from watercourses flowing along the east
and west sides of the landfill and into Quebrada Ceiba indicated
cadmium and three organic compounds. Summary of analytical results
of sediments samples are provided in Table 6. Cadmium
concentrations exceeding typical soil levels were detected in
sediments collected immediately up and downstream of the Landfill
in the western watercourse. Since the detected concentrations of
cadmium in upstream samples were higher than in downstream samples,
the detection of cadmium is probably due to an upstream source.
The three detected organics: bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate at 5,370
ug/kg, fluoranthene at 269 ug/kg and pyrene at 225 ug/kg were
detected in sediments located 0.4 miles from the Site. The
distance of these sampling locations from the Site and the fact
that none of these compounds were detected above detection limits
in on-site soil samples suggests that the presence of these
compounds is due to a source other than the Juncos Landfill.
Groundvater
The predominant groundwater flow direction for the surficial
deposits and weathered bedrock unit and for the underlying
granodiorite formation is interpreted to be to the north-northeast
-------
towards the Rio Gurabo Valley. Groundwater flow at the municipal
well field, located 1.25 miles northwest of the Site, is south-
south east towards Rio Gurabo. None of the detected analytical
parameters in the three municipal well samples exceeded any of the
drinking water standards. As a result, the quality of the
groundwater at the municipal well field is acceptable. Metals such
as chromium and lead have been detected in groundwater underlying
the Landfill at concentrations in excess of drinking water
standards. The concentrations are 230 ug/1 and 150 ug/1,
respectively. Mercury and arsenic were also detected. Detected
values did not exceed the drinking water standard of 2.0 ug/1 and
50 ug/1 respectively.
The only volatile organic compound detected in the monitoring wells
in excess of drinking water standards during both sampling rounds
was chloroform at 2,590 ug/1.
The analytical results for groundwater samples are summarized in
Table 7.
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
associated with the Landfill in its current state. The Risk
Assessment focused on the Landfill chemicals identified above
detection limits in the sampling of environmental media. All the
contaminants identified above detection limits in the sampling of
environmental media at the Juncos Landfill were selected as
contaminants of concern and 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 Landfill under a current land-use scenario. In addition,
the potential future risks associated with 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:
• exposure to contaminants from ingestion and dermal contact
of contaminated surface soils at the Landfill
• inhalation exposure to mercury vapors emitted from
contaminated soils
• hypothetical 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
8
-------
(adults and children) of the site surrounding neighborhoods.
Under current EPA guidelines, the likelihood of carcinogenic
(cancer causing) and noncarcinogenic 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 noncarcinogenic risks associated with
exposures to individuals were summed to indicate the potential
risks associated with mixtures of potential carcinogens and non-
carcinogens, respectively.
Noncarcinogenic 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 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 potential exists for noncarcinogenic
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 RfDs for the contaminants are
presented in Table 10 and the His are in Table 11.
The HI for exposure to noncarcinogenic Site-related mercury via
ingestion of soils (3.1) and air inhalation (1.15) is above one,
suggesting that adverse noncarcinogenic effects are likely to occur
at the site.
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)1, 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. The SFs for the contaminants of concern are listed in
Table 10 and the cancer risk levels are presented in Table 12.
For known or suspected carcinogens, the USEPA considers excess
-------
upper bound individual lifetime cancer risks of between 1CT4 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
cumulative upper bound risk for adults for all carcinogens at the
Landfill is 1.3 x 10"3. The cumulative upper bound risk for
children for all carcinogens associated with potential groundwater-
use at the Landfill is 2.4 x 10'3. The current risk to children is
4.0 x 10-».
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 distribut. -in 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
Landfill, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks
related.to the Landfill.
10
-------
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Landfill, 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.
VII. DESCRIPTION OP REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The goal of the remedial action is to prevent, reduce or control
the potential impacts caused by inhalation of airborne contaminants
released via erosion or remedial activities, direct contact with
on-site surface soils, and on-site measures to reduce and control
leachate generation. Technically applicable technologies were
identified in the FS Report. In general, treatment or removal
alternatives that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume are
preferred. However, it has been estimated that a total of
400,000 cubic yards of waste were landfilled at the 17-20 acre
Landfill. If the waste were removed, clean fill material would
have to be brought in to bring the Landfill to existing ground
surface elevations. The cost for removal, disposal and filling
operations for this Landfill would be approximately 100 million
dollars. Partial ("hot spot") removal or treatment would be a more
feasible option. However, it is not appropriate at the Landfill,
because no discrete areas, contaminated by high levels of an
identifiable waste type which represented a principal threat to
public health or the environment, were located. Results from the
OUl RI observed low concentration contaminants dispersed throughout
the Landfill. Removal and disposal technologies were eliminated in
the screening process due to excessive cost and impracticability.
The First Operable Unit FS focused on the no-action alternative and
three landfill closure alternatives for detailed evaluation. The
Landfill closure alternatives consisted of three containment
options. Estimated costs and implementation times are summarized
here from the FS.
ALTERNATIVE l! No Action
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) requires that the "no-action"
alternative be considered at every site. Under this alternative,
the Landfill would be retained in its current condition. This
would include leaving the existing soil cover and vegetation that
cover a significant portion of the Site.
A monitoring program would be implemented to evaluate or track the
potential for future migration of contaminants, to identify any
impacts to the public health and/or environment, and to identify a
portion at which remedial activities may be required.
Periodic monitoring of air, surface water, sediment and leachate
would be conducted to evaluate the need for further remedial
action. For purposes of cost evaluation, it is assumed that
11
-------
monitoring would be conducted quarterly for the first five years,
semi-annually from years six through ten, and annually from years
eleven through thirty.
Monitoring of the unnamed tributaries would be conducted to
determine if a discharge of contaminants to these watercourses is
occurring. Air sampling would be used to verify the effectiveness
of the existing soil and vegetative cover and the effects of
erosion. Comprehensive monitoring would extend over a 30 year
period. Monitoring requirements would be assessed every 5 years
and reduced or increased as warranted.
No capital cost would be required to implement this alternative.
The present worth value for the estimated annual maintenance and
monitoring cost of the no-action alternative is approximately
$1,088,000. There would be no change in the level of protection of
public health. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial
actions that leave hazardous substances at a site are to be
reviewed at least once every five years to assure that the remedial
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. The cost components are as follows:
Capital Cost $ 0
Annual O&M Cost: $ 203,900
Present Worth O&M Cost: $ 1,088,000
Total Cost: $ 1,088,000
ALTERNATIVE II; Fencing
This remedial action alternative includes several items.
Installation of the chainlink security fence would restrict access
to the Site and limit direct contact with Site contaminants. The
fence would be continuous and would be equipped with locked gates
to restrict access. Additional security would be provided by
installing barbed wire at the top of the fence. Signs would be
posted in Spanish and English to make it clear to potential
trespassers that there may be a health threat associated with going
on the Site.
The existing topographic conditions at the Site would be evaluated
in detail in order to generate a comprehensive surface water
management plan. The plan will be generated during the design
phase of the project. The plan will be written to be in compliance
with the guidance available for erosion and sediment control
measures in Puerto Rico. If information is not available, the
design will be based on best engineering practices. Installation
of erosion and sediment control structures for the landfill area
include; construction of stormwater management structures;
placement of erosion protection materials; and, implementation of
surface water diversion on the Landfill, as needed. These surface
12
-------
controls would result in a reduction of migration of Site
contaminants to adjacent surface water and sediment, as well as a
minimization of infiltration into the Landfill. Following
construction of erosion and sediment control structures, the
Landfill will be reseeded until adequate vegetative growth is
established. The seed mixture will consist of grass recommended by
the local soil conservation officials.
Long-term monitoring would be conducted to evaluate the potential
for any increased exposure to the public or environment from the
Site. Periodic monitoring of air, surface water, sediment and
leachate would be conducted for a period of approximately 30 years.
For purposes of cost evaluation, it is assumed that monitoring
would be conducted quarterly for the first five years, semi-
annually from years six through ten and annually from years eleven
through thirty. Monitoring requirements would be decreased or
increased as appropriate. Because hazardous substances will remain
on-site above health-based levels, a five year review will be
conducted.
Capital costs include installation of the fence, erosion and
sedimentation controls and the cost to secure institutional
controls (i.e., access, deed and/or land use restrictions).
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs include monitoring, annual
reporting and inspection, and annual maintenance. The total
present worth cost of the alternative is estimated to be
$1,488,000. The cost components are as follows:
Capital Cost: $ 389,000
Annual O&M Cost: $ 204,000
Present Worth O&M Cost: $1,100,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $1,488,000
ALTERNATIVE III; RCRA Cap
This alternative would consist of the following:
0 Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation on the Landfill
area, as needed, and regrading of the Landfill to provide an
assumed final maximum slope of 3H:1V. However, permissible
maximum slopes would be calculated based on stability
limitations, prior to final design of the cap system. Final
grades and benching would also be designed to provide surface
water management and to minimize erosion. Additionally, final
grades should be designed to prevent ponding of precipitation.
Typically, the final grade of the Landfill surface should not
be less than three percent. Grading may be varied in order to
accommodate existing structures either above or adjacent to
the Landfill. It is anticipated that the Landfill slope
adjacent to the homes along the northern edge of the Landfill
will require regrading to facilitate cap construction,
13
-------
therefore, families living along this edge will be asked to
temporarily relocate during construction activities on this
side of the Landfill. The extent of surface and slope
regrading for the entire Landfill will be determined in the
remedial design phase. Any material that would be removed to
create the necessary grades would be consolidated with other
Landfill materials at the site.
0 Installation of a cap system consistent with the RCRA Subtitle
C requirements. A typical RCRA cap may consist of the
following materials (in descending order) : a seeded vegetative
layer; a 6-inch layer of topsoil; a 12-inch layer of sand; a
30-mil geomembrane; 24 inches of compacted low permeability
clay; and one foot soil or sand (gas collection). Figure 3
shows typical details for a RCRA C cap.
0 Installation of a passive landfill gas control system, which
shall consist of gas collection wells that are vented directly
into the atmosphere. The wells shall be designed such that
each unit can be converted into an active collection system if
necessary.
0 Installation of a leachate control system that consists of a
leachate collection toe drain, a leachate storage system, and
off-site treatment of the leachate. The need for the leachate
control system will be determined during construction.
0 Installation of a chain-link security fence around the entire
Landfill.
0 Provision for erosion and sediment control appurtenances as
needed to be in compliance with any local requirements in
Puerto Rico and best engineering practices. This typically
consists of drainage channels, stilling basins, and sediment
basins.
0 Monitoring of air, sediment, surface water, and leachate to
evaluate the remedial action effectiveness. Monitoring would
be conducted according to the schedule presented for
Alternative 2.
0 Institutional controls (i.e., access, deed and/or land use
restrictions) as described in Alternative 2 to reg te future
site development.
0 The construction period for this Alternative is expected to be
18 months; after allowing approximately 12 months for design.
Because hazardous substances will remain on-site above health-based
levels, a five year review will be conducted.
The total present worth cost of Alternative III is estimated to be
14
-------
$7,108,000. The cost components are as follows:
Capital Cost: $6,153,000
Annual O&M Cost: $ 176,100
Present Worth O&M Costs: $ 955,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $7,108,000
ALTERNATIVE IV; single-Barrier Cap
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 with the exception that
a single-barrier cap will be used in lieu of the RCRA cap. The
main functions of a single-barrier cap are to reduce surface
infiltration, prevent direct contact, limit gas emissions, and
control erosion. The two most commonly used barrier layers are
clay soils and geomembrane. Both serve as low-permeability barrier
layers that reduce surface water infiltration into the landfill.
0 A typical single-barrier cap would consist of the following
(in descending order): a seeded vegetative and protective
layer - 6 inches of top soil and 18 inches of native soil;
optional drainage layer - 12 inches of sand or a composite
drainage net; barrier layer - 24 inches of clay or a 30-mil
Fabric Membrane Liner (FML); and a bedding layer - 12 to 24
inches of compacted selected native soil or sand subgrade.
Other components of the alternative include:
0 Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation on the Landfill
area, as needed, and regrading of the Landfill to provide a
slope of 3H:1V. However, permissible maximum slopes would be
calculated based on stability limitations, prior to final
design of the cap system. Final grades and benching would
also be designed to provide surface water management and to
minimize erosion. Additionally, final grades should be
designed to prevent ponding of precipitation. Typically, the
final grade of the landfill surface should not be less than
three percent. Grading may be varied in order to accommodate
existing structures either above or adjacent to the Landfill.
For instance, it is anticipated that the Landfill slope
adjacent to the homes along the northern edge of the Landfill
will require regrading to facilitate cap construction.
Families living next to the northern edge of the Landfill will
be asked to temporarily relocate during construction. The
extent of surface and slope regrading for the entire Landfill
will be determined in the remedial design phase. Any material
that would be removed to create the necessary grades would be
consolidated with other Landfill materials at the Site.
o
Installation of a cap system with the components described
above. Figure 4 and Figure 5 show typical details for the
single-barrier cap. Following installation of the cap, the
15
-------
entire cap surface and other areas affected by construction
will be revegetated.
0 Installation of a passive landfill gas control system which
shall consist of gas collection wells that are vented directly
to the atmosphere. The wells shall be designed such that each
unit can be converted into an active collection system if
necessary.
0 Installation of a leachate control system that consists of a
leachate storage system, and off-site treatment of the
leachate. The need for the leachate control system will be
determined during construction.
0 Installation of a chain-link security fence around the entire
Landfill.
0 Provision for erosion and sediment control appurtenances as
needed to be in compliance with any local requirements in
Puerto Rico and best engineering practices. This typically
consists of drainage channels, stilling basins, and sediment
basins.
0 Monitoring of air, sediment, surface water, and leachate to
evaluate the remedial action effectiveness. Monitoring would
be conducted according to the schedule presented for
Alternative 2.
0 Institutional controls in an attempt to regulate future site
development.
0 The construction period for this Alternative is expected to be
18 months for the single-barrier cap with clay and 12 months
for the single-barrier cap with the FML, after allowing
approximately 12 months for design.
Because hazardous substances will remain on-site above health-based
levels, a five year review will be conducted.
Capital Cost of clay geosynthetic cap: $5,317,000
Capital cost of FML cap: $3,465,000
Annual O&M: $ 176,100
Present Worth O&M Costs for each: $ 955,000
Total Present Worth Cost of clay
geosynthetic cap: $6,272,000
Total Present Worth Cost of FML cap: $4,420,000
ALTERNATIVE V; Soil Cap
Alternative 5 is basically identical to Alternative 3 with the
exception that a soil capping system would be installed instead of
a RCRA Cap. This capping system would involve placing a two (2)
16
-------
foot layer of native soil above the entire Landfill. A gas
collection layer (sand) is incorporated into this- design scenario
although it is not required by the Puerto Rico regulations.
Engineering calculations for similar projects indicate that a
single soil component can be stable at slopes greater than 3H:1V,
if constructed using special construction techniques. Therefore,
it is assumed that the existing grades will be acceptable for the
placement of the soil cap. However, the actual stability of this
construction scenario will be evaluated prior to final design. A
typical design for this capping system is shown in Figure 6.
The purpose of the soil cap would be to prevent human exposure and
rainfall contact with the landfill contents, to reduce infiltration
and leaching of contaminants, and to reduce the transport of
contaminants by surface water runoff. Capped areas would be
covered with soil, compacted, graded, seeded, and fertilized.
Erosion and sediment control structures would be designed to meet
any regulatory requirements and to accommodate the existing
conditions at the Site. If required, a Landfill gas control system
would be installed. Leachate collection trenches would be
installed as needed to intercept leachate, thus controlling
leachate.
This alternative would consist of the following:
0 Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation on the Landfill
area, as needed, and regrading of the Landfill to provide
stable conditions based on stability calculations. Final
grades and benching would also be designed to provide surface
water management and to minimize erosion. Additionally, final
grades should be designed to prevent ponding of precipitation.
Typically, the final grade of the landfill surface should not
be less than three percent. Grading may be utilized in order
to accommodate existing structures either above or adjacent to
the Landfill. It is anticipated that the Landfill slope
adjacent to the homes along the northern edge of the Landfill
may require regrading to facilitate cap construction.
Temporary relocation of families living in these homes will be
requested during the construction phase of this Alternative.
The extent of surface and slope regrading for the entire
Landfill will be determined in the design phase. Any material
that would be removed to create the necessary grades would be
consolidated with other landfill materials at the site.
0 Installation of a 2-foot native soil cover system consistent
with the Puerto Rico Regulations for closure of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Landfills. Tentatively, the soil capping
system would consist of (in descending order); a seeded
vegetation layer; 6-inch layer of topsoil; 2 feet of selected
native soil material; a geotextile separation layer, and 1
foot of sand.
0 Installation of a passive Landfill gas control system which
17
-------
shall consist of gas collection wells that are vented directly
into the atmosphere. The wells shall be designed such that
each unit can be converted to an active collection system, if
necessary.
0 Installation of a leachate control system that consists of a
leachate collection toe drain; a leachate storage system; and
off-site treatment of the leachate as necessary. The need for
the leachate control system will be determined during
construction.
0 Installation of a chain-link security fence around the entire
Landfill.
0 Provision for erosion and sediment control appurtenances as
needed to be in compliance with any local requirements in
Puerto Rico and best engineering practices. This typically
consists of drainage channels, stilling basins, and sediment
basins.
0 Monitoring of air, sediment, surface water, and leachate to
evaluate the remedial action effectiveness. Monitoring would
be conducted according to the schedule presented for
Alternative 2.
0 Institutional controls in an attempt to regulate future site
development.
0 The construction period for this Alternative is expected to be
12 months, after allowing approximately 12 months for design.
Because hazardous substances will remain on-site above health-based
levels, a five year review will be conducted.
Capital Cost: $4,068,000
Annual O&M Cost: $ 176,100
Present Worth O&M Costs: $ 955,000
Total Present Worth Cost: $5,022,000
VIII. SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has developed nine criteria (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01),
codified ir 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
18
-------
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
eliminated, reduced, or controlled through treatment,
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with 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
19
-------
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
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 Proposed Plan. 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
The No Action Alternative does not meet the remedial action
objectives. This alternative does not provide protection of public
health and the environment because the potential risks associated
with the Site via direct contact are not mitigated.
Fencing, which is contained in all except the No Action
Alternative, will provide some limited degree of protection from
direct contact with the landfill contents. Because capping will
provide a far greater degree of protection and will also minimize
infiltration, EPA is focussing its preference towards the capping
alternatives. The three capping alternatives (RCRA cap, single-
barrier cap, soil cap) provide a similar degree of risk reduction
by eliminating the risk of direct contact to the landfill contents
and/or leachate. All three capping alternatives lessen leachate
formation to similar degrees, but the RCRA cap would minimize the
potential of subsequent ground water contamination to a greater
degree than the single-barrier or soil cap. This is because of the
greater reduction of precipitation infiltration afforded by the
RCRA cap versus the other capping alternatives.
The degree which risk reduction and the remedial action objectives
are achieved by the other component technologies is similar for the
three capping alternatives. This is because the surface controls,
leachate controls, landfill gas controls, institutional controls,
and fencing are components of each of the capping alternatives.
20
-------
These common components of the capping alternatives serve to
mitigate leachate seeps and air emissions, preclude access, and
control future site development.
2. Compliance with ARARs
The No Action and Fencing Alternatives do not meet Federal or State
ARARs established for capping and closure of the Site. The ARARs
for the Site are listed in Tables 13 thru 17 in Appendix B.
The RCRA cap alternative complies with the federal closure
requirements for a hazardous waste landfill under the RCRA Subtitle
C requirements. However, because it can not be proven that RCRA
regulated hazardous wastes were disposed of at the Site, and the
remedy does not involve the disposal of RCRA-regulated waste, the
RCRA Subtitle C closure standards are not applicable. However,
certain of the RCRA Subtitle C closure requirements, although not
applicable, may be relevant and appropriate for the Site. The soil
cap and the single-barrier cap would comply with the relevant and
appropriate provisions of RCRA Subtitle C closure requirements.
With respect to the other two capping alternatives, the single-
barrier cap would exceed the Subtitle D requirements as well as the
closure requirements in the Puerto Rico Hazardous and Non-Hazardous
Solid Waste Regulations, which are applicable to this Site. The
Soil Cap alternative meets the Federal and State (Commonwealth)
ARARs for capping/closure of the Site, since the selected soil for
the cap will have an appropriate permeability factor. Other
location specific and action specific ARARs for the Site such as
gas and leachate control are anticipated to be met by the capping
alternatives.
3. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The No Action Alternative provides no long-term effectiveness or
permanence for the Site. Fencing the landfill will not be
effective in reducing the risks that the Site presents. The
remedial action objectives would not be met and the potential risks
at the Site will not be mitigated.
The capping alternatives will provide a reliable technology if the
systems are properly maintained. Long-term cap maintenance
requirements include inspections, vegetation maintenance, and cap
system repair. Maintenance is critical to the long-term
effectiveness and permanence for containment because the Landfill
contents remain at the Site. Essentially, the capping alternatives
and component technologies are equally effective in providing a
permanent containment of the waste. However, the RCRA cap
alternative differs only in that it would be more effective in
preventing infiltration of precipitation by virtue of having more
barriers. Since RCRA hazardous waste can not be proven to have
been disposed at the Site, it is not necessary to install the extra
21
-------
layers that a RCRA cap design would require.
Since the other component technologies for the three capping
alternatives are the same (including surface controls, leachate
control, landfill gas control, institutional controls, and
fencing), their relative performance is comparable in terms of
their ability to mitigate leachate seeps and air emissions, and to
preclude access and future site development. Proper design and
installation of a cap system is paramount to minimize potential cap
system failure.
4. Reduction of the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the
Hazardous Substances, Pollutants, or Contaminants
No treatment technologies are proposed for the alternatives
evaluated or selected; therefore, the toxicity and volume criteria
are not met. However, there would be a reduction in the volume and
mobility of leachate to ground water due to the installation of
surface controls and a cap which would reduce precipitation
infiltration for all the capping alternatives. Fencing would not
address the reduction criteria at all. The No Action alternative
would allow for the continued release of leachate.
5. Short-Term Effectiveness
With the exception of physical hazards associated with the
monitoring activities, the No Action Alternative does not have any
other significant public health and environmental impacts
associated with implementation.
All the capping alternatives are anticipated to have the most
significant short-term effectiveness considerations. This is due
to the fact that regrading of the waste (in isolated areas) will be
required to a greater degree than the other alternatives because of
the steep slopes. During regrading operations related to
installing any of the caps, a short-term risk to the on-site
workers and the local residents in close proximity to the Landfill
would exist. It will be necessary to temporarily relocate families
on the northern side of the Landfill. EPA will afford these
families the opportunity to temporarily relocate for the time that
construction is underway along the northern side of the Landfill.
The capping alternatives would have the same short-term
effectiveness considerations during clearing and grubbing, erosion
and sediment control construction, leachate control system
installation, and gas management system installation. Other short-
term effectiveness considerations related to increased vehicular
traffic and noise during construction are comparable. The time
required to achieve the remedial response objectives would be
shorter for the capping alternatives utilizing geomembrane or soils
caps versus the RCRA C cap.
22
-------
6. Implementability
The Soil Cap and Single-Barrier C cap Alternatives would be easier
to construct and maintain than the RCRA C Cap Alternative.
Construction of the soil cap could probably be accomplished with
locally available soil. For the RCRA cap and single-barrier cap,
the local availability of clay has been tentatively confirmed with
the Soil Conservation Service in San Juan, Puerto Rico. If the
geomembrane was chosen as the low permeability component for the
single-barrier cap, a specialty contractor would be required for
installation.
The administrative feasibility is likely to be more problematic
with the RCRA C Cap Alternative, because of the degree of regrading
required to install the numerous layers that a RCRA C cap requires.
Implementation of institutional controls may be similarly difficult
for the capping alternatives in terms of obtaining access and/or
deed restrictions.
The No Action Alternative is readily implementable because no
construction or operation is required. However, if future
monitoring indicates more action is necessary, remedial action
would be required.
7. Cost
The RCRA Cap Alternative has a higher estimated capital cost
($6,157,000) versus the other capping alternatives due to the
additional cap components required for the RCRA cap. The Operation
and Maintenance Cost ($204,900) is greater for the Fencing
alternative than the capping alternatives, since it includes soil
sampling and analysis which is not considered under the capping
alten.atives . The No Action Alternative has no capital costs and
the annual O&M Cost is $203,900.
8. State Acceptance
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board concurs
with the selected remedy.
9. Community Acceptance
All comments submitted during the public comment period were
evaluated and are addressed in the attached Responsiveness Summary.
Based on the comments received during the public comment period,
EPA believes that the residents and town officials of Juncos
generally supported EPA's preferred alternative for the Landfill.
23
-------
IX. SELECTED REMEDY
3ased on the results of the OU1 RI/FS report, 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 IV with a Fabric
Membrane Layer as the preferred choice for addressing source
control management of the Landfill. The cost of this remedy is
estimated to be $4.42 million. This alternative consists of:
1) Installation of a security fence around the perimeter of
the Landfill property to restrict access to the Site;
2) Placing institutional controls on the Landfill property
in an attempt to preclude future development to ensure
the integrity of the cap;
3) Installation of a passive landfill gas venting system
which could be converted into an active system, if
necessary. The decision to convert to an active system
will be made after sampling of the gases is completed.
4) Installation of a leachate control system, as necessary.
This will be decided during regrading operations for
construction when the presence and quantity of leachate
will be more apparent;
5) Clearing and grubbing of existing vegetation on the
Landfill area, as needed, and regrading of the Landfill
to provide a maximum slope of 3H:1V;
6) Temporary relocation of families living in homes located
along the immediate north face of the Landfill during the
construction phase of this Alternative;
7) Construction of a single-barrier cap to reduce surface
infiltration, prevent direct contact, limit gas
emissions, and control erosion, as described below:
0 Vegetative and protective layer - 6 inches of
topsoil and 18 inches of native soil;
0 Optional drainage layer - 12 inches of sand or a
composite drainage net;
8 Barrier layer - a 30-mil Fabric Membrane Layer and,
0 Bedding layer - 12 to 24 inches of compacted select
native soil or sand subgrade.
8) Provision for erosion and sediment control appurtenances
24
-------
as needed to be in compliance with any local requirements
in Puerto Rico and best engineering practices. This
typically consists of drainage channels, stilling basins,
and sediment basins.
9) Provision of long-term operation and maintenance of the
landfill cap, including routine inspections and repairs;
and
10) Provision of long-term air, sediment, surface water, and
leachate monitoring to evaluate the remedial action
effectiveness.
The selected alternative provides the best balance among the nine
criteria used by EPA to evaluate remedial action alternatives.
Alternative. IV uses proven containment techniques and will minimize
future contaminant migration by reducing the volume of
precipitation which percolates through the landfilled wastes.
The precise details of each aspect of the selected remedy will be
determined during the Remedial Design phase of this overall
remediation project. After the installation of the final cap and
venting systems a monitoring program will be implemented to
determine whether conversion to an active landfill gas system
and/or treatment of gas is necessary.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
l. Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The single barrier landfill cap system will prevent direct contact
with the landfill contents and on-site contaminated soils. It will
also function to reduce surface infiltration, control erosion and
limit gas emissions. The single barrier cap system mitigates the
risk to public health and the environment determined to be
significant based on the risk assessment, and in conjunction with
the other components of the alternative, achieves the remedial
action objectives.
Installation of a landfill gas control system will prevent
potential methane and other gases from migrating off-site and
potentially infiltrating nearby homes and other public structures.
Additionally, a landfill gas control system will prevent Landfill
gases from permeating through the soil cover and adversely
affecting the vegetative cover. The installation of a security
fence and the use of institutional controls such as access and/or
Site restrictions will preclude site access and future site
development. To ensure that overall protection of public health
and the environment is maintained, a monitoring program will be
implemented to verify the effectiveness of the alternative. In
addition, because hazardous substances will remain on-site above
health-based levels, a five year review will be conducted.
25
-------
2. Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will comply with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal and Commonwealth requirements.
This alternative would meet and/or exceed the requirements for RCRA
Subtitle D closure/capping. In addition, implementation of
Alternative IV meets the closure requirements set forth in Rule I-
805c Closure and Post Closure of the Puerto Rico Hazardous and Non-
Hazardous Solid Waste Regulations and will comply with the relevant
and appropriate provisions of RCRA hazardous waste landfill closure
regulations.
3. Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is prescribed by compliance with state and
federal solid waste landfill closure ARAR's. The chosen
alternative provides overall effectiveness proportional to its
cost.
A cost analysis was done to estimate a range of costs for capital
and annual operation and maintenance. The range of estimated costs
considers whether the cover materials are readily available in the
vicinity of the Landfill. The final construction cost is expected
to fall within the range of costs provided. The estimated capital
cost of Alternative IV is $3,465,000. The estimated O&M for
Alternative IV is $176,100. The present worth cost is $4,420,000.
4. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies or Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum
Extent Practicable
EPA has determined that the selected remedy represents the maximum
extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologies can
be used in a cost-effective manner for the first operable unit at
the Juncos Landfill Site. Of those alternatives that are
protective of human health and the environment and meet ARARs, the
selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms of
long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity,
mobility, and volume through treatment, short-term effectiveness,
implementability, and cost while also considering the statutory
preference for treatment as a principal element and considering
Commonwealth and community acceptance.
The selected remedy offers a higher degree of permanence and
protectiveness than the soil cap or fencing alternative and has a
similar degree of protectiveness as the RCRA C cap alternative.
Treatment technologies for landfills are considered to be feasible
only if hot spots are found, and if it is a small to moderate
26
-------
volume. Furthermore, as stated in the NCP, EPA expects to contain
large volumes of low concentrations of material. The selected
remedy is consistent with this expectation.
5. Preference for Treatment As A Principal Element
The selected remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment because it is impractical to do so and not cost-
effective. The Landfill wastes are the principal threat at the
Site. Therefore, the entire Landfill volume, approximately
400,000 cubic yards, would require excavation and removal in order
to effectively treat the waste. This excavation of such a large
volume of waste is cost-prohibitive. Furthermore, in-situ
treatment of waste is technically impractical because no discrete
areas, contaminated by high levels of an identifiable waste type
which represented a principal threat to public health or the
environment, were located. Results from the OU 1 RI observed low
concentration contaminants dispersed throughout the Landfill. "Hot
spots" which may have been amenable to treatment, were not located.
27
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
FIGURE 1
PUCRTO
QUADRANGLE i
-------
FIGURE 2
IS so* MMIM II
M'tMtt ItM.AlMM
IIACMAII WAI|M
(PIIASI I4|
Figure 2
LEACHATE 8AMFIMO LOCATIONS
JUMCO* iAnon.1
JUMCO*. rut*TO «ico
HtfO C. MART AJSOCIATtS. IHC
-------
I
1
12" SAND
12" SAND
FIGURE 3
6" TOPSOIL
18" GENERAL EARTHF1LL
20 MIL GEOMEMBRANE
(MIN.)
24" CLAY
EXISTING SOIL COVER
(DEPTH VARIES)
TYPICAL RCRA CAP DETAIL
N.T.S.
FIGURE
-------
FIGURE 4
24" COMPACTED, LOW
PERMEABILITY CLAY
EXISTING SOIL COVER
(DEPTH VARIES)
6" TOPSOIL
EXISTING
S~ WASTE
18" GENERAL EARTHF1LL
12" DRAINAGE LAYER
12" SAND
TYPICAL SINGLE BARRIER CAP
(LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL) DETAIL
N.T.S.
FIGURE 4
-------
FIGURE 5-
18" GENERAL EAR7HFILL-
EXIST1NG SOIL COVER
(DEPTH VARIES)
S~
6" TOPSOIL
12" DRAINAGE LAYER
30 MIL GEOMEMBRANE
12" SAND
WASTE
TYPICAL SINGLE BARRIER
(GEOMEMBRANE) DETAIL
N.T.S.
FIGURE s
-------
FIGURE 6
12" SAND
6" TOPSOIL
24" GENERAL EARTHFILL
EXISTING SOIL COVER
(DEPTH VARIES)
'YPICAL SOIL COVER DETAIL
N.T.S.
FIGURE 6
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
LABQHA1QRY ANALYTICAL BCSUITS FOR LEACHATt WATER_ANP_50.!L SAMPLES ANDJ)A/QC SAMPLES
SAMPLING. JUNCOS P.R.
Parameter
leachate Indicators
Nitrate as N
TOC
pH
Ammonia as N
COO
BOO
Chloride
TOX
Specific Conductance
Acidity as CaCOi
Alkalinity as C»C03
TOS
Phenol its. Total
Cyanide, total
Priority Pollutant Metall
Arsenic
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Volatile Organic Compounds
Methylene Chloride
Trichlorofluoromelhane
Acid Extractable
Organic Compounds
Phenol
Base/Neutral E»tr»ctable
Organic Compounds
Bis(2-Ethylhe»yl)
phthalate
Oi-n-octyl phthalate
Detection
Limit
Soil
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.1
0.5
1.000
2.000
500
100
4.000
2.000
2.8
10
W*ier
0.1
1.0
NA
0 05
5.0
2
1.0
5
100
5
5
370
0.050
0.025
to
20
5
0.1
40
20
2.8
10
HART Identifier -
ETC Identifier -
63
420
420
1.9
13
13
- LS-1
- P17QI
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
-
NO
1.7
17.000
6.000
20,000
NO
23.000
56.000
NOB
NO
LS-2
PI 702
.
_
_
_
.
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
NO
NO
16.000
6.000
1.900
100
NO
15.000
ND
ND
Soil
LS-3
P1703
^
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
-
ND
NO
7.000
6.000
1.800
100
18.000
15.000
ND
NO
Water
Units
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
mg/kg
mg/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
LW-1 TB-3
Pljj92 PI 700
ND
743.753
6.68.6.68 -
0.08 -
710
34JM
34.8
47.48
485.472
15
150
370JH
NO
NO
70
50
27
0.5
NO
110
NO ND
NO BHOL
U"ilJ
mg/1
mg/1
pH Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
urn/cm
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
ug/1
BHOL
NO
ND
CD
m
NO
NO
ND
NO
NO
NO
ug/kg
ug/kg
ug/kg
NO
BMDL
BHOL
- ug/1
- ug/1
- ug/1
Legend
NA - Not Applicable
NO - Not Detected
BMDL - Below Method Detection Limit
Sample not analyied for parameter
Leachate Soil Sample
Leachate Water Sample
LS
LW
NOB
TB - Trip Blank
TOC - Total Organic Carbon
COO - Chemical Oiygen Demand
BOO - Biochemical Oiygen Demand
TOX - Total Organic Hal ides
TDS - Total Dissolved Solids
mg/1 - Hilligrams per liter
ug/1 - Hicrograms per liter
mg/kg - Hilligrams per kilogram
ug/kg - Hicrograms per kilogram
Value is reported as not detected because It was found at concentrations less than five times
(ten timct for common l«b contaminant*) the amount In any blank associated vlth sample.
JH - Value Is estimated because holding times were eiceeded.
<1350n-l8)
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF AIR SAMPLES UNDER AMBIENT CONDITIONS
Chemical
Volatile Organlcs (ng/m3)
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachlorlde
Chloromethane
Methylene Chloride
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1 - Trkhloroethane
Trlchlorofluoromethane
Number
of
Samples
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Number
Positive
IDs
10
1
8
8
1
10
4
10
Sample Range
Low
1.00
BOL
BOL
BDL
BDL
4.00
BDL
4.00
High
42.50
3.00
24.50
187.50
8.00
10.00
18.00
106.00
Sample
Mean
9.95
3.00
8.06
34.06
8.00
6.70
11.50
31.70
Metals (mg/m3)
Mercury
20
BDL
0.0008 0.0006
-------
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF SURFACE SOIL SAMPLES
Sample Mean
Parameter
Inorganics
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide, total
Organlcs
Total Phenols
1,4-Dlchlorobenzene
Number
of
Samples(l)
7
7
7
7
7
7
17
7
7
7
7
Number
Positive
IDs
6
2
2
2
7
7
15
o
1
7
2
Sample.Range
High
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
6.0
1.8
BDL
BDL
BDL
15.0
BDL
BDL
BDL
17.0
0.37
2,
30.
782.0
205.0
57.00
98.
1
464.0
1.7
,9
.0
.0
.0
Based on
Dectectlons
Only
.6
.5
11.13
0.30
2.
22.
168.29
63.10
13.75
41
1
.33
.0
0.5
2.97
165.0
1.1
0.5
2.97
Based on all
Samples
9.54
0.086
0.743
6.43
168.29
63.10
12.13
35.43
0.143
165.0
0.31
0.07
0.42
I
m
Footnotes:
(1) Includes results of four surface soil samples (SS-1, SS-2. GP-17 and GP-23/26) and three soil
samples collected from leachate seep areas (LS-1. LS-2 and LS-3) (see Tables 4.3-2 and 4.5-2
1n Draft Remedial Investigation Report, January 15. 1988).
(2) GP-23 and GP-26 are duplicate samples; their results were averaged and considered as one value.
(3) BDL means Below Detection Limit.
(4) All results In mg/kg (parts per million).
(5) Mercury data also Includes results of 10 soil samples collected January 25. 1989.
(1192P:6)
-------
% TABLE 4
ADDITIONAL PHASE IA SOIL SAMPLING RESULTS
Date HART Sample I.D. Matrix Analysis Concentration
1-25-89 S-l-89 Soil Total Hg 16.10 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-2-89 Soil Total Hg 21.10 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-3-89 Soil Total Hg * mg/kg
1-25-89 S-4-89 Soil Total Hg * mg/kg
1-25-89 S-5-89 Soil Total Hg 15.00 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-6-89 Soil Total Hg 48.60 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-6-89 Soil Eptox Hg 0.20 ug/1
1-25-89 S-7-89 Soil Total Hg 8.10 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-8-89 Soil Total Hg 9.50 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-9-89 Soil Total Hg 20.50 mg/kg
1-25-89 S-10-89 Soil Total Hg 28.80 mg/kg
1-26-89 S-ll-89 Soil Total Hg 0.04 mg/kg
2-1-89 S-12-89 Soil Total Hg 1.20 mg/kg
2-1-89 S-13-89 Soil Total Hg 0.54 mg/kg
2-1-89 S-14-89 Soil Total Hg 0.89 mg/kg
2-1-89 FB-3 H20 Total Hg 0.20 ug/1
* Access to sample location was denied by owner of chicken coop.
S-10-89 1s a replicate of S-6-89.
S-ll-89 Is a background sample.
(1075P/4:0102P)
-------
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF
SURFACE HATER SAMPLES7
Number Number
of Positive Sample Range Sample
Parameter Samples(l) IDs Low High Mean
Metals
Lead 3 1 BDL 0.007 0.007
Mercury 6 2 BDL 0.0006 0.0003
Z1nc 3 1 BDL 0.020 0.020
Organics
Total phenols 3 1 BDL 0.05 0.05
Footnotes:
(1) Includes the following samples: SW-1, SW-2, SW-3. SW-4, SW-5, SW-6
and SW-9. SW-2 and SW-9 are duplicate samples; their results were
averaged and considered as one value.
(2) All units in mg/1.
(3) BDL Means Below Detection Limit.
(4) Samples which were analyzed for metals were collected both filtered
and unfiltered, for dissolved and total metals concentrations,
respectively. The values presented on this table are for total metals
concentrations.
(5) The sample mean 1s calculated only from those samples in which the
parameter was detected, not the total number of samples.
-------
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL ?fSULTS OF SEDIMENT SAMPLES
Parameter
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Cyanide
Organlcs
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Number
of
Samolesd)
3
3
3
3
12
3
3
3
3
Number
Positive
IDs
3
2
3
3
4
3
1
1
1
Sample
Low
BDL
BDL
BOL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
Ranqe
High
5.00
1.80
7.00
6.70
0.20
21.0
0.25
0.269
0.225
Sample
Mean
4.00
0.75
6.00
5.90
0.15
16.33
0.25
0.269
0.225
Footnotes:
(1) Includes the following samples: SD-1, SD-1A, SD-2, SD-2A, SD-3, SD-3A,
SD-4. SD-4A, SD-5, SD-5A. SD-6, SD-6A. Duplicate samples (SD-2A/SD-17 and
SD-4/SD-17A) were averaged and considered as one value.
(2) A11 units In mg/kg
(3) BDL Means Below Detection Limit.
(4) Sample mean 1s calculated only from those samples in which the parameter
was detected, not the total number of samples.
-------
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF GROUNDHATER SAMPLES
Parameter
Number
of
Samples
Number
Positive
IDs
Sample Range
Low High
Sample
Mean
USEPA
Drinking
Hater
Standard
Inorganics.:
Antimony 11
Arsenic 11
Beryllium 11
Cadmium 11
Chromium 11
Copper 11
Lead 11
Mercury 11
Nickel 11
Silver 11
Zinc 11
Organics:
Chloroform 11
Methylene Chloride 11
Chlorobenzene 11
Carbon Disylfide 11
Benzoic acid !1
Di-n-butylphthalate 11
Phenol 11
1
8
k*
1
4
10
8
11
BDL -
BDL -
0.098
0.035
ALL SAMPLES WERE BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
BDL
0.006
0.009
0.125
0.019
ALL SAMPLES WERE BDL *****
BDL - 0.012
ALL SAMPLES WERE BDL *****
0.023- 0.251
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
BDL -
BDL -
BDL -
BDL -
BDL -
BDL -
BDL -
0.825
0.0055
0.0005
0.300
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.098
0.009
.006
.007
0.034
0.007
0.
0.
0.012
0.105
0.343
0.0055
.0005
.090
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.
0.
0.050
0.010
0.050
1.000*
0.050
0.002
0.05
5.000*
0.100
Footnotes:
1. All results 1n mg/1.
2. Results for metals are from filtered groundwater samples. Therefore, these
results Indicate dissolved metals concentrations.
3. Drinking water standards are Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) except those
designated with a *, which are secondary drinking water standards.
4. - Indicates that a value 1s not available.
5. The value for chloroform 1s for total trlhalomethanes, the chemical group to which
chloroform belongs.
6. The sample mean 1s based only on the samples 1n which the parameter was detected,
not the total number of samples.
7. Results are for the second sampling round occurring 1n January/February and April,
1989.
8. Detected values for chloroform are from samples collected April, 1989 (See Table
7.2-3)
-------
TABLE 8
CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
CONTAMINANTS
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS USED IN RISK ASSESSMENT BY MEDIUM
GROUND SURFACE SEDIMENT AIR SOIL LEACHATE POULTRY
WATER WATER SOIL
(ug/L) (ug/L) (mg/Kg) (ug/m3) (mg/Kg) (mg/Kg) (mg)
219.00
41.40
1.00
112.00
284.00
42.10
4.00
53.00
647.00
7.00
0.06
20.00
5.00
1.80
7. OO
0.25
6.70
0.20
21.00
0.800
17.00
0.37
2.90
30.00
782.00
1.7
205.00
57.00
98.00
1.00
464.00
17.00
6.00
1700.00
20.00
0.10
23.00
56.00
0.031
0.040
0.240
0.002
7.268
-------
Organics
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Carbon
Disulf ide
Carbon
Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1,4-Dichloro-
benzene
Fluoranthene
Methylene
Chloride
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Trichloro-
f luoromethane
-------
POTENTIALLY
EXPOSED
MEDIUM
Grounduater
Surface water
Sediment
Air. :.
*
Soil
Food chain
ROUTE ADULTS
Ingest I on
Dermal contact
and Inhalation
of volatile*
1 nges 1 1 on
Dermal contact
Ingest Ion
Dermal contact
Inhalation vapors
Participates
Ingest Ion
Dermal contact
Ingest Ion
Chicken
Eggs/milk
Beef
fish
fruits and
vegetables
T
Y
N
H
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
POPULATION
CHILDREN
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Table 9
PATHWAY SELECTION
PATHWAY
SELECTED
FOR EVALUATION? REASON FOR SELECTION/EXCLUSION
Y Drinking water obtained from municipal wellfleld that draws water from the same
aquifer as that located beneath the Juncos Landfill. A hypothetical upper bound
exposure evaluation was conducted using data from onslte monitoring wells.
Y
Y Surface water Is not a source of potable water but may be used recreat tonally by
children
Y Surface water may be used recreatlonally by children.
Y Sediment may be Incidentally ingested following hand to mouth contact.
Y Contact with sediment occurs during wading.
Y Inhalation of volet lies is not a route of major concern since sampling results did
not show discernable differences between upwind end downwind coi .-entrat ions. A
hypothetical upper bound exposure evaluation Is conducted using available monitoring
data.
N Vegetative cover.
Y Incidental soil Ingest Ion Is possible as a result of hand to mouth contact during
play and gardening activities.
Y Dermal exposure to soil may occur during play and gardening.
Y Homegrown foods represent an exposure source. Contamination data available only for
chickens.
N Exposure route that cannot be quantified due to lack of data.
N Exposure route that cannot be quantified due to lack of data.
N Exposure route that cannot be quantified due to lack of data.
N Exposure that cannot be quantified due to lack of data.
-------
Tabla 10
TOXICITY MEASURES FOR WASTE SITH EVALUATION: JUNCOS LANDFILL. JUNCOS PUEUTORICO
COMPOUND
No*)eafd*)0fe*ic
Eflede
Or a) Route
RfD-S(e) RfD-C(k)
Source
(Onl)
Noncameogeailc
Effect*
Inhalation Route
(maAt/day)
RfD-S(a) RIT1-C(I
Source
>) (hkal.)
Noncardno|enle
Effect of
Co.cera
Cancer Slope
Factor (CSP>
Oral Eapoture
(•eiAj/diy)-!
Source
(OrJ)
Cancer Slope
Factor (CSP):
Inhalation Eapoaure
(•t/»R/day)-l
Sonree
(Ukal.)
INORGANICS
Antimony
Aranlc
Bcnlliiei
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cv-ide
Lead
Mercury
KckeJ
.Silver
2»c
400E-O4
iME-ol
500E-OJ
200E-02
J.70E-O2
I ME -02
JME-84
3 06E-M
—
2 ME -01
4 OOE-O4
IOOE-01
SOOE-OJ
SooE-44
JOOE-01
J.70E-O2
2.00E-02
- -
JME-04
3 ME-OJ
300E-O1
2 ME -01
d
d
d
d
lrl400
4JOE400
|A|(
|B2|
cj'
c
J Odfi46l
I.40E400
do>« lor «ubrter.
«. EPAItcirrai ly ntvd«i4«| die n>ddfyafl**4. Verified RIDt, RICi. »d cater dope (acton art cirmtywl avaflaHe.
(. CafdioimlePoleoeyPartorawTeBUyBwJer revle«byEPAORISDalaBaa«X Hoiwver.iMhriatltdof bpiovldedui IRISi3B-*5piiU|JI.PolaeyPidorwed«mda1virJrroiBlliIttiBlirii)i(tdorajnirala|lii|eatkwo(l
liter* d Mtrr per day by • 7* k| MtilL
|. liiVeal»™ceoltoa)tltydala.oieRfD«brlJ-Cldilon>fce«te»eka«fc«eia«,or^ rode.
. RIDdalvfdiron4i*USEPAdj|nkln|wler*tandarda*llaledlnUSFJA IttlHEAST IrdQuarterreport.
•. In *e abiaee o< lordly data. Ike RIDi lor • af*ithalene km ben idopltd lor thta eom pound.
I. U*«tk*eaceo(la4clrydalaldi«RlrreKcda*e brkkklonlrileonoeiiaiiekaibea adopted.
f. RID br ckrook eipovre tt> 70 kf adill deal ved rnai EPA ADI of 0 02J »|/dry. Ddi U«| WalcrCdtedt DDe»nI br Be.ieie (USEPA 195. EPA Oflceof Ddi Mi| Water.
q. Uikal«rto«a1opevJueUuBderre>ie«rbyEPA. ABnllrUkladorof 4.7E-7mAnJh«be«nUrt«do«IRlS.
r. Unit lakajtloa rtat lador ka< rcpUeeduikiUiloai dope I ador U t'.e IRB data ba«(l/l V»IX
-------
Table 11
NONCARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
MEDIUM
Groundwater*
Surface water
Sediment
Air
Soil
Leachate Soil
Food chain
ROUTE
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Ingestion
Chicken
POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATIONS
ADULTS CHILDREN CHILDREN
(6-9 YRS) (0-6 YRS)
20.6
3.55E-6
7.5E-2
1.15
1.45E-1
9.56E-2
6.13E-2
11.3
1.05E-4
1.47E-3
5.25E-3
4.70E-3
8.14E-1
3.59E-1
3.42E-1
6.23E-3
1.97
3.09
* Potential future land use risk
-------
Table 12
CARCINOGENIC RISK ESTIMATES FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
MEDIUM
Groundwater*
Surface water
Sediment
Air
Soil
Leachate Soil
Food chain
ROUTE
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Dermal
Inhalation
Ingestion
Dermal
Ingestion
Ingestion
Chicken
POTENTIALLY EXPOSED POPULATIONS
ADULTS CHILDREN CHILDREN
(6-9 YRS) (0-6 YRS)
1E-3
2.12E-7
3.4E-4
5E-7
8E-6
5E-6
7E-6
8E-4
3E-7
2E-7
6E-6
3E-6
6E-6
3.69E-7
1.54E-3
3.9E-4
Potential future land-use risk
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION SPECIFIC ARARt FOR THE IUNCOS LANDFILL
Locate*
An* •ffocttag ttujtm at fivtt.
>
Raqimcmtal
ActiM le prauel fiA et <*iMKf«.
•
Pr«Mutwis«<<*)
Oivcnion. dmmrtiag. M ««k«f
activity tkM modifiM • *t«« or
tivtr «i«J *n«ct» fi* •* wMifo.
CKatkon
Fnh ««4 WiUlifc
Cew4iMliMAd
-------
14
roTtun/M FEDERAL ACTMN-sreeinc AtAiurxmrne NIMXU IANDPHL
D«l|* •?**•
CAA SMIM* IM (•)
W|M' CfittM «•*•• «• •
•JWr fiw ftviw. !%• |
• PMMife • Bc« A«*«HM« CMIM! T«ftw«^|f fBACI)
<•«••* fe> Ik* •*«(• »yiii>»m,
•nWoMMoMtkl
«MiMl l«*»ln«MM« M«M iKtMh)
I «•< Mi«t*B««*lral t<»if»»«t 4ni|*>
WW« • fttmit m MI
Ml «Mll« CCJICUA MlM*.
MMlJAM)«un«*M
r*«twiuui«
(VOC*)***)
l««Mt«MM44101Vh(
«4ft*BMCTi
LOW • l*y. lOcdMtor. •*•••
•Mr A»«to»4»C«*»l
T«c>«»lijy (RACT>.
V«ri*V dMOT«k
AM «( ««M| *o O. M *•.
V«ri*V MM
MM frf* M
• fc» • «»m jHig*^ «•<
<«Mft««
HMatuta c«nM te idtnwl *U
• «MIMto*4M«. »C*AMtMM*y
Uk «w •• «*•/•< HM«k OT«|m «f
•*•««•»>•:
40CniM«.UO(i)
• Aw*****-
IK •**«*•* *•< i
K.I.
. >*C«A««
• Aec
Mill xU i»»ii
-------
(continued
roTOTiAL pcoenAt Acrox-spccinc A* *•• KM iwinmpoa LANDFILL
Hmt • p
CM ii«w*. rtckita
4*CFMM4.XI*(4
CI1IM4 Il7(c)
4BCFKM4.UOM
« era M«. ill
Aw li««* kf iWMMl •( MlMiiMim
rim
«CTIIM«.UO
40cniM.no
MtvCMM ttM
400*401.*
far ••
T
^ o
DO
D ZD
-CL
Own* « Am «i
-------
1* M C*M nta> *• fUlW 4
KH r«40C|.
DJ*CMfl« •*'
•CWA ftflMl
fat <«i»r*Mg««
IfvJk. iMl. •• ««imH4 f if*.
40CFR*0»>
tocairOTW
40CFK1M7I
; Ml fM AHAR.
<**•••* *.!••!»
TlMM«pv«p«*t4r»k.
it f aali-c4 to
lU*MM«fl
IwMntltM. IWfTMl
Mw «• RCKA lra«w<
CAASirtin Kl(«)
:OMw
I
VttMt M^MmSMM M
MW WAw n>^M
ImMMMtu.
r Milily «U
40CFR»<«|
wilcr.
M* «!»» M •
(W MMlUtMMI MW>
htm tit ftttvOfu tmttt'nm. A«llm ••»««•«•
M* Me fMIWt «f *• •«• hvtaMllMtiMI p««ilM4 W
>f«r
r»4>to OMrat
T«Xiln/ («ACT)
-------
TMMV. 14 (continued)
rOTI*TM«. HIDE**!. ACTKW-sreciriC AHA*.
I
I— ^^
-I
OKI
CtUtt
ItMlMU
*M ky*«|(C* MlMt CMtMM* A* «M «c«lt M »•»!»«<
V.rily tbtf r pt*
« cm 4> (•)
40CFK«l(t)
OAor refoUiwa* tit an»itA to IMM vuiwcu 4
TWt« n«»in»igu »««U W i|>lit«%lc <• *»
•t iftnUMi «f • turftct •^•toMl fcr «•
(*| AU«r*»OtMAWA«IARAK*nl
«< IM ««laiMMM« ylM* HO CM!« M^MI Ot
(k) A*«4M*lhraMl«M«mBM»karvMkMn.
• <«fOO
r W A«AIU it W» f m«««>««fii>^iir^»Maiiril trti^ «mkiniiMt» tw «M»f «• «»rti a» »•«««•>• HUl» ••
no
s§
oo
-------
01 'd
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARj FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
PARAMETER MCLO(l) MCL(I) PMCLG<1) PMCL(1)
FWQC
Adjusted far
Drinkiag W*UT
Oniyg)
pJnRGANICS
Antuaony
Af*efl«e
eiimsuin —
ChJomJuia
Copper
ryiLMdoftOUH
t**<*
Merwryftnor^saic)
Nick*!
Silver _
Tine _
ORGAtfCS
B
-------
c
TABltlb
STATK ACTON-srtiCtnc A«A». FOB me IVHOO* LAMOITI I.
OtttM
* MM
R«(id4U«
-------
TABLE 17
POTENTIAL STATE CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARi FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
PARAMETER
Puerto Rjco
Water Quality
INORGANICS
Aatjmony
Anenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cbronuun
Copper
Cyanidedoul)
Le*J
Mercury(iaorguic)
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
ORCANICS
Beozeoe
Beazoic Acid
di-N-Butyl pblhalate
Carboa Disujftde
C*rboc TetrachJoride
C^orotK&zeoe
ChJorofona
ChJorotoethaoe
1 ,4'DichJorobenzeae
Fluoraotheoe
Metbyleoe Chloride
Pbeool
Pyrene
TetrachJoroeibeae
Toluene
1.1,1-TricbJorowhine
TrichlorofluoroffieduM
OTHER
Fecal Conforms
Fecal Strep
50
1000
50
1.0
50
.
1.0
(1) Puerto Rico Water Quality Standards (PRWQS).
(LC407T21.WK1)
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
'i: 13P"r'
BC875esiOe- 8C5 729 6832 .'« 2
September
Kathiaea Callthan
Director
Iraerc/eftey and Remedial
Response Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region II - Room 7i7
26 federal Plas*
Vew York, Kew *ork 10278
KE;
rot
J3VC08
juicoa,
VKOTSC7XOV
DICLUtittXOK
or BBCXSIO* or
SZfK,
POBITO aico
D«ar Mi Cailaban:
?h» Superfun! Core Prograa ef the Air Qualify Area/ received
the Daclara-ior, for the Reccrd of Ceciaion of Jur.cos landfill Site/
Jureoa, Puerto Rice for •valuation and coomasta.
The JuncoB l&fidfill Site is located at Jur.cos Municipality,
It is an inactive municipal landfill which occupies 17 to 20 acres
ef land where therao&eter* containing mercury have beoa dumped.
the lar.dfUl operated betwaaa 195? and 1977 and was closed in 1961.
IF& begic to conduct sxte inepections on the area aft*r nw.ll
lea that a aeeps and aeil erosion ware detected, riiara is a housing
dervelopoent and a group of houses that are not yat occupied over
the landfill. No barrier exiat te prevent local residents or
animals froa entering to the site. There are approximately 10/000
people living within a 3 mile radius or the site. Several as* 11
craefcs axe located near the laadliil.
April 1*82, tt« O.S. lavitODatatal Prsttctian Agancy
ion XT rteld Iav«rti9»tion tewa (FIT) initiated saapUa?
ac the Site. They reported the presence of nercury ic aatieat air
and soil pore spaces. OB December 1982, the Site was listed oft the
national Priorities List
-------
7021 ; 9-18-91 J 2J13PM : 8087565906- 808 72S 6932 ;• 3
Comments froa Juncea Landfill Site September 10, 1991
Jur.eos, Puerto Rico page 2
The CSEPA prepared the De.clara.tic* for R*oord of Deoiaion
(XC3) on July, 1991. This document presented the renedial action
for the First Operable Unit of the Juncos Landfill which was choeen
according to the requirements of th« Conpreheasive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1960 (CS&CLA), ••
asvar.ded by the Suparfund Anccdn«nti ar.d Reauthoriaation Act of 1986
(SARA) and the National Oil aad Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Flan (KG?) . SPA selected alternative four, fiingle
Barrier Cap, aa the preferred aelected alteraativa based oa the
r««ults of the Operable 5nit One (Source Control of Landfill) RZ/FS
rtport, as well aa a detailed evaluation of all t&e constant*
•ubxitted by interacted parties during the public corcment period.
The Single Barrier Cap alternative in a couree control remedy. It
consists of coverin? the landfill with a fabric aeobrana liner cap,
and undertaking other corrective actions which are designed to
protect auctan health and the e£virona«nt, The second Operable Unit
will address the possible migration of con^aoinanta frca the
landfill property.
The Puerto Rico Znviroaac&tal Sr&lLty Board (PRICB) concurs on
the sele^ed alternativa and r«?ae$ts that EPA infcra 9AS2B of all
future activitea at the site.
PR2Q8 also requftitd that the following specific information be
provided as it becoaes available:
1, Details about the installation of the passive landfill
control system.
2. Describe the air ezdstioa rick and the present status
of the site.
3. All the air trljsion that will be directed to the
atAoaphtre during the action.
4. Details of the monitoring points selected at the
surface vattrs close to the site, provide evidence to
sustain that uadargrouad water flow, rate,
infiltration, velocity and direction do«s not affect
the Ceiba Cre«)c and the two tributaries.
5. Specify the measure* that will be taXen to prevtac
storswaters ru&eff and access to the waterbodiea .
..' W •
-------
.:i; s;-Atri*
7521 <' 8-16-81 ; 2: 14PM I
821 728 6S32 ;* 4
Ceauwnt* from Juncos Landfill Site
JURCOB, Puerto Rico
Saptartbar 10, 1991
>ft?a 3
6. Inolud* tha grouAdwatcx that i» u»«d or hav« eh«
potential to terva 41 a tourea of drinking vaear
•upply and/or for agriculture purpose itoludiny
-irrigatioa. •••
It thara any qua it ion about thif concanti ple&sa contact a« at
phor.a auajb«r (609)767-8056 or Mi«t Eileen C. ViiliftA* of
Sup«rfu£d Cora Pregran at (809)76? 6071.
Cordially,
Padro A. Maldcaado, Zaq.
Acting Chairman
oc: Iny. Jos* rent
Mr. Malvin Bauptman
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Member Order . Page: 1
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Member: JUN-001-0001 To 0016 Date: 03/05/82
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report (Juncos Landfill site)
Type: REPORT
Author: Jacot, Brian: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
Doeunent Member: JUN-001-0017 To 0046 Date: 08/02/82
Title: (Hazardous Ranking System Package)
Type: PLAN
Author: Lipsky, D.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-001-0047 To 0048 Date: 02/22/90
Title: (Letter forwarding a Draft Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Phase II, Remedial Investigation
• Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances B.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUN-001-0049
Document Number: JUN-001-0049 To 0069 Parent: JUN-001-0047 Date: 02/01/89
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.,' Juncos Municipal
Landfill • Phase II Remedial Investigation
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Mart Associates
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order page: 2
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0070 To 0083 Date: 08/01/88
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan - Supplemental Phase I Work • Juncos Municipal
Landfill
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Number: JUN-001-0084 To 0084 Date: 06/22/87
Title: (Letter forwarding the Addendum to the Site Operations Plan for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances B.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUN-001-0085
Document Number: JUN-001-0085 To 0097 Parent: JUN-001-0084 Date: 06/01/87
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal
Landfill - Phase I
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0098 To 0312 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Draft - Site Operations Plan - Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal Landfill
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order . Page: 3
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0313 To 0349 Date: / /
Title: Appendix I - Technical Approach (to be implemented for the initial activities, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Junchos Landfill site, as described in the Work Plan)
Type: PLAN
Condition: INCOMPLETE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0350 To 0580 Date: 06/01/89
Title: Draft • Remedial Investigation Report, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Recipient: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Attached: JUN-001-0581 JUN-001-1009 JUN-001-1484 JUN-001-1856
Document Number: JUN-001-0581 To 1008 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume I, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: rone: Environmental Testing & Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-1009 To 1483 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume 2, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing t Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order . Page: A
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-1484 To 1855 Parent: JUM-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume 3. ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing I Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-1856 To 2124 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendices B-M (for the Remedial Draft Report)
Type: DATA
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-2125 To 2172 Date: 06/28/84
Title: Draft Report of the Remedial Investigation of Juncos Municipal Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: Becton, Dickinson I Company
Document Number: JUN-001-2173 To 2175 Date: 01/31/85
Title: (Memo commenting on the Draft Report of the Remedial Inveatigetion for the Juncos'Municipal
Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Recipient: Knorowski, David: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-001-2176 To 2206 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter identifying applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that apply
to the three National Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Maldonado Ojeda, Pedro A.: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order . Page: S
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Oocunent Number: JUN-001-2207 To 2208 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying the Commonwealth ARARs as they apply to each
of the three National Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Docunent Nunber: JUN-001-2209 To 2401 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Draft Feasibility Study Report, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation
Recipient: none: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Nunber: JUN-001-2402 To 2417 Date: 06/01/91
Title: Announcement of Proposed Plan • Juncos Landfill, Puerto Rico - First Operable Unit
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Munbent JUN-002-0001 To 0267 Date: 03/27/91
Title: Final Risk Assessment, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Barnett, Roxy: COM Federal Programs Corporation
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0268 To 0280 Date: 10/09/84
Title: Administrative Order, Index No. It- CERCLA- 40303
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Oh I ITU Her, Raymond P.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
-------
06/20/91. Index Oocunent Number Order , page: 6
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Oocunent Number: JUN-002-0281 To 0289 Date: 03/15/84
Title: Administrative Order • Index No. II- CERCLA- 40301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Sehafer, Jacqueline E.: US EPA
Recipient: Ohlmuller, Raymond P.: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0290 To 0291 Date: 03/08/84
Title: (Letter forwarding copies of an Order on Consent for immediate corrective measures at the
Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: HISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence U.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Nun? JUN-002-0292 To 0294 Date: 02/09/84
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi. William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Howe, Wesley J.: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rici, Inc.
Oocunent Number: JUN-002-0295 To 0295 Date: 10/04/84
Title: (Memorandum stating concurrence on Issuance of CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order on
Consent for Juncos Landfill site, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Biros, Francis J.: US EPA
Recipient: Daggett. Christopher J.: US EPA
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order • Page: 7
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0296 To 0302 Date: 04/23/84
Title: (Memorandum containing information on the Juntos Landfill site, Juncos, Puerto Rico, as reviewed
by the Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Jones, Ceorgi A.: US Dept of Health I Human Services
Recipient: Knorowski, David P.: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0303 To 0304 Date: 10/21/88
Title: (Letter forwarding the Draft Revised Community Relations Plan for the Juntos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: JUN-002-0305
Document Number: JUN-002-0305 To 0325 Parent: JUN-002-0303 Date: 10/01/88
Title: Draft Revised Conmunity Relations Plan, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Zanzatari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0326 To 0326 Date: OS/03/84
Title: Public Notice (amouxing public netting regarding the Junco* Landfill site to be held on
May 3, 1984)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Nimber Order • Page: 8
JUHCOS LANDFILL SITE Docunents
Document Number: JUN-002-0327 To 0365 Date: 06/05/86
Title: Public Meeting Summary, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico - Juncos City Hall (with
attachments)
Type: PLAN
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0366 To 0367 Date: 02/08/85
Title: Fact Sheet - Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico (copies in English and Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0366 To 0369 Date: / /
Title: Environmental Facts, Juncos Municipal Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0370 To 0380 Date: / /
Title: Final Draft - Fact Sheet, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-OM1 To 0383 Date: / /
Title: (Press release, in Spanish, announcing the June 5, 1986, meeting to discuss the Uork Plan
for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Celabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Document Number Order . ' Page: 9
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0384 To 0384 Date: 04/07/83
Title: (Letter discussing the appeal for a partial denial under the Freedom of Information Act)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence U.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0385 To 0386 Date: 06/05/86
Title: (Attendance list from public meeting held on June 5, 1986)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0387 To 0387 Date: 05/15/86
Title: (Letter stating that EPA will sponsor a one-day meeting on June 5, 1986, regarding the status
of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: Conde-Roma, Gilberto: Acting Mayor of Juncos, Puerto Rico
Attached: JUN-002-0388 JUN-002-0401
Document Number: JUN-002-0388 To MOO Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: 05/15/86
Title: (Letter stating that a three-day aweting will be held during the first week of June, 1986,
to discuss the status of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Juncos Landfill
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various
-------
06/20/91 Index Docunent Number Order Page: 10
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0401 To 0401 Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: 05/20/86
Title: (Letter stating that a May 15, 1986, letter, regarding the three-day meetings sponsored by
EPA, has been forwarded to Mr. Carlos Vasquez)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Docunent Number: JUN-002-0402 To 0402 Date: / /
Title: (Handwritten notes, in Spanish, of an agenda for a meeting to discuss the Work Plan for the
Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
C6/20/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 1
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Murker: JUN-001-0313 To 0349 Date: / /
Title: Appendix I • Technical Approach (to be implemented for the initial activities, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Junchos Landfill site, as described in the Work Plan)
Type: PLAN
Condition: INCOMPLETE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Number: JUN-001-10CI9 To 1483 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume 2, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing I Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-1484 To 1855 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume 3, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing I Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-1856 To 2124 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendices B-M (for the Remedial Draft Report)
Type: DATA
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-OJ68 To 0369 Date: / /
Title: Environmental Facts, Juncos Municipal Landfill Site, Juntos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 2
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Nu*er: JUN-002-0370 To 0380 Date: / /
Title: Final Draft - Fact Sheet, Juntos Landfill Site, Juntos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document >• . •?-: JUN-002-0381 To 0383 Date: / /
Title: (Press release, in Spanish, announcing the June 5, 1986, meeting to discuss the Work Plan
for the Juntos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0402 To 0402 Date: / /
Title: (Handwritten notes, In Spanish, of an agenda for a meeting to discuss the Work Plan for the
Juntos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0581 To 1008 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendix A, Volume 1, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/OC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing I Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0001 To 0016 Date: 03/05/82
Title: Potential Hazardous Wast* Site, Site Inspection Report (Juntos Landfill site)
Type: REPORT
Author: Jacot, Brian: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 3
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0017 To 0046 Date: 08/02/82
Title: (Hazardous Ranking System Package)
Type: PLAN
Author: Lipsky, D.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0384 To 0384 Date: 04/07/83
Title: (Letter discussing the appeal for a partial denial under the Freedom of Information Act)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence U.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0292 To 0294 Date: 02/09/84
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Howe, Wesley J.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0290 To 0291 Date: 03/08/64
Title: (Letter forwarding copies of an Order on Consent for immediate corrective measure's at the
Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence U.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 4
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0281 To 0289 Date: 03/15/84
Title: Administrative Order - Index No. II- CERCLA- 40301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Schafer, Jacqueline E.: US EPA
Recipient: Ohlmuller, Raymond P.: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0296 To 0302 Date: 04/23/84
Title: (Memorandum containing information on the Juneos Landfill site, Juncos, Puerto Rico, as reviewed
by the Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Jones, Georgi A.: US Dept of Health I Human Services
Recipient: Knorouski, David P.: US EPA
Document Number: JUM-002-0326 To 0326 Date: 05/03/84
Title: Public Notice (announcing public meeting regarding the Juncos Landfill site to be held on
May 3, 1984)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-212S To 2172 Date: 06/28/84
Title: Draft Report of the Remedial Investigation of Juncos Municipal Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: Becton, Dickinson I Company
-------
C6/20/91 Index Chronological Order . Page: 5
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0293 To 0295 . Date: 10/04/84
Title: (Memorandum stating concurrence on Issuance of CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order on
Consent for Juncos Landfill site, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Biros, Francis J.: US EPA
Recipient: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Document Nunber: JUN-002-0268 To 0280 Date: 10/09/84
Title: Administrative Order, Index No. II- CERCLA- 40303
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Ohlnuller, Raymond P.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUW-001-2173 To 2175 Date: 01/31/85
Title: (Memo commenting on the Draft Report of the Remedial Investigation for the Juncos Municipal
Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Recipient: Knorowski, David: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0366 To 0367 Date: 02/08/85
Title: Fact Sheet - Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico (copies in English and Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0187 To 0387 Date: 05/15/86
Title: (Letter stating that EPA will sponsor a one-day meeting on June 5, 1986, regarding the status
of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: Conde-Roma, Gilberto: Acting Mayor of Juncos, Puerto Rico
Attached: JUN-002-0388 JUN-002-0401
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order page.
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0388 To 0400 Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: 05/15/S6
Title: (Letter stating that a three-day meeting will be held during the first week of June, 1986,
to discuss the status of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Juntos Landfill
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipi.-nt: various: various
Document Number: JUM-002-0401 To 0401 Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: OS/20/86
Title: (Letter stating that a May 15, 1986, letter, regarding the three-day meetings sponsored by
EPA, has been forwarded to Mr. Carlos Vasquez)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Rohena-lBetancourt, Santos: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-001-0098 To 0312 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Draft - Site Operations Plan - Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal Landfill
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
•
Document Number: JUN-002-0327 To 0365 Date: 06/05/86
Title: Public Meeting Summary. Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico - Juncos City Hall (with
attachments)
Type: PLAN
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order Page: 7
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Nunber: JUN-002-0385 To 0386 Date: 06/05/86
Title: (Attendance list from public meeting held on June 5, 1986)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0085 To 0097 Parent: JUN-001-0084 Date: 06/01/87
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal
Landfill - Phase I
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0084 To 0084 Date: 06/22/87
Title: (Letter forwarding the Addendun to the Site Operations Plan for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances El.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUK-001-0085
Document Number: JUN-001-0070 To 0083 Date: 08/01/88
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan - Supplemental Phase I Work - Juncos Municipal
Landfill
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associate*
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91 . Index Chronological Order . Page: 8
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Nimber: JUN-002-0305 To 0325 Parent: JUN-002-0303 Date: 10/01/8B
Title: Draft Revised Community Relations Plan, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Zanzalari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0303 To 0304 Date: 10/21/88
Title: (Letter forwarding the Draft Revised Community Relations Plan for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: JUN-002-0305
Document Number: JUN-001-0049 To 0069 Parent: JUN-001-0047 Date: 02/01/89
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal
Landfill - Phase II Remedial Investigation
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0350 To 0580 Date: 06/01/89
Title: Draft - Remedial Investigation Report, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Recipient: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Attached: JUN-001-0581 JUM-001-1009 JUN-001-1484 JUN-001-1856
-------
06/20/91. Index Chronological Order Page: 9
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0047 To 0048 Date: 02/22/90
Title: (Letter forwarding a Draft Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Phase II, Remedial Investigation
-. Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances B.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUN-001-OM9
Document Number: JUN-001-3207 To 2208 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying the Commonwealth ARARs as they apply to each
of the three National. Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Document Number: JUN-001-2176 To 2206 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter identifying applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that apply
to the three National Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Maldonado Ojeda, Pedro A.: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0001 To 0267 Date: 03/27/91
Title: Final Risk Assessment, Juncot Landfill, Junco*, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Barnett, Roxy: COM Federal Programs Corporation
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
-------
06/20/91 Index Chronological Order _ Page: 10
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-2209 To 2401 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Draft Feasibility Study Report, Juncoa Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation
Recipient: none: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-001-2402 To 2417 Date: 06/01/91
Title: Announcement of Proposed Plan - Juncos Landfill, Puerto Rico - First Operable Unit
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order • Page: 1
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0313 To 0349 Date: / /
Title: Appendix 1 - Technical Approach (to be implemented for the initial activities, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Junchos Landfill site, as described in the Work Plan)
Type: PLAN
Condition: INCOMPLETE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-1856 To 2126 Parent: JUN-001-0350 Date: / /
Title: Appendices B-M (for the Remedial Draft Report)
Type: DATA
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-Q02-0327 To 0365 Date: 06/05/86
Title: Public Meeting Summary, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico - JuneOS City Hall (uith
attachments)
Type: PLAN
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0370 To 0380 Date: / /
Title: Final Draft - Fact Sheet, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: none
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order . page: 2
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-OM9 To 0069 Parent: JUN-001-0047 Date: 02/01/89
Title: Draft • Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal
Landfill - Phase II Remedial Investigation
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0070 To 0083 Date: 08/01/88
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan - Supplemental Phase I Work - Juncos Municipal
Landfill
Type: PLAN
•Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0085 To 0097 Parent: JUN-001-0084 Date: 06/01/87
Title: Draft - Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal
Landfill - Phase I
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-001-0098 To 0312 Date: 06/01/86
Title: Draft - Site Operations Plan - Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Juncos Municipal Landfill
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91-
Index Author Name Order
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Page: 3
Document Number: JUN-001-0350 To 0580 Date: 06/01/89
Title: Draft • Remedial Investigation Report, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Recipient: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Attached: JUN-001-0581 JUN-001-1009 JUN-001-1484 JUN-001-1856
Document Number: JUN-001-0581 To 1008 Parent: JUN-001-0350
Title: Appendix A, Volume I, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing & Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Date: / /
Document Number: JUN-001-1009 To 1483 Parent: JUN-001-0350
Title: Appendix A, Volume 2, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing t Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Date: / /
Document Number: JUN-001-1484 To 1855 Parent: JUN-001-0350
Title: Appendix A, Volume 3, ETC's Analytical Data and QA/QC Data Review
Type: DATA
Author: none: Environmental Testing t Certification Corporation (ETC)
Recipient: none: none
Date: / /
Document Number: JUN-001-2125 To 2172 Date: 06/28/84
Title: Draft Report of the Remedial Investigation of Juncos Municipal Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: Becton, Dickinson I Company
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Nam Order . pEge: 4
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-2173 To 2175 Date: 01/31/85
Title: (Memo commenting on the Draft Report of the Remedial Investigation for the Juncos Municipal
Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
Recipient: Knorowski, David: US EPA
Docunent Hunter: JUN-001-2209 To 2401 Date: 04/01/91
Title: Draft Feasibility Study Report, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: REPORT
Condition: DRAFT
Author: none: McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering Corporation
Recipient: none: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-001-2402 To 2417 . Date: 06/01/91
Title: Announcement of Proposed Plan • Juncos Landfill, Puerto Rico - First Operable Unit
Type: PLAN
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Number: JUN-002-0326 To 0326 Date: 05/03/84
Title: Public Notice (announcing public Meeting regarding the Juncos Landfill site to be held on
May 3, 1984)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order • Psge: S
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Docunent Number: JUM-002-0366 To 0367 Date: 02/08/85
Title: Fact Sheet - Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico (copies in English and Spanish)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0368 To 0369 Date: / /
Title: Environmental Facts, Juncos Municipal Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0385 To 0386 Date: 06/05/86
Title: (Attendance list from public meeting held on June 5, 1986)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0402 To 0402 Date: / /
Title: (Handwritten notes, in Spanish, of an agenda for a meeting to discuss the Work Plan for the
Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: none: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Docunent Nunber: JUN-001-OW7 To 0048 Date: 02/22/90
Title: (Letter forwarding a Draft Addendum to the Site Operations Plan, Phase II, Remedial Investigation
- Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances 8.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUN-001-0049
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order page.
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Docunents
Document Number: JUN-001-0084 To 0084 Date: 06/22/87
Title: (Letter forwarding the Addendum to the Site Operations Plan for the Juntos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Barker, Frances B.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Attached: JUN-001-0085
Document Number: JUN-002-0001 To 0267 Date: 03/27/91
Title: Final Risk Assessment, Juncos Landfill, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Author: Barnett, Roxy: COM Federal Programs Corporation
Recipient: Font, Jose: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0295 To 0295 Date: 10/04/84
Title: (Memorandum stating concurrence on Issuance of CERCLA Section 106 Administrative Order on
Consent for Juncos Landfill site, Puerto Rico)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Biros, Francis J.: US EPA
Recipient: Daggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-001-2207 To 2208 Date: 12/20/90
Title: (Letter requesting assistance in identifying the Commonwealth ARARs as they apply to each
of the three National Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Caspe, Richard I.: US EPA
Recipient: Rohena-Betancourt, Santos: PR Environmental Quality Board
Document Number: JUN-002-0268 To 0280 Date: 10/09/34
Title: Administrative Order, Index No. II- CERCLA- 40303
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Oaggett, Christopher J.: US EPA
Recipient: Ohlmuller, Raymond P.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order . Page: 7
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0290 To 0291 Date: 03/08/84
Title: (Letter forwarding copies of an Order on Consent for immediate corrective measures at the
Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence W.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Beeton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUM-002-0334 To 0364 Date: 04/07/83
Title: (Letter discussing the appeal for a partial denial under the Freedom of Information Act)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Condition: MISSING ATTACHMENT
Author: Diamond, Lawrence W.: US EPA
Recipient: Hector, Bruce J.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
Document Number: JUN-002-0331 To 0383 Date: / /
Title: (Press release, in Spanish, announcing the June 5. 1986, meeting to discuss the Work Plan
for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: none: none
Document Number: JUN-002-0337 To 0387 Date: 05/15/86
Title: (Letter stating that EPA will sponsor • one-day meeting on June 5, 1986, regarding the status
of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert. Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: Conde-Rom, Glltorto: Acting Mayor of Juncos, Puerto Rico
Attached: JUN-002-0388 JUN-002-0401
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order • p6ge: 8
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0388 To 0400 Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: 05/15/86
Title: (Letter stating that a three-day meeting will be held during the first week of June, 1986,
to discuss the status of the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study for the Juncos Landfill
site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Gelabert, Pedro A.: US EPA
Recipient: various: various
Document Nunber: JUN-001-0001 To 0016 Date: 03/05/82
Title: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site Inspection Report (Juncos Landfill site)
Type: REPORT
Author: Jacot, Brian: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0296 To 0302 Date: 04/23/84
Title: (Memorandum containing information on the Juncos Landfill site, Juncos, Puerto Rico, as reviewed
by the Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Jones, Georgi A.: US Dept of Health I Human Services
Recipient: Knorowski, David P.: US EPA
Docunent Number: JUN-002-0292 To 0294 Date: 02/09/84
Title: (107(a) Notice Letter)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Librizzi, William J.: US EPA
Recipient: Howe, Wesley J.: Bee ton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
-------
06/20/91. Index Author Name Order . Page: 9
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-001-0017 To 0046 Date: 08/02/82
Title: (Hazardous Ranking System Package)
Type: PLAN
Author: Lipsky, D.: Fred C. Hart Associates
Recipient: none: US EPA
Document Number: JUM-001-2176 To 2206 Date: 01/30/91
Title: (Letter identifying applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) that apply
to the three National Priorities List sites)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Maldonado Ojeda, Pedro A.: none
Recipient: Caspe, Richard L.r. US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0401 To 0401 Parent: JUN-002-0387 Date: OS/20/86
Title: (Letter stating that a May 15, 1986, letter, regarding the three-day meetings sponsored by
EPA, his been forwarded to Mr. Carlos Vasquez)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Ronena-Betancourt, Santos: Environmental Quality Board PR
Recipient: Gelabert, Pedro A..: US EPA
Document Number: JUN-002-0303 To 0304 Date: 10/21/88
Title: (Letter forwarding the Draft Revised Conmunity Relations Plan for the Juncos Landfill site)
Type: CORRESPONDENCE
Author: Sachdev, Dev R.: Ebasco Services
Recipient: Johnson, Lillian: US EPA
Attached: JUN-002-0305
Document Number: JUN-002-0281 To 0289 Date: 03/15/84
Title: Administrative Order * Index No. II- CERCLA- 40301
Type: LEGAL DOCUMENT
Author: Schafer, Jacqueline E.: US EPA
Recipient: Ohlmuller, Raymond P.: Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc.
-------
06/20/91- Index Author Name Order • Page: 10
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE Documents
Document Number: JUN-002-0305 To 0325 Parent: JUN-002-0303 Date: 10/01/88
Title: Draft Revised Conmnity Relations Plan, Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico
Type: PLAN
Condition: DRAFT
Author: Zanzalari, Gerry: Ebasco Services
Recipient: none: US EPA
------- |