PB94-963804
EPA/ROD/R02-94/227
July 1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Jumcos Landfill Site,
Juncos, PR
-------
ROD FACT SHEET
SITE
Name :
Location/State :
EPA Region :
HRS Score (date):
Juncos Landfill
Juncos, Puerto Rico
II
32.57 (8-2-82)
ROD
Date Signed:
Remedy/ies:
Operating Unit Number:
Capital cost:
Construction Time:
0 & M:
Present worth:
10-5-93
Natural Attenuation/ No Action/
Institutional Controls/ Monitoring
OU-2
$51,624
1 month
$42,250/yr
$603,112
LEAD
Remdial/Enforcement:
EPA/State/PRP:
Primary contact (phone):
Secondary contact (phone)
Main PRP(s):
PRP Contact (phone)
Enforcement
EPA
Jose C. Font (809) 729-6951
Melvin Hauptman (212) 264-7681
Becton Dickinson, Browning Ferris
Industries, General Electric Co.,
Chesebrough Ponds, Municipality of
Juncos,the Puerto Rico Land
Administration and the Puerto Rico
Development and Housing Improvement
Administration
Luis R. Lomba, P.E. (809) 746-1735
WASTE
Type:
Medium:
Origin:
Est. quantity:
Metals, Chloroform
Groundwater
Landfill
Unknown
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II ---• n i
DATE, 0 1 OCT 198 . ^"
SUBJECT: Record of Decision (ROD) for the Juncos Landfill Site
FROM: George Pavlou, Acting Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Division
T°: William J. Muszynski, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
Attached for your approval is the ROD for the Juncos Landfill Site,
located in the Municipality of Juncos, Puerto Rico. This operable
unit is the second of two operable units for the Site and focuses
on groundwater contamination. The first operable unit ROD, which
selected capping of the landfill, was signed on September 24, 1991.
Currently, the first operable unit remedy is in the design phase.
The selected remedial action for the second operable unit is no
action/natural attenuation for the groundwater, a recommendation
that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico implement institutional
controls restricting groundwater withdrawal in the area north of
the landfill, and groundwater monitoring to ensure that contaminant
levels are decreasing. If the concentrations of contaminants in
the groundwater do not decrease over time, EPA may reevaluate this
decision to see if active groundwater remediation is necessary.
The remedial investigation and feasibility study report and the
Proposed Plan were released for public comment on August 9, 1993.
A public comment period on these documents were held from August 9,
1993 through September 7, 1993. In addition, a public meeting to
discuss these documents and the preferred no action remedy was held
on August 25, 1993. Comments received during the public comment
period indicated that the nearby residents are concerned about the
impact of the landfill on their health.
The ROD has been reviewed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
Environmental Quality Board (EQB), and the appropriate program
offices within Region II. Their input and comments are reflected
in this document. EQB has concurred with the selected no action
remedy for the second operable unit of the Juncos Site (see
Appendix D of this document).
If you have any questions or comments, I would be happy to discuss
them with you at your convenience.
Attachments
-------
Declaration for the Decision Document
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 Two (OU-II) of the Juncos Landfill located in the
Municipality of 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 explains the factual and legal
basis for selecting the remedy for this site.
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
concurs with the selected remedy. A letter of concurrence from EQB
is appended to this document (Appendix C).
The information supporting this remedial action is contained in the
Administrative Record for this site. The index to the
Administrative Record is attached as Appendix E.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This operable unit is the second of two operable units for the
Juncos Landfill Site. It focuses on groundwater contamination,
resulting from contaminant migration from the landfill.
The source control action selected under the Operable Unit One (OU-
I) remedy will cap the landfill and reduce the potential threat to
human health and the environment by isolating the landfill and
reducing the risk of contaminant migration from the landfill into
the groundwater.
The key components of the OU-II remedy include the following:
• Natural attenuation/no action for the groundwater.
• Recommendation that institutional controls consisting of
restrictions on groundwater withdrawal in the area north
of the landfill be implemented by the Commonwealth.
-------
• Groundwater monitoring to ensure that the concentrations
of contaminants in the groundwater are decreasing over
time. It is estimated that approximately 16 wells will
be sampled, although the exact number and duration of the
sampling will be determined at a later date. If the
concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater do not
decrease over time, EPA may reevaluate this decision to
see if active groundwater remediation is necessary.
The implementation of this selected remedy in conjunction with the
OU-I remedy will minimize or eliminate the potential carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic impacts caused by ingestion of groundwater
containing chloroform, carbon disulfide, antimony, manganese and
vanadium should it be used in the future.
DECLARATION OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment and complies with federal and Commonwealth requirements
that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost effective. This is achieved through
the use of a single-barrier cap under OU-I in conjunction with
institutional controls to preclude direct contact and access to
groundwater. The surface controls (implemented with capping) and
cap also reduce leachate generation and subsequent groundwater
impacts. The institutional controls will serve to restrict access
to the groundwater by residents in a potential future use scenario.
Current residents obtain their drinking water from the municipal
public supply wells and surface water filtration plants. Natural
attenuation will serve to reduce the concentration of chloroform in
the groundwater over time through various physical and chemical
processes.
The components of the selected remedy in conjunction with the OU-I
remedy represent the maximum extent to which a permanent solution
and treatment technology can be utilized in a cost effective manner
for the site.
-------
A review of the remedial action pursuant to CERCLA §121(c), 42
U.S.C. §9621(c), will be conducted within five years of the
commencement of the remedial action and every five years thereafter
to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection
to human health and the environment, because this remedy will
result in hazardous substances remaining on-site above health-based
levels.
WilliamXHJ. MusztfrfsKi, P.E. Date
Acting^Regional Aaministrator
-------
Table of 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 5
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 6
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 8
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 11
VIII. SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ... 15
IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY 19
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 20
XI. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 21
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX A FIGURES
APPENDIX B TABLES
APPENDIX C COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY BOARD LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX D RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
APPENDIX E ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
NEW YORK
-------
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. A
municipal public water supply well field is located 1.5 miles
northwest of the Site.
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 surficial 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
othrocolase. 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. The
remaining deposits overlying the bedrock in the vicinity of the
Site are comprised of either manmade 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 Juncos, Puerto Rico,
which operated the Landfill between the years 1957 and 1977. The
Landfill was closed in 1981. In addition to municipal wastes, the
Landfill received industrial waste including mercury thermometers,
waste acids and sodium hydroxide, off-specification perfumes, and
electrical equipment. These materials came from local industrial
facilities.
In April 1982, the EPA 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, EPA conducted a Site inspection of the
Landfill. During the Site inspection, mercury was detected 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 FIT also conducted a more
extensive air survey in February 1983, which indicated the
detection of volatile organic compounds. Based on these findings,
EPA listed the Landfill on the National Priorities List (NPL).
On March 15, 1984, EPA entered into an Administrative Order on
Consent with Becton Dickinson (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
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 detectable 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 investigation 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 BD dated March 22,
1990. Field investigation activities commenced in August 1990 and
were completed in January 1991. A draft Phase II RI Report for OU-
II was submitted in July 1991 and a revised version was submitted
in November 1991 in response to EPA comments. In March 1992, EPA
approved the November 1991 revised draft RI Report for the off-site
component OU-II. An OU-II revised Feasibility Study (FS) was
submitted to EPA in June 8, 1993.
In November 1990, EPA separated the cleanup of the Site into two
operable units or phases. The first operable unit (OU-I) focused
on the abatement of the source of Site contamination, the Landfill
itself. The second operable unit (OU-II), focused on the migration
of contaminated groundwater.
In April 1991, Hart submitted the Draft FS Report for OU-I. In
June 1991, EPA distributed the Proposed Plan for OU-I to solicit
public comments regarding EPA's preferred remedial alternative.
The public comment period began on June 1, 1991 and continued
through July 31, 1991. EPA signed the OU-I Record of Decision
(ROD) on September 24, 1991. The remedial action selected for OU-I
was closure of the Landfill by construction of a single barrier cap
with a geomembrane liner; installation of a security fence around
the perimeter of the Landfill, a leachate control system as
necessary and a Landfill gas venting system; provision for erosion
and sediment control appurtenances; placing institutional controls
on the Landfill property in an attempt to preclude future
development to ensure the integrity of the cap; temporary
relocation of families living in homes located along the immediate
north face of the Landfill during the construction phase of the
remedial action; provision of long-term operation and maintenance
of the Landfill cap and long-term air, sediment, surface water, and
-------
leachate monitoring to evaluate the remedial action effectiveness.
From 1991 to 1992, EPA conducted a search to locate parties
responsible for contamination at the Landfill. EPA subsequently
negotiated with these parties to implement the OU-I remedy.
Because negotiations were unsuccessful, on September 30, 1992, EPA
issued a CERCLA Unilateral Administrative Order to BD, Browning-
Ferris Industries, Chesebrough-Pond's, General Electric Company,
the Municipality of Juncos, the Puerto Rico Land Administration,
and the Puerto Rico Development and Housing Improvement
Administration.
Additionally, on August 14, 1991, EPA was notified by a citizen
adjacent to the Landfill that smoke was being released from the
Landfill. 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 directed BD and
the Municipality of Juncos to implement immediate corrective
actions at the Site that included covering the crevices of the
Landfill that were 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 OU-I remedy,
additional actions may have to be taken if there is a reoccurrence
of fire.
III. HIGHLIGHTS OP COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report, Risk Assessment and the Proposed Plan for the Site
were released for public comment on August 9, 1993 pursuant to the
requirements set forth in CERCLA Sections 113(k)(2)(i-v) and 117.
These documents were made available to the public in the
Administrative record file at the EPA Docket Room in Region II, New
York City and the information repositories at the EPA Region II
Caribbean Field Office in Santurce, Puerto Rico and the Juncos Town
Hall in Juncos, Puerto Rico. A public notice was published on
August 9, 1993 in the El Nuevo Dia and the San Juan Star
newspapers, announcing EPA's preferred remedy, the availability of
these documents for review and notice of the August 25, 1993 public
meeting.
A public participation meeting was conducted by EPA on August 25,
1993, at the Municipal Assembly Room of the Juncos Town Hall,
-------
Juncos, Puerto Rico to discuss the Proposed Plan for OU-II and to
provide an opportunity for interested parties and communities to
present oral comments and questions to EPA.
A summary of the significant comments related to the selection of
the remedy, received during the public meeting and public comment
period and EPA's responses to these comments are presented in the
Responsiveness Summary, which is part of this Decision Document
(attached as Appendix D). The Responsiveness Summary and Decision
Document, along with the administrative record for the Juncos
Landfill OU-II, are available at the information repositories
referenced above.
IV. SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
This OU-II ROD identifies EPA's selected no action alternative for
addressing potential off-site impacts resulting from contaminant
migration from the Landfill via groundwater. This is the second of
two operable units for the Site. OU-I focused on source control
measures for the Site. EPA signed an OU-I ROD on September 24,
1991 which selected proper landfill closure utilizing a single
barrier cap with geomembrane. This selected remedy for OU-I
consisted of the following components:
• Installment of a security fence around the perimeter of the
Landfill property to restrict access at the Site.
• Placing institutional controls on the landfill property in an
attempt to preclude future development to ensure the integrity
of the cap;
• 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;
• 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;
• 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;
• Temporary relocation of families living in homes located along
the immediate north face of the Landfill during the
construction phase of this alternative;
• 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;
• 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;
• Provision of long-term operation and maintenance of the
Landfill cap, including routine inspections and repairs; and
• Provision of long-term air, sediment, surface water, and
leachate monitoring to evaluate the remedial action
effectiveness.
The OU-I selected remedy is being implemented pursuant to a
Unilateral Administrative Order issued by EPA to the potentially
responsible parties on September 1992. The implementation of this
remedy is currently in the remedial design phase.
OU-II addresses the measures that may be necessary to mitigate
potential off-site impacts resulting from chloroform, carbon
disulfide, and potentially the metals antimony, manganese, and
vanadium migration via groundwater. While the Site has been
separated into two operable units, this ROD considers the remedy
selected for OU-I (Landfill capping component) as part of the
overall evaluation of alternatives for OU-II. The source control
action of capping the Landfill will reduce the potential threat to
human health and the environment by isolating the Landfill and
reducing the risk of contaminant migration from the Landfill into
groundwater which results from leachate generated by surface
precipitation.
V. SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
This section only addresses groundwater. For a more detailed
discussion of all data related to the Site, see the RI report which
is located in the information repositories.
Groundwater in the vicinity of the Site occurs within hydraulically
connected overburden and bedrock units. The overburden consists of
predominantly light to dark green/gray organic silt and clay
interspersed with deposits of light brown and orange/brown fine to
medium-grained sand, silt and clay. A zone of deeply weathered
rock (saprolite) separates the overburden from the fractured
bedrock. The saprolite consists mainly of clays and partially
decomposed grains of quartz and feldspars. The bedrock unit is
granodiorite, defined as quartz rich rock with andesine plagioclase
as the dominant feldspar and hornblende. Groundwater flow in the
bedrock occurs along fractures created by joining and faulting.
-------
Groundwater in the overburden aquifer flows radially away from a
north-trending central bedrock outcrop which forms a topographic
high. North of the Landfill, flow is generally toward the north-
northeast. Similar flow directions exists in the underlying
bedrock aquifer.
Groundwater flow within the overburden aquifer occurs through
primary intergranular porosity. The bedrock aquifer is massive,
and flow is restricted to discrete fractures created by jointing
and faulting, and to zones of fractured, highly weathered rock
formed by the weathering of fault zones.
Groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer also occurs along
individual fault planes located at various depths. Most occur
within discrete mineralized fractures with fiber veins or fault
cast veins, greatly reducing their permeability. The slow recharge
observed during development and sampling of the RI monitoring
wells, as well as the low calculated hydraulic conductivities,
indicate that minor mineralized faults transmit only very small
quantities of groundwater.
A total of 23 groundwater monitoring wells were installed and
sampled during the RI to monitor the overburden, intermediate
bedrock and deep bedrock water-bearing units at locations around
the Landfill, in the direction of groundwater flow. See Figure 3
for well locations.
Sampling of the groundwater monitoring wells indicates that
chloroform concentrations exceeding the Federal Safe Drinking Water
Act Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 100 parts per billion (ppb
or ug/1) have been detected in samples collected north of the
Landfill at the J-3, J-7, and J-10 well nest locations. At the J-3
nest, the MCL was exceeded in bedrock wells J-3-1 and J-3-3.
Concentrations ranged between 770 ug/1 and 2,590 ug/1 in
intermediate bedrock well J-3-1 and between 190 ug/1 and 1,800 ug/1
in deep bedrock well J-3-3. Chloroform was also detected at
concentrations below the MCL in the shallow overburden well J-3-2,
ranging in concentration from 14 ug/1 to 70.5 ug/1. Chloroform was
detected in bedrock wells J-7-2 and J-7-3 at concentrations of 925
ug/1 and 330 ug/1, respectively, but was not detected in overburden
J-7-1. The MCL for chloroform was also exceeded in overburden well
J-10-1 and bedrock well J-10-2 at concentrations of 1,090 ug/1 and
292 ug/1, respectively. A summary of the chloroform analytical
results in groundwater is presented in Table 1.
Carbon disulfide was detected in five of the wells sampled (J-l-2,
J-3-1, J-3-3, J-4-2, J-6). Well J-6, which contained the highest
detected value obtained by Hart (300 ug/1), were sampled by CDM
Federal in 1991 and were not found to contain carbon disulfide.
Therefore, the compound's presence in these wells can not be
confirmed. J-4-2 is screened in the bedrock aquifer and is
apparently upgradient of the landfill. The 1989 Phase IA results
-------
can not be confirmed for wells J-3-1 and J-3-3- because these were
not resampled for carbon disulfide in subsequent sampling events.
These wells are both screened in the bedrock aquifer. It should be
noted that carbon disulfide was detected in the landfill leachate
sampled by Hart during the OU-I investigations. A summary of the
groundwater analytical results is presented in Table 2.
There are other potential sources of groundwater contamination
which exist in the immediate area of the Site including discharges
from septic systems; discharges of wastewaters to storm drains
including direct observation of a discharge of what appeared to be
oil and spent degreasing fluids noted in a storm drain and traced
to a nearby home where three empty forty gallon drums were found
next to the storm sewer; and, discharge of household wastewaters
(presumably from washing machines.)
Metals detected at elevated concentrations in groundwater
throughout the RI include antimony, manganese and vanadium.
Antimony was detected in five wells (J-2-2, J-3-2,3-1-1,3-1-2,J-l-2)
at levels which exceeded the MCL of 6 ug/1. Manganese was detected
in five of the wells from unfiltered groundwater samples. There is
a Secondary MCL for manganese of 50 ppb pursuant to the Safe
Drinking Water Act which is based on aesthetic factors only, not
health. This metal occurs naturally within the Site geology.
Vanadium was detected at three wells at concentrations ranging
between 9.7 ug/1 and 267 ug/1 in unfiltered groundwater samples.
There is no MCL for vanadium. A summary of the inorganics
analytical results in groundwater is presented in Table 3.
All operating wells within the Juncos municipal public water supply
well field were sampled and analyzed for leachate indicators, EPA
priority pollutants and major cations and anions. No volatile
organic compounds were detected at concentrations above the
detection limit, and all other parameters were below federal MCLs.
A summary of the public supply wells analytical results is
presented in Table 4.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the OU-II RI, a baseline Risk Assessment
was conducted to estimate the risks associated with future Site
conditions. The risks associated with current Site conditions were
not evaluated since groundwater within the Site is not currently
used. The baseline Risk Assessment estimates the human health and
ecological risk which could result from the contamination at the
Site if no remedial action were taken.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human
health risks for a reasonable maximum exposure scenario. Hazard
8
-------
Identification - identifies the contamination of concern at the
Site based on several factors such as toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, and concentration. Exposure Assessment - estimates the
magnitude of actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency
and duration of these exposures, and the pathways (e.g., ingesting
contaminated well water) by which humans are potentially exposed.
Toxicity Assessment - determines the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the relationship
between magnitude of exposure (dose) and severity of adverse
effects (response). Risk Characterization - summarizes and
combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to
provide a quantitative assessment of site-related risks.
The OU-II Risk Assessment focused on contaminants in the
groundwater which are likely to pose significant risks to human
health and the environment. Additional data had been collected
since the OU-I Risk Assessment was conducted and these data were
incorporated into the OU-II Risk Assessment. The summary of the
contaminants of concern (COC) in sampled matrices is listed in
Table 5.
The groundwater contaminant screening process for OU-II identified
34 chemicals of concern; 21 metals, 10 organics and 3 pesticides.
These chemicals of concern were selected because they were
identified above detection limits in the groundwater sample
analysis from the Juncos Landfill. This is taken to be the most
comprehensive basis for developing risk estimates.
Several of the contaminants of concern, including arsenic,
beryllium, chromium and chloroform are known to cause cancer in
laboratory animals and are suspected to be human carcinogens.
The baseline Risk Assessment evaluated the health effects which
could result from future exposure to contamination as a result of
ingestion, dermal contact (from showering) and inhalation (from
showering) of contaminated groundwater. Currently, the
contaminated groundwater is not in use. Residents currently obtain
their drinking water from municipal water supply wells which are
located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the Site and 2 surface
water filtration plants. These plants are located at Ceiba Sur
Ward in Juncos and Quebrada Grande in Las Piedras. A summary of
the exposure pathways considered in the baseline Risk Assessment is
presented in Table 6. A potential risk of exposure may exist in
the future if the contaminated groundwater flowing beneath the Site
becomes potable.
EPA's acceptable cancer risk range is 10^ to 10"6 which can be
interpreted to mean that an individual may have a one in ten
thousand to a one in a million increased chance of developing
cancer as a result of site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a
70-year lifetime under the specific exposure conditions at the
-------
Site. The carcinogenic risk for potential future users of
groundwater is estimated to be 4.9 x 10"4 for adults and 4.0 x 10*
for children.
To assess the overall potential for noncarcinogenic effects posed
by more than one contaminant, EPA has developed a Hazard Index
("HI"). This index measures the assumed exposures to several
chemicals simultaneously at low concentrations which could result
in an adverse health effect. When the HI exceeds one, there may be
concern for potential noncarcinogenic effects. The HI for future
users of groundwater was estimated to be 12.14 for adults and 48.7
for children.
Table 6 to 12 present the results of risk and noncancer health
effects calculations for ingestion, dermal contact and inhalation
exposures to groundwater beneath and downgradient of the Site.
The results of the baseline Risk Assessment indicate that the
contaminated groundwater at the Site poses an unacceptable
carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk to human health under the
groundwater future use scenario. However, any corrective action
implemented at the Landfill itself is expected to reduce
concentrations of hazardous substances released. The Landfill is
expected to be capped by Fall 1995. This source control action
will reduce the leachate generated from precipitation and should
thereby reduce the source of the groundwater contamination.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Groundwater contamination does not present a risk to ecological
receptors at the Site. No correlation was found to exist between
contaminants detected in groundwater and those detected in surface
water and sediment samples. Therefore, for this operable unit, no
complete exposure pathway for ecological receptors has been
identified.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation,
as in all such assessments, are subject to a wide variety of
uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
environmental parameter measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
toxicological data
Uncertainty in environmental sampling arises in part from the
potentially uneven distribution of chemicals in the media sampled.
10
-------
Consequently, there is significant uncertainty as to the actual
levels present. Environmental chemistry-analysis error can stem
from several sources including the errors inherent in the
analytical methods and characteristics of the matrix being sampled.
Uncertainties in the exposure assessment are related to estimates
of how often an individual would actually come in contact with the
chemicals of concern, the period of time over which such exposure
would occur, and in the models used to estimate the concentrations
of the chemicals of concern at the point of exposure.
Uncertainties in toxicological data occur in extrapolating both
from animals to humans and from high to low doses of exposure, as
well as from the difficulties in assessing the toxicity of a
mixture of chemicals. These uncertainties are addressed by making
conservative assumptions concerning risk and exposure parameters
throughout the assessment. As a result, the Risk Assessment
provides upper-bound estimates of the risks to populations near the
site, and is highly unlikely to underestimate actual risks to
populations near the Site.
More specific information concerning public health risks, including
a - quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with
various exposure pathways, is presented in the OU-II Risk
Assessment Report for the Site.
VII. DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
CERCLA §121 (b) (1), 42 U.S.C. §9621(b) (l), mandates that a
remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section 121 (b)
(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which
employ, as a principal element, treatment to permanently and
significantly reduce the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants at a site.
CERCLA §121(d), 42 U.S.C. §9621(d), further specifies that a
remedial action must attain a level or standard of control of the
hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants, which at least
attains Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be justified
pursuant to CERCLA (d) (4), 42 U.S.C. §9621 (d) (4).
This ROD evaluates in detail three remedial alternatives for
addressing the contaminants associated with the Second Operable
Unit of the Juncos Landfill Site. The time to implement a remedial
alternative reflects only the time required to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time required to
design the remedy, negotiate with the potentially responsible
parties, procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct
11
-------
operation and maintenance at the Site.
The remedial alternatives are:
Alternative I! Natural Attenuation-No Action
Capital Cost:
Annual O & M:
Present Worth:
Construction Time:
$ 0
$ 0
$ 0
None
The No Action Alternative provides a point of comparison for
remedial action alternatives and serves as a baseline against which
the degree of remediation and associated cost of the other
alternatives can be compared. Under this alternative, no activity
would take place to remediate the groundwater containing
chloroform, but rather the contaminated groundwater would be left
to naturally attenuate. Natural attenuation is based on the
natural ability of the groundwater to decrease chemical
concentrations through physical, chemical, and biological processes
until cleanup levels are met. It is expected that it would take
approximately 13 years for concentrations to decrease. Under this
alternative, no monitoring of the groundwater or institutional
controls would be put in place.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
Alternative II;Natural Attenuation-No Action/Institutional
Controls/Monitoring
Capital Cost: $ 51,624
Annual O&M: $ 42,250
Present Worth: $ 603,112
Construction Time: 1 month
This alternative is similar to Alternative I, in that it allows the
groundwater to naturally attenuate. However, this alternative
includes groundwater monitoring to track its direction and rate of
movement, in conjunction with maintaining effective and reliable
12
-------
institutional controls to prevent the future use of groundwater.
Institutional controls would consist of restrictions on groundwater
withdrawal wells in the area north of the Landfill. These controls
would be regulated by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of
Natural Resources under the Regulation for the Appropriation, Use,
Conservation and Administration of the Waters of Puerto Rico,
September 1984, Department of State Regulation No. 3171, November
13, 1984.
For purposes of cost evaluation, it is assumed that groundwater
monitoring will be conducted quarterly for the first five years,
semi-annually for years six through ten and annually for years
eleven through thirty. At this time the following 12 wells are
proposed for each round of sampling: J-2-1, J-2-2, J-2-3, J-3-1, J-
3-2, J-3-3, J-7-1, J-7-2, J-7-3, J-10-1, J-10-2, and J-10-3.
In addition, one existing downgradient off-site monitoring well
(USGS Water Resources Division Well # CJ-TW6) and a new, two-well
cluster, to be installed between the J-10 well cluster and well
#CJ-TW6 would be sampled at the same frequency. Results of
previous sampling by USGS indicated that well #CJ-TW6 is currently
not impacted. As such, future sampling of these wells would allow
monitoring for migration of compounds of concern from potential
upgradient sources.
The exact number of wells that will be sampled will be finalized
prior to the design of the selected remedy. A total of 22 samples
is expected to be taken for each round to include field blanks,
trip blanks, method blanks, two duplicates per sampling round and
a method spike. These samples will be analyzed for volatile
organic compounds, antimony, manganese and vanadium. Water level
elevations will also be measured during each sampling event.
Monitoring requirements would be assessed every five (5) years and
revised as warranted.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
13
-------
Alternative III; Groundwater Extraction/Metals Removal/Air
Stripping/Discharge/Institutional
Controls/Monitoring
Capital Cost: $ 867,802
Annual O&M: $ 490,071
Present Worth: $ 6,417,408
Construction Time: 12 months
Alternative III would consist of the installation of 15 overburden
extraction wells and 6 bedrock extraction wells along the northern
boundary of the Site in order to create a hydraulic barrier to
prevent the migration of groundwater away from the Landfill. This
remedial alternative assumes that each overburden well extracts
groundwater at a rate of 5 gallons per minute (GPM), and that each
bedrock well extracts groundwater at a rate of 10 gpm. The
combined total yield of the overburden and bedrock extraction wells
is estimated at 135 gpm. The current estimates of extraction well
numbers, locations and pumping rates are derived from the
hydrogeologic data generated at the Site during the RI, and are
reported in the FS for the sole purpose of evaluating anticipated
costs. The exact number, locations and pumping rates of extraction
wells would be determined through extensive aquifer testing
performed during the remedial design. The groundwater treatment
method considered in this alternative is air stripping to remove
the chloroform concentrations and oxidation, precipitation and
sedimentation to remove metals. One air stripper can be used to
lower the level of chloroform in the extracted groundwater to below
the MCL of 100 ppb. It is unknown how long it would take to
remediate the aquifer to the MCL, however it is expected to be
lengthy, due to the uncertainty of completely capturing the
groundwater in this fractured bedrock aquifer. Metals removal has
been included to account for the possibility that it may be
required. The results of groundwater sampling will be analyzed to
determine what, if any, metals treatment is required. Monitoring
would be required for the entire duration of this alternative. A
schematic diagram for the treatment system for this alternative is
presented in Figure 3.
Treated waters must be discharged to a surface water body. Surface
water bodies that could serve as recipients of treated water could
be either Ceiba Creek or the Gurabo River. The option of
discharging treated waters to the Juncos publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) is not practicable since the volume of treated waters
to be generated is too large and will exceed the current available
capacity of the POTW. Transporting the treated water to another
14
-------
POTW by tank truck is also not feasible due to the large volume of
treated water expected to be generated.
Institutional controls may include deed extractions and/or
groundwater restrictions for the duration of the remediation.
The long term monitoring program is as described in Alternative II.
Because this alternative would result in contaminants remaining on-
site above health-based levels, CERCLA requires that the Site be
reviewed every five years. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes.
VIII. SUMMARY OP COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
EPA has developed nine criteria (OSWER Directive 9355.3-01),
codified in the NCP §300.430(e) and (f), to evaluate potential
alternatives to ensure all important considerations are factored
into remedy selection. This analysis is comprised of an individual
assessment of the alternatives against each criterion and a
comparative analysis designed to determine the relative performance
of the alternatives and identify major trade-offs, that is,
relative advantages and disadvantages, among them.
The nine evaluation criteria against which the alternatives are
evaluating are as follows:
Threshold Criteria - The first two criteria must be satisfied in
order for an alternative to be eligible for selection.
1. o Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
addresses whether 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. o Compliance with Applicable, or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs) is used to determine whether each
alternative will meet all of its federal and state ARARs.
When an ARAR is not met, the detailed analysis should
discuss whether one of the six statutory waivers is
appropriate.
Primary Balancing Criteria - The next five "primary balancing
criteria" are to be used to weigh trade-offs among the different
hazardous waste management strategies.
3. o Long-Term Effectiveness and Performance 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
15
-------
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.
4. o Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment is the anticipated performance of the treatment
technologies a remedial alternative may employ.
5. o short-Term Effectiveness addresses the effects of the
alternative during the construction and implementation
phase until the remedial response objectives are met.
6. o Implementability evaluates the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing an alternative
and the availability of various services and materials
required during its implementation.
7. o Cost includes estimated capital, and operation and
maintenance costs, both translated to a present worth
basis. The detailed analysis evaluates and compares ,the
cost of the respective alternatives, but draws no
conclusions as to the cost effectiveness of the
alternatives. Cost effectiveness is determined in the
remedy selection phase, when cost is considered along
with the other balancing criteria.
Modifying Criteria - The final two criteria are regarded as
"modifying criteria", and are to be taken into account after the
above criteria have been evaluated. They are generally to be
focused upon after public comment is received.
8. o State Acceptance reflects the statutory requirement to
provide for substantial and meaningful State involvement.
9. o 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 EPA's responses to those
comments, are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary
. which is attached to this ROD.
*
The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternatives
strengths and weakness with respect to the nine evaluation
criteria.
1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Both Alternatives I and II would not reduce the potential future
risk posed by the chloroform concentrations in the groundwater,
even though the likelihood of future groundwater use is minimal.
Future demand for water within the Town of Juncos is projected to
16
-------
be supplied from surface water sources. Alternative II would
minimize the unlikely risk of future groundwater use through
implementation of institutional controls which would prevent any
future withdrawal of groundwater from the residential area
downgradient of the Site. Continued groundwater monitoring would
confirm that chloroform concentrations were naturally attenuating
over time. The degree to which Alternatives I and II would satisfy
this criterion is directly related to the successful implementation
of the OU-I selected remedy whereby the migration of contaminants
to the groundwater is reduced. The groundwater extraction and
treatment proposed as Alternative III would offer the same
advantages as Alternative II, except that the reduction of
chloroform concentrations would be accelerated, although it is
uncertain by how much, through the capture of impacted groundwater
at the Landfill boundary.
2. Compliance with ARARs
Both Alternative I and Alternative II would not be effective in
complying with ARARs in the short term because ARARs would continue
to be exceeded for certain compounds absent taking a remedial
action. Based on the results of a groundwater contaminant
transport model for the overburden aquifer conducted by McLaren
Hart, it is estimated that it will take approximately 13 years for
ARARs to be achieved in the aquifer after capping of the landfill
is completed. However, this is only an estimate, and the actual
time frame may be shorter or longer. Groundwater monitoring will
take place to make sure that concentrations are decreasing. The
groundwater extraction and treatment proposed as Alternative III
would be effective in complying with ARARs because compounds of
concern potentially migrating away from the Landfill would
theoretically be captured by the extraction wells. However, due to
the complexities of pump and treat systems in fractured bedrock
aquifers, it is uncertain how long it would take for ARARs to be
met in the aquifer itself. Tables 13 through 16 presents Federal
and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico ARARs and TBCs for OU-II of the
Juncos Landfill Site. They are presented in groups based on
whether they are chemical specific, location specific, or action-
specific.
3. Long Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative I would not be an entirely effective approach in the
long term because compounds of concern at the Landfill could
potentially continue to impact the groundwater. The no action and
the administering of institutional controls proposed as part of
Alternative II would be effective in the long term since the
institutional controls would restrict the withdrawal of groundwater
in the residential area which would prevent exposure in the
unlikely event of future groundwater usage in this area for potable
purposes. For both Alternatives I and II, existing concentrations
of compounds of concern are expected to decline in the long term
17
-------
due to the natural attenuation process after the OU-I remedial
action has been completed. Alternative III would accelerate the
removal of concentrations of compounds of concern in the
groundwater at the Site. However, the ability of the groundwater
extraction system to effectively capture all impacted groundwater
in a fractured bedrock aquifer system is uncertain.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility or Volume
Alternatives I and II would not be effective in reducing the
toxicity, mobility or volume of chloroform. In the long term, the
volume and toxicity of chloroform should diminish due to the
natural attenuation process through adsorption to the organic
carbon content of soil and its degradation to breakdown products.
Alternative III would have a similar effect except that the rate of
reduction in the toxicity and volume of compounds of concern should
be accelerated due to the capture of groundwater at the Landfill
boundary.
5. Short Term Effectiveness
There is no current risk presented by impacted groundwater
downgradient of the Site; the predominant concern identified is the
potential future use of groundwater. Alternative I would not be an
effective short term remedy because compounds could potentially
continue to impact the groundwater. Alternatives II and III would
be effective in the short term in that the institutional controls
would immediately restrict the use of groundwater in the
residential area north of the Landfill, although groundwater is not
currently used in this area. The groundwater extraction and
treatment component of Alternative III may have a more immediate
impact on the reduction of concentrations of compounds in the
groundwater, and therefore may be more effective than Alternative
II in the short term. Alternative II would take approximately 13
years to reduce chloroform concentrations to its MCL after the OU-I
remedial action has been completed. The ability of the Alternative
III groundwater extraction system to effectively capture all the
impacted groundwater in a fractured bedrock aquifer system is
uncertain; however, it would certainly be less than Alternative II
for the attainment of MCLs.
No adverse impacts on human health and the environment are expected
to result during implementation of Alternatives I, II and III.
6. Zmplementability
Alternative I has no implementation problems and Alternative II may
also be readily implemented. The establishment of institutional
controls by the appropriate Commonwealth agencies is not
anticipated to be a problem because there are no wells used for
drinking water within one mile north of the Landfill. Alternative
III differs markedly from Alternatives I and II with respect to
18
-------
this evaluation criterion due to the difficulties anticipated for
the implementation of the groundwater extraction and treatment
system. First, past experiences during implementation of the RI
indicate that obtaining access to neighboring properties is
problematic. Access would be necessary at a large number of
private properties in order to install extraction wells as proposed
under Alternative III. Second, the high density of residential
structures and the limited amount of available space would make it
extremely difficult to construct an interconnected system of
extraction wells and a treatment plant. Finally it would be
difficult to verify that complete capture of impacted groundwater
in the fractured bedrock aquifer is occurring due to the complex
and random flow patterns in this type of aquifer.
7. Cost
The cost comparison for the remedial alternatives evaluated
indicates a significant disparity in cost. The Capital Cost for
Alternative I is $0, Annual O&M of $0 and a 30-year present worth
of $0. Alternative II has a Capital Cost of $51,624, Annual O&M of
$42,250 and a 30-year present worth of $603,112. Alternative III
has a Capital Cost of $867,802, Annual O&M of $490,071 and a 30-
year Present Worth Cost of $6,417,408.
8. 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 described in the
Proposed Plan.
9. State (Commonwealth) Acceptance
A concurrence letter from EQB on behalf of the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico is attached to this Record of Decision as Appendix C.
IX. DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Based upon an evaluation of the alternatives and comments received
from the public, EPA has selected Alternative II, No
Action/Institutional Controls/Monitoring for Operable Unit II at
the Juncos Landfill Site.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follows:
• Natural attenuation/No Action for the groundwater.
• Recommendation that institutional controls consisting of
restrictions on groundwater withdrawal in the area north
19
-------
of the Landfill be implemented by the Commonwealth.
• Groundwater monitoring to ensure that the concentrations
of contaminants in the groundwater are decreasing over
time. It is estimated the approximately 16 wells will be
sampled, although the exact number and duration of the
sampling will be determined at a later date. If the
concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater do not
decrease over time, EPA may reevaluate this decision to
see if active groundwater remediation is necessary.
X. STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA Sec. 121 (b)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9621
(b)(1), mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human
health and the environment, cost effective, and utilize permanent
solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Section
121(b)(1) also establishes a preference for remedial actions which
employ treatment to permanently and significantly reduce the
volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants at a site. CERCLA Sec. 121(d), 42
U.S.C. Sec. 9621(d), further specifies that a remedial action must
attain a degree of cleanup that satisfies ARARs under federal and
state laws, unless a waiver can be justified pursuant to CERCLA
Sec. 121(d)(4), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9621(d)(4).
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the
selected remedy meets the requirements of CERCLA Sec. 121, 42
U.S.C. Sec.9621.
Overall Protection of Public Health and the Environment
Alternative II (No Action/Natural Attenuation/Monitoring) is a
remedial action which protects public health and the environment by
mitigating potential future risks associated with utilization of
groundwater for drinking purposes. This is achieved through the
use of a single-barrier cap in conjunction with institutional
controls to preclude direct contact and access to groundwater. The
surface controls (implemented with capping) and cap also reduce
precipitation infiltration which minimizes the potential for
subsequent groundwater impacts. The institutional controls will
serve to restrict access to the groundwater by residents in a
potential future use exposure scenario. Current residents utilize
a municipal water supply for drinking purposes. Natural
attenuation will serve to reduce the concentration of chloroform in
the groundwater over time through various physical and chemical
treatment processes.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or
Resource Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
20
-------
The components of Alternative II, in conjunction with the OU-I
remedy, represent the maximum extent to which a permanent solution
and treatment technology can be utilized in a cost-effective manner
for the Site. The recommended alternative is consistent with the
NCP expectation that containment technologies will generally be
appropriate remedies for sites that pose a relatively low-level
threat or where treatment is impracticable. This recommended
alternative provides the best balance of trade-offs in terms of
long-term effectiveness and permanence, reduction in toxicity
mobility and volume, short-term effectiveness, implementability and
cost. The success of more active groundwater extraction and
treatment alternatives is uncertain due to their inability to
capture all the impacted groundwater in a fractured bedrock aquifer
system.
Compliance with ARARs
The recommended alternative will comply with all applicable or
relevant and appropriate action and location specific requirements.
The extent to which contaminant-specific ARARs (e.g. chloroform)
can be met is uncertain due to the complexities of groundwater flow
in fractured bedrock aquifer systems.
Cost Effectiveness
Alternative II effectively addresses the potential future-use risks
posed by the Site. This alternative affords the highest level of
overall effectiveness proportionate to its costs. The increased
costs of the other alternatives evaluated do not provide
significantly greater protection of public health and the
environment relative to their costs.
XI. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative
presented in the Proposed Plan.
21
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
?r—• ^>
*•«• ^^r,-;^& yx ^/c
'^^wfy^-^^^:
gg^/&.y ?
. ' .>^'r/j?G>/ E 1 B —A^*
®fcS\ ^Approximate limits;^p^C~7^j4 I
•m ^s?f ^ wHndS^ShJ^- few.
M^^^?>
,'(S-ir-s2>.^ >^i
k'l 'TVr*-«<>.. . f^*~w -i /• (
T> -\VvN^%v-\V^)!^r-
*^-,\\» III v -^ -
•r^^^^
FJGURE 1
SFTE LOCATION MAP
NOTE:
Base map it a portion of lh« Juncos Ouadfangla, 1967
pholorevued 1982. Contour interval is 10 me(er».
Dashed contouri represent 5 melar contour*.
JUNCOS LANDFILL
JUNCOS. PUERTO RICO
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES, \HC.
-------
FIGURE 2
n
u
O ^
VMBO C. MART A3SOCIATB*. IMC
-------
'(2s^\{?1 iD~
MAP SHOWING EXCEEDENCE3 OF
UMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS
(XUAIf MrmtCO M
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
Table 1
SUMMARY OF CHLOROFORM ANALYTICAL
RESULTS IN GROUND WATER
Round 1
Round II
Monitoring Well
J-l-1
J-l-2
J-2-1
J-2-2
J-2-3
J-3-1
J-3-2
J-3-3
J-4-1
J-4-2
J-5
J-6
J-7-1
J-7-2
J-7-3
J-9-1
J-9-3
MO-1
MO-2
MO-3
MM
Ml-2
Ml-3
March 1987
ND
ND
ND
ND
October 1987
2,590 (2,290)
70.5
-
-
-
-
***
***
***
***
*•*
***
•»*
*»*
*»*
*»»
***
~
1,750(1,090)
2.27
2.59
ND
ND
***
***
***
***
***
***
**•
***
***
***
414141
Jan/Feb. 1989
ND
ND
ND
ND
«
MOJ
19J
980J
ND
ND
ND
ND
***
April 1989
***
***
770(880)**
14**
190**
ND**
ND**
»**
***
***
***
***
*»*
***
***
*#*
***
*#•
*»*
4"**
*»*
•
**»
Round III
January. 1991
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
810
26
1800
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
925
330
2.61B
SB
1090
292
4JB
ND (ND)
6.06 B
6.03 B
I. AH vtfctc* io oj/1 (mierofnnu per liter).
2. Value* is < ) arc ruutu of not urnplcd.
4. ND mt»a* Nol Dclacuui.
5. * Udir«i»i w«U mot wmpled 4iM to dry or nur-dry condUion*.
6. •• l»l«m.» dkM *>!• ««ll wu nMmpUJ bM*UM VOC hoUIng llnw* w*ra «U
7. J muni valuM an «nim»iad.
I. ••• indicate* w«U not iiuulled at lime of aampling.
9. B indicalei compound waa detected at aimilar concenlration* in blank aample.
fur UM liMi
-------
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF GROUNDHATFR SAMPLES
Parameter
Number
of
Samples
Number
Positive
IDs
Sample Range
Low High
Sample
Mean
USEPA
Drlnkln;
Hater
Standard
Inorganics;
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Organics:
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Chlorobenzene
Carbon Dlsulfide
Benzole add
Dl-n-butylphthalate
Phenol
1
8
*****
*****
11
11
BOL -
BDL -
0.098
0.035
1
4
10
8
ALL SAMPLES HERE BDL
*****
BOL
BOL
BOL
BOL
0.006
0.009
0.125
0.019
ALL SAMPLES HERE BOL
*****
1 BDL - 0.012
'* ALL SAMPLES WERE BDL "
11 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.
0.
098
009
0.
0.
.006
.007
0.034
0.007
0.012
0.105
.343
.0055
.0005
.090
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.050
0,
0.
1.
0.
0.
010
050
000*
050
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 3
GROtfllDWATER INORGANICS ANALYTICAL RESULTS
PARAMETER
INORGANICS
Antinomy
Arsenic
•ariu*
•eryll it**
Cadaiua
Crtroauua (tool)
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Molytadenua
Nickel
Vanaditai
2inc
NUMBER
OF
SAMPLES (t)
20
20
*
20
20
20
20
20
4
20
1
20
*
20
MUK8ER
OF
POSITIVES
4
9
4
5
2
11
16
11
4
5
1
U
2
17
SAMPLE
HIM
ML
IOL
25. a
•01
BDl
801
BDL
BOL
76.2
BOL
U
BOL
BOL
BOL
RANGE
MAX
219
41.1
1BJO
4.1
1.4
112
2B4
42.1
8595
4
u
SJ
216
647
MEAN
104
21.9
6S7
2.1
2.7
44.8
4B.8
IS. 8
2877
1.4
14
29.J
111
116
ARAR COMPARISON
MEAN/MAX>PMCIC.PMCL; MAX'fUQC
MEAN/MAX»FUQC.PRUQS(CU)
MAX>PRUQS(SU)
HE AN/MAX>PHCLC.PNCL . FMC ,PRMS( SU)
SEE 1ABLE 2-1 IOR PRUQSMCLC.MCL.PRUQS(SU)
SEE TABU 2-1 FOR PRUQS(SU); OlHERUISE --
MEAN/MAX>MCLG.HCl - SEE TABtE 2-1 FOR PRUOS(SU)
MEAM/MAX>PRUOS(SU)
MEAN>PRUaS(SU);MAX>MCLC.MCL.PRuaS(SU>
N/A
MCAN/MAK>ruQC, SEE TABLE 2-1 FOR PRUOS(SU)
N/A
MEAN/MAX>PRUaS(SU)
(1) Rctultt «r« fro* ut(llt«r«d. doMngradient w«tU J-2. J-3. J-S. J-6. J-7. J-9. J-10 end J-11.
•• - ARMt not «iiCMO«l; N/A - Not Appt ic*bl*/No ARAR*.
fro. the calcuUllen of th. «^s •• w.r. replic.tes
Rctultt are coabined for the three •aapllng roi«Jt.
PMCl • Propotrd Maiiiui Contaaiinant level .
PMCli. Proposed MailMJi ContMiirtant Level Coat.
PRUQS • Puerto Rico wcter Ou*lity Standcrds; SU: Surface Water. CU: Crounduitcr.
fuOC-MM - Federal Ajrf>imt U.ier Ouallty Criteria adjured for drinking water only.
. value of «ero < J-4.J-4-J.J-5-10.J-11-11 and J-10 20).
-------
TABLE 4
PHASE I MUNICIPAL WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
leachate Indicator!
Chloride
Nitrate as N
Sulfate at S04
10X
IOC
Specific Conductance
pH
Acidity as CaCOj
Alkalinity as CaC03
Araonia as N
Bicarbonate as CaCOj
Carbonate as C»CO->
BOO
COO
IDS
Hetals
Copper
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Volatile Organic Compounds
Ir i clil or of luorome thane
Base/Neutral Extractable
Organic Compounds
Di-n-butyl phthalate
eietnon
Limit
(Watetl-
1.0
.1
5
5
1.0
10
NA
5
C
.05
5
2
10
10
HARI Identifier - WJUNCOS 01
ETC Identifier - _.BBZZZ?__
34.1
,g
35
18. 20
1.8. 1.8
478. 482
7.16. 7.20
170
.09
170
NO
6JH
11
I70JH
WJUNCOS OS
_MZ2fii-
22.9
.7
26
16. 17
NO. NO
367. 368
6.82. 6.82
NO
13
NO
130
NO
2JH
NO
240JH
WJUNCOS 07
_BBZZ66-
2 7
£ • '
.5
51
19. 21
1.8. 1-9
581. 581
6.95. 6.96
NO
180
un
rtu
180
un
NU
6JH
13
370JH
WJUNCOS 08
_.i877jSZ_
34.5
.9
33
24. 27
5.3. 5.4
485. 491
6.66. 6.68
NO
170
.10
170
NO
5JH
NO
310JH
1.7
28
20
220
54
260
100
10
10-11
NO
NO
BHOL
4)100
16200
32100
2000
NO
NO
1.4
17
NOB
32700
16600
20000
730
NO
NO
BHOL
NO
NOB
55700
15500
42200
1100
NO
NO
BHOL
BHOL
BHDL
41400
16300
33900
1900
NO
BHOL
Field Blank Trip Blank
_.eezzz5_ _BBzzz3_
NU
NO
NO
14. IB
NO. NO
NO. NO
7.15. 7.16
NO
NO
NO
NO
4JH
NO
92JM
BHDL
NO
22
BHDL
68
540
BHOL
BHOL
NO
NO
mg/1
ng/l
mg/1
ug/l
ng/1
un/cn
pH Units
ng/1
mg/1
ng/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/1
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
ug/l
NO
BHOl
JH
NDB
Hot Detected
Below Method Detection Unit
Sjr.ple not analysed (or parameter
ilua Is estimated becausa holding
times were enceeded.
10X - lotal Organic Halides
IOC - Total Organic Carbon
BOO - Biochemical Oxygen Demand
COO - Chemical Oxygen Demand
IDS - Total Dissolved Solids
mg/1 - Hilligrams per liter
ug/l - Hlcrograms per liter
Valua Is estimatea DCC«U>B nu.v..,..,
times were exceeded. IDS - Total uissoivcu .»»..-.
Value Is reported as not detected because it was
found at concentrations lest than fiv* times (ten times for conmon lab contaminants) the amount In any blank associated with sample.
WJUNCOS 08 is a replicate of WJUNCOS 01.
(1350n-17)
-------
4/16/92
COPC.XtS
Table 5
CHEMICALS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN DETECTED AT THE JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
INORGANICS
Aluminum*
Antimony
Arcanic
Barium
BaryUlum
Cadmium
Calcium*
Chomkjm (III and VI)
Cobalt*
Copoar*
Iron*
Laad*
Magnatlum*
ManganaM
Mercury
Morybdanum
Nk*al
Poustiom*
Sodium*
Vanadium
Zinc
VOLATILE ORGANICS:
ftonzana
Carbon DiiulUa
CMorobanzana
Cntorofonn
M-DkMoroarhan*
Mathytona Chlorida
SEMIVOLATILE ORGANICS.
BentotcAod
Bi«<2-chtoroiMpn>pyl) attwr
4.4'DDT
Dieldrtn
Endrln
Ft«*nol
NOTES:
* IndicaiM that tha chamlcal could not ba quantltattvaly avaluatad dua to a lack ol toxioily data.
-------
4/26/82
PWAYAS XLS
Table 6
PATHWAY ANALYSIS/PATHWAY :.: LECTION. JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE*
Occurrence
Groondwater
Rout*
Ingestion
Dermal Contact
(Shower)
Inhalation
(Shower)
Receptors
RetktoMs
(Aduks and Children)
Residents
(AduktandChildnn)
Current Fufeii*
U L
U L
U L
Comment
Groundwatcr l» not cutrvntly used for residential and/or industrial
application. There it potential lor its use in the luture.
Groundwater It not currently used lor residential and/or industrial
application. There is potential lor its use In the luture.
Groundwater Is not currently used lor residential and/or industrial
application. There is potential lor Us use In the luture.
Pathway RetauM
lor Analysis
Yes
Yes
NOTES.
U .
-------
TABLE 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL-
INGESTION EXPOSURE OF ADULTS TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNOWATER
(in0tQ-4tey) Cortotrttrfttoft
-_ ,, ^ w
mpt A
Watar
Chamcab Concentration
Barmana 3.006 -09
Chtorotonft, 0 . 59E+00
Matiytena Ctaviill 1 TM^ "?
*1 _,« _^_ __ ... .t^.,.^. « JW»I? «.«
OiabMn 1 006 -OS
4.4--OOT 2 OOE-05
A**anc ' 1.6E10-02
BanAuM 9BOE-03
**vrvc
K Eipotur* X
ZOMay X SSOdayi^aar X
lAOMMM
Rata
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
EipOMir*
Fraquancy "
350
350
3 SO
350
350
350
350
350
Expottjr* X
Ourakon
CMPOMI*
Ounkon
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
1 X I
Body Waighi Avarapng T»na
1 X 1
70 kg
Body
Wat»M
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
25550 day*
Averaging
Twna
25SSO
25550
2555O
25550
25550
25550
25550
25550
OwomcDariy
Inuka (COl)
3SE-05
2 IE 02
l 5E 04
47E-05
126-07
23E-07
42E04
45E-05
CanoarStopa
Factor (CSf)
200602
6106-03
7506-O3
1 406-02
1606*01
340E-OI
teOEtOO
4306.00
RISK.
(COTCSF)
106-0*
4.3E-05
LIE-OS
1.06 -OS
• 0€-08
3.4E10-4
I.9E-04
TOTAL RISK. 3.9E-04
-------
GW-M-ftf XLS
TABLE 7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL:
INGESTION EXPOSURE OF ADULTS TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER
MOMCAftOMOGCMS • GftOUNDWATCR MGESTtOM EXPOSURE
ChroMcO«*yinfc»W*.
(•vV4*y>
**
C*~*KJ**
CHoNJb*m*r+
OMOfOvQfM
I/bitten* CNrwirtt
faaaWH^fckwai.MGittWf.' •tfw
•*^">\«^*"a»^^^"BW*pM ••' f " ~ — ^"
A. .A -^ A. _ _ .*• _b.«. _•_«—
B»<2 ••if VMByl) plOTMMa
K^MfcM^M J^od
C^WWiH* PWMP
y^.— — — >
C«1B*^W
n lit in
^^••'•1
Csidm
4.4--OOT
AAMftony
Artarac
BariMM
Bao«aum
Cadmum
Chroma* (11)
(VI)
Uo^toda^um
Mavl
Ua>Ou«y
ZMC
Walaf X
Conoamrotoi
mod X
WaMT
COrtO^fl4TB^OI%
1.OOE02
0.59.00
1.00C-03
1.30C-02
2.02E-01
• 596O2
4OOEO3
2OOEO3
200EO3
100EO5
1O06O5
2O06O5
«; 7F-0?
J:6DE-02
t.a3E.OO
30OC-O3
3.40E-03
t.eOE-02
V60EO2
' • we.oo
140602
503E02
. 2.10EO3
2.16E-01
3&3E01
InOMtan X
Rala
20 Way X
tngMMn
Rat*
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Eipocura ]
K E«po>ur« X
Frequency Dunfton
350dayvy«« X 30y«M» X
Eifxmira
Fraquancy
350
350
350
350
350
350
3 SO
350
350
350
350
35O
350
350
350
35O
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
Eipowr*
Dun Km
30
30
30
30
30
30
90
30
30
30
30
3O
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
1 >
[ 1
Body Waigttt Av*r apng T«na
1 X 1
70 kg
Body
WwoM
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
TO
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
10»SOd*y»
Avaragmg
TWna
10950
10050
10950
10950
I095O
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950
10950*
10050
10950
10950
10950
Chrome Daily
Intake (COD
27604
49E02
27E05
36EO4
55603
186O3
1 1604
55605
556O5
27E-07
27607
566-07
34603
996O4
60EO2
10EO4
93605
26EO3
4.4E-04
24E01
386O4
1. 46-03
58605
69603
99E03
Ralaraooa
DOM (RIO)
200602
100E02
100601
600€02
100601
400602
20O6O2
400E^X>
600EOI
$00605
300604
500604
400604
300604
7.00602
5006O3
5006O4
1006.00
500E-03
100601
4.00603
2. 006 O2
300EO4
700603
2006O1
HO.
covrvo
14EO2
1.62E+00
27E-04
59E03
55C-02
4SC-02
SSC-03
14E04
0 IE-OS
55E03
0.1E-O4
1.1E-O3
1 I 5E+00
72C-OI
2.1 £-02
1.0C-01
26EOJ
• Of -02
24E«00
06£02
• OC02
106O1
65EOI
&.OC-02
HAZARD INDEX- 1.2E+01
-------
OMOC-ftf )O*
TABLE 8 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL-
DERUAL EXPOSURE OF ADULTS TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER:SHOWER SCENARIO
XSMn
"V* X 1*180010 X cm*w X 02lwfttoy X 33O d*y*/y«« X
JC X
1000 cnO 70k«
ATM
FACMM
Tnw
InplKiCOl)
MSK.
JCOTCSQ
•m !»,•>•>,•,,*.•..
4.4-DOT
4OOC-09
t OOE-OS
200CO3
IftIM
uiso
U13O
• 4E-04
• 4604
• 4EO4
02
O2
02
350
XU>
390
30
30
30
I 06 OJ
IOE01
10EOJ
70
70
70
2SUO
72EO*
1 OC-1O
36£ 10
I40C-02
J40COI
toc-o*
20600
126-10
TOTAL RISK. 40E4*
$ - OMOUMOWATCM OCJtttAL CONTACT EXPOSURE
WMW XShn&tftao* X I
X 18110on» X cm«w
SMtSuftea*
ATM
Facto*
11
1000 onO
70kg
Booy
Conaun
Tvn*
FMKW
Tra
NO.
(C0l> Oo»»(RC> COVHO
y^^^
Ota*M«
-
4.4- DOT
• 50C-Q8
400C-00
2OOE-O3
200C-09
1.0OE-OS
1 OO6-OS
20OC-O9
18110
18110
10190
1*190
18150
18 ISO
18190
• 4E-O4
• 4E-O4
• 4E-04
eiE-oj
• 4E-O4
• 4C-O4
8.4E-04
O2
02
02
O2
02
O2
O2
390
300
390
390
350
3OO
35O
30
30
30
30
30
30
30.
IOE-03
IOEO3
ioe-03
I.OE-03
IOE-03
IOE-03
10603
70
70
70
70
70
70
70 •
lOftSO
'lOftiO
10650
10AM
10450
10050
tOMO
28606
1.7E07
64E09
8.1607
4.2E-10
4.2E-10
8.4E-IO
40OEO2
2006-02
400£*00
6.006-01
6 OOE-OS
3.006 -O4
OOOE-04
606-05
• 46-06
2.IE-OS
136-08
• 46-04
1.46-06
1.7£[-08
HAZARD INDEX. ftOC-OS
-------
GWIta-DXLS
TABLE 9 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL
INHALATION EXPOSURE OF ADULTS TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER: SHOWER SCENARIO
Variable Valu«
-------
IIM/O2
GW-ftlfuvXLS
TABLE 10 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL:
INGESTION EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER
NONCARONOGENS - GROUNDWATER INGESTION EXPOSURE (0 - 6 YEARS)
X Exposure X Exposure X
Subcfaocac Daily lnlalu»-
(mg/Vg-day)
Chemicats
Chlorotenzen*
Okxoto/m
1.1-OicMoroethaAe
UcMhyten* CNonda
Carbon OisuJfcte
Bts(2-cMoro«sofvopyQ ether
Bis(2*t)ytttxy<) phlhalaie
BenzoicAcid
Pttenol
Oieldnn
Endnn
4.4'DOT
Antimony
A/santc
Barium
Berytbuflt
Cadmium
Chromium (111)
Manganese
UotybdMum
Nicfcai
Mercury
Vanadun.
Zinc
new «
Concentration
ing* *
Waier
1.00E-02
0.59E+00
10OE-O3
130E-02
202E-O1
6 59E-02
400E-03
200E-03
200E-03
100E-05
100E-OS
200E05
5.70E-02
1.60E-02
183E«00
380E-03
340E-03
960E-02
1.60E-02
859E.OO
140E-02
503E-02
210E-03
216E-01
363E-01
"•W""""" "
Raia
20 Vday X
Ingasiion
Rats
—
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Frequency
350 days/year
Exposure
Frequency
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
Duration
X 6 years X
Exposure
Duration
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Body Weigh! Averaging Tune
1X1
16kg
Body
Weight
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
2190 days
Averaging
Time
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
Subchronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
1 2E-03
2 IE 01
1.2E-04
1 6E 03
24E02
79E03
4 BE 04
2.4E-04
2 4E-04
1 2E 06
1 2E06
24E06
1.5E-02
4 3E-03
22E01
4.6E-04
4 IE 04
1 2E-02
1.9E-03
10E.OO
1.7E-03
6.0E-03
2 5E-04
26E-02
4.3E02
Subchronic
Reference
Dose (RIO)
2.00E01
1 OOE 02
100E.OO
600E02
1 OOE 01
4 OOE 02
2 OOE 02
4 OOE .00
6 OOE 01
5 OOE 05
5 OOE 04
5 OOE 04
4 OOE 04
1.00E-03
5 OOE-02
5 OOE 03
500E04
1 OOE. 01
200E-02
100E01
4 OOE 03
2 OOE 02
300E-04
7.00E-03
2.00E-01
HAZARD INDEX -
HQ=
CDI/RIO
6 OE 03
6.9E+00
1.2E04
26E02
24EOI
2.0E-01
24E02
60E05
4 OE 04
24E02
2.4E-03
48E03
1.7E+01
1.9E+00
44E.OO
9 IE 02
8.2E-01
12E-03
96E-02
i oE.o;
42E01
3.0E01
ME^I
37E.;00
2.2E-01
4.7E+01
-------
TABLE 10 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL:
1NGEST1ON EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO CHEMICALS IN QROUNDWATER
. OAOUNOWATtR MGESTKM EXPOSURE (0 • • YEARS)
>•>• Watef X lno*ttan X E«AOM*» X EipOM* X
CNorotcr*
4.4--OOT
«Q« X
w«.
Cm*j»**«*nn
3.00C-03
0.59+00
1.30C-02
l«to 4.0OE-03
IOOC-O5
200E-03
1.60E-02
Raw
2 Olfctey X
Ing***
Rat*
2O
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Frequency Ourakon
3504*y«/yaa/ X 6yw*« X
EMKMUM
Fr«qu««icy
UO
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
EBpo-uw
Ourvkon
e
4
6
6
6
6
6
Body W*igM Avwftpng TMM
1 X 1
16 kg
Body
W*r
1 . HE-05
IOC 4)6
see -07
I6C06
70E-09
2.9E-04
1.7C-04
TOTAL RISK. 3.1E-04
-------
H/4/82
GW OC RF.XlS
TABLE 11 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL:
DERMAL EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATERrSHOWER SCENARIO
CARCMOCEMS • CROUMDWATER DERMAL CONTACT EXPOSURE (0 • 6 YEARS)
ClUonic Daily InteX*.
Watw XSWn Sortaca X Pormoabilily X Exposure X Exposure X Exposure X Conve«SK>n X_
imgmg-aay) uoncvmnuion A/«a Constant Time Frequency Duration Factor
mgA X 72OOcm2 X crtvhr X 0 2 hr/day X 350 days/year X 6 years X 11
Cnamcafe
Be(2«tl«y«t«*yl) phttkatato
OwUnn
4.4- DOT
WaM> SUnSurtac*
Concentnttan Area
4006-03 7200
1006-05 7200
200C-OS 7200
Pwmeabikly
Constant
84EO4
846-04
84EO4
Exposure
Tune
02
02
02
Exposure
Frequency
350
350
350
Exposure
Duration
6
6
6
1000 cm3
Conversion
Factor
1 06 03
1 06 03
1 OE 03
Body Weight Averaging Time
X 1 X 1
16kg
Body
Weight
16
16
16
25550 days
Averaging
Time
25550
25550
25550
Chronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
25608
626-11
1.26-10
Cancer Slope
Factor (CSF)
1 .406-02
1 606.01
340601
TOTAL RISK -
RISK .
(COrCSF)
35E 10
99E 10
426 11
1 4E09
NOMCARCMOOENS - OROUNOWATER DERMAL CONTACT EXPOSURE (0 • 6 YEARS)
SubctvofMC DAtty Iniak*"
(m9%04*y)
CheroM^aH
fi*5(?-^Kyo<>opfty>1) •tf***
flurr • itMrfK^wwft trfirttauM*
DB^4fc^W'y*|Wy*/ ^•••••••^•w
Benzoie Add
Pnenol
Dwktm
tndrm
4.4- DOT
Wate< XSfcin Surface X
Conceouainn Aiaa
mcyl X 7200 cm2 X
WaMi Stun Surtac*
Conovnttaiion Area
6 506 02 7200
40O6-O3 7200
200E03 7200
2006-03 7200
10O6-O5 7200
100605 7200
200605 7200
Parmeabikry X
Constant
cm/hr X
Parmaabikry
Constant
846O4
• 46-04
8.4604
81603
84EO4
84E04
84604
Exposure X
Tuna
Expo sore
Frequency
02 hr/day X 350 days/year
Exposure
Time
02
02
02
02
02
02
. 02
Exposure
Frequency
350
350
350
350
350
350
350
X Exposure X
Duration
X 6 years X
Exposure
Duration
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Conversion
Factor
1 L
1000 crt>3
Conversion
Factor
1 06 03
1.06-03
1 OE 03
1.06O3
10603
10603
I.OE03
X 1
Body Weight
X 1
16kg
Body
Weight
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
X 1
Averaging Time
X 1
2 190 days
Averaging
Time
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
2190
Subchronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
4 BE 06
296-07
1 46-07
1 4606
726 10
726-10
1 46-09
Subchronic
Roloience
Dose (RID)
4006-02
2 006-02
4006.OO
6006-01
500605
5.00E-04
5.006-04
MO.
CDl/RtO
1 2E04
1 4E05
36608
23606
1 46 OS
1 4E 06
29E06
HAZARD INDEX - 1 6E 04
-------
I1/4/W2
GWINH2XLS
TABLE 12 RISK CHARACTERIZATION FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL:
INHALATION EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER: SHOWER SCENARIO
Variable Values
C(sa) - Concennbon in bathroom during showering (ug/m3)
C(w) - Concentration in shower water (ug/l) 95% UCL or maximum concentration (ug/l)
400 tilers/hour
090
0.1 hour
12 meterS
FL
VF
I
V
Flow ntt ol shower watar (l/hr)
- Fraction ol contaminant voiatHued
-Ona half duration of shower (hr)
. Batfwoom votunn (m3)
EQUATION:
C(«a) .
FL X
C(w) X VF
(u9/rt»3) (l/hr) (ugrt)
C(sa):
Chloroform 4OO 1 784 0
Uethyiene Chloride 400 130
Carbon DisUfcd* 400 2020
Chloroberuana 400 100
Benzene 4OO 3.0
1.1 Dtchtoroethane 4OO 10
CARCINOGENS - GROUNDWATER INHALATION EXPOSURE (0 - 6 YEARS)
Chronic Oaiy Intake. Air X Inhalation X Exposure X
(mg/Vg-day)
Chemicals
Chloroform
UMhytana Chloride
Beruen*
Concentration
mg/m3 X
Av
Concenration
514E*00
370E^2
860C03
Rate
06m3/hr X
Inhalation
Rate
06
0.6
0.6
Time
02 hrs/day X
Exposure
Time
02
02
02
(unitless)
090
090
090
090
090
090
Exposure
Frequency
350 days/year
Exposure
Frequency
350
350
350
X 1
(hr)
01
01
0 1
01
01
0.1
X Exposure
Duration
X 6 years
Exposure
Duration
6
6
6
X 1
V
(1/m3)
008
008
008
008
008
008
X 1
Body Weight
X 1
16 kg
Body
Weight
16
16
16
5138
37
582
29
86
29
X t
Averaging Time
X 1
25550 days
Averaging
Time
25550
25550
25550
Chronic Daily
Intake (GDI)
3.2E-03
2.3E-05
5.3E-06
Cancor Slope
Factor (CSF)
8 10E 02
1 70E 03
290E-02
TOTAL RISK -
RISK-
(CDI-CSF)
8.6E-05
3 96 08
1 5E07
8.6E-05
NONCABONOGENS - GflOUNOWATER INHALATION EXPOSURE (0 - 6 YEARS)
Subchronic Dafty W»h*-
(me/ko-day)
1 . t • DiChloroethane
Uathyten* Chtooda
Carbon Oisulfcde
ChlorobertMne
Air X
Concentration
n\n/m1 t
mgrnw A
Atf
Cofkcontration
2AOE-03
3706-02
5826-01
29OE-02
Inhalation X
Rate
0 6 m3/hr X
Inhalation
Rata
06
06
06
06
Exposure X
Time
0.2 hrs/day X
Exposure
Time
02
02
02
02
Exposure
Frequency
350 days/year
Exposure
Frequency
350
350
350
1KH
3bO
X Exposure
Duration
X 6 years
Exposure
Duration
6
6
6
X 1
Body Weight
X 1
16kg
Body
Weight
16
16
16
16
X 1
Averaging Time
X 1
2190 days
Averaging
Time
2190
2190
2190
2190
Subchronic Oaily
Intake (GDI)
21E-05
27E-04
4 2E-03
2 IE 04
Subchronic
Reference
Dose (RID)
100E.OO
860601
2 90E 03
500E 02
HAZARD INDEX -
HO,
GDI/HID
2 IE 05
3 IE 04
1 4E>00
42E03
1 4E.OO
-------
TABLE 13
POTENTIAL FEDERAL CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC ARARs FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
Parameters
Chloroform
100»
Adjusted FWQC For Drinking Water (2)
0.19(3)
Units arc parts per billion (ppb)
* MCL for (rihalomethanes as a class of compounds. Includes chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane and
dibromochloromelhane.
(1) MCLs Fact Sheet: Drinking Water Regulations Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. May 1990. Table 14.
(2) Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria for protection of Human Health adjusted for drinking water only.
(3) FWQC corresponding to a 10E-6 risk level.
C658.1
-------
TABLE 14
POTENTIAL FEDERAL LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
LOCATION
Area effecting stream or
river.
Wetlands
Within area where action
may cause irreparable
harm. loss, or destruction
of significant artifacts.
Historic project owned or
controlled by Federal
agency
REQUIREMENT
Action to protect fish or
wildlife.
Action to avoid adverse
effects, minimize potential
harm and preserve, and
enhance tot he extent
possible.
Action to recover and
preserve artifacts.
Action to preserve historic
properties; planning of
action to minimize harm to
National Historic
Landmarks.
PREREQUISITE(S)
Diversion, channeling, or
other activity that modifies
a stream or river and
effects fish or wildlife.
Action involving
construction of facilities or
management of property in
wetlands.
Alteration of terrain that
threatens significant
scientific, prehistorical.
historical or archaeological
data.
Property included in or
eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places.
CITATION
Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (16 USC
641 et esq.); 40 CRF 6.302.
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix
A
National Historical
Preservation Act (16 USC
Section 469); 36 CFR Part
65.
National Historic
Preservation Act, Section
106 (16 USC 470 9Lm-);
36 CFR Part 800
COMMENTS
The Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act requires
consultation with the
Department of Fish and
Wildlife prior to any
action that would alter a
body of water of the
United States.
CftSR.I
-------
TAlll.K I')
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIK1C ARAKs Ft>K jUNCOS LANDFILL
Actions
Requirement
Prerequisites
Ciuiion
Comments
Air Stripping
Duign system 10 provide odor free
operation.
CAA Section 101*
File an Air Pollution Emission Notice
(Af EN) with the Sute to include
estimation of emission raics for each
pollutant erpected.
/d*y, 10 gal/day, or allowable cmiuion
levels from similar sources using
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT).
Source operation mutt be in an ozone
nonattainmenl area.
40 CFR sr
Verify through emission estimates and
dispersion modeling that hydrogen sulfide
emissions do not create an ambient
concentration greater than or equal to
0 10 ppm.
40 CRF 6lk
Odor regulations are intended to limit nuisance
conditions from air pollution emissions.
Stale wilt hive particular interest in emissions for
compounds on Iheir hazardous, lone or odorous list.
Preliminary meeting with state prior to Tiling APEN
is recommended in the regulation. Meeting would
identify additional issues of concern to the Stale.
State may identify further requirements for permit
issuance after first review. These provisions follow
the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) framework with some modifications.
Additional requirements could include ambient
monitoring and emission control equipment design
revisions to match Lowest Achievable Emission
Requirements (LACK)
While a permit is not required for an onsile
CERCLA action, the substantive requirements
identified during the permitting process are
applicable. ^^^
The control technology review for this regulation
(RACT) could coincide with the BACI" review
suggested under the PSD program.
Verify that emissions of mercury, vinyl
chloride, and bcruenc do not exceed
levels eirpected from sources in
compliance with hazardous air pollution
regulations.
40 CFR 61'
Regulation 8 indicates any source emitting the
regulated compounds is subject to this regulation.
However, come of the specific regulations further
restrict the scope of applicability.
Direct Discharge of
Treatment System
E/flucat
Applicable federal water quality criteria
for the protection of aquatic life must be
complied with when environmental
factors are being considered.
Surface discharge of treated effluent.
SO PR 30784
(July 29. IMS).
C658.1
-------
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARj FOR JUNCOS LANDFILL
Actioiu
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
Comment!
Direct Discharge of
Trcalmc*! System
Efliueaf (GMiinued)
Applicable federally approved Mite water
quality standards musl be complied with.
These standards may be in addition to or
more stringent than other federal
standards under the CWA.
Surface discharge of treated effluent.
40 CFR 122.44 and stale
regulations approved
under 40 CFR 191.
If slate regulations arc more stringent than federal
water quality standards, the state standardi will be
applicable to direct discharge. The state his
authority under 40 CFR 131 to implement direct
discharge requirements within the slate, and should
be contacted on a case by-case basis when direct
discharge* are contemplated.
The discharge musl be consistent with
the requirement of a Water Quality
Management plan approved by EPA
under Section 20B(b) of the Clean Water
Act.
CWA Section 206(6)
Discharge must comply with substantive but not
administrative requirements of the management plan.
Use of best available technology (BAT)
economically achievable is required to
control tone and nonconvcnlionil
pollutants. Use of best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT) is
required to control conventional
pollutants. Technology based limitations
may be determined on a casc-by-casc
basis.
Surface discharge of treated effluent.
40 CPR 122.44 (a)
If treated effluent is discharged to surface waten,
these treatment requirements will be applicable.
Permitting and reporting requirements will be
applicable only if the effluent is discharged at an
offsite location. The permitting authority should be
contacted on a case-by
-------
POTKNTIAI. KKDKKAL ACTION SPECIFIC AKAIU rX)R JUNCOS LANDFILL
Action*
Requirement
Pre requisite*
Citation
Commcnii
Direct Di*charg« of
Treataneol Sytum
Effluent (Cociujaied)
Approved leu method* for watte
conatilueni* to be monitored must be
followed. Detailed requirement* for
analytical procedure* and quality control*
•re provided.
Permit Application infotmation mutt be
•ubmitted. including a description of
activities, titling of environmenul
permit*, etc.
Monitor and report remit* a* required by
permit (al lea*! annually).
40CFR 122.2!
40CFR I22.44(i)
Comply "UK additional permit condition*
•uch *•:
Duly to miligalc any advene effect*
of any discharge.
Proper operation and maintenance of
treatment aytiema.
40CFR I22.4l(i)
Develop and implement a Bert
Management Practice* (BMP) program
and incorporate in the NPDES permit to
prevent the releate of toxic coiuiituenl*
to aurface water*.
The BMP program mun:
Eaubli*h tpeciric procedure* for the
control of toxic and hazardous
pollutant (pill*.
Include a prediction of direction, rale
of flow, and loul quality of toxic
pollutant* where experience indicate*
a rea*on*ble potential for equipment
failure.
Aourt proper management of toltd
and hazardou* waxe in accordance
with regultlioiu promul^iled under
RCRA
Surface water diacnarge.
40CFR 125.100
40 CFR 125.104
Theaa IUIMI are determined on a ct*e-by-c*»o ba*i*
by the NPDES permitting authority for any proposed
uirfac* diacharge of treated waMcwaler. Although a
CERCLA ail* remedialion U oat required to obtain
an NPOES permit for onaiu diachargca to aurface
water*, lh« *ub*unUvo requirement* of the NPDES
permit program muat be met by the remediation
action if powible. The permitting authority thould
be coiuuhed on • c**«-by-ca*e bail* to detarmine
BMP requirement*.
C658.I
-------
TABU: > ^
rOTKNTIAI. FEDERAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs K>K JUNCOS LANDFILL
Actions
Requirement
Simpk preservation procedures,
container materials, and maximum
allowable holding times are prescribed.
Prerequisites
Surface water discharge.
Citation
40 CFR 136.1-1364
Comments
These requirements are generally incorporated into
pcimils, which are not required for onsile discharges.
The subsUnlive requirements are applicable ,
however, in that verifiable evidence mult be offered
that standards are being met. The permitting
authority should be consulted on a ease-by-case basis
to determine analytical requirements.
Discharge to POTW*
Pollutants that pass through the POTW
sludge are prohibited.
Specific prohibitions preclude the
discharge of pollutants 10 POTWs that:
• Create a Tire or explosion hazard in
the POTW.
• Are corrosive (pi I <5 0)
• Obstruct flow resulting in
interference.
• Are discharged at a flow rale and/or
concentration that will result in
interference.
• Increase the temperature of
waslewalcr entering the treatment
plant that would result in
interference, but in no case raise the
POTW influent temperature above
1WF(40'C).
Discharge must comply with local POTW
prcirealmenl program, including POTW-
spccific pollutants, spill prevention
program requirements, and reporting and
monitoring requirements.
RCRA permit-by rule requirements must
be complied with for discharges of
RCRA hazardous wastes to POTWs by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe.
40 CFR 403 5
If any liquid it discharged to a POTW, these
requirement* ire applicable. In accordance with
guidance, • discharge permit will be required even
for • onsile discharge, since permitting is the only
substantive control mechanism available to a POTW.
40 CFR 403 i and local
POTW regulations
40 CFR 264.71 and
40 CFR 264.72
Categorical standards have not been promulgated for
CERCLA sites, so discharge standards must be
determined on a casc-by-casc basis, depending on the
characteristic* of the waste stream and the receiving
POTW. Some municipalities have published
standards for non-categorical, non-domestic
discharges. Changes in the composition of the wane
stream due lo pretrealmcnl process changes or the
addition of new waste streams will require
renegotiation of the permit conditions.
C658.1
-------
TABLE 15
POTENTIAL FEDF.KAL ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARj POK JUNCOS LANDFILL
Actioa*
Requirement
Prerequisites
Citation
CommenU
Operatic* aad
Maialcaaaec (OAM)
Post-closure ore 10 ensure thai site is
maintained and monitored.
40 CFR 264.1 IB
(RCRA. Subp»rt G)
Post-closure requirements for openlion and
maintenance of municipal landfill sites are relevant
and approprUte to new disposal units with
nonhazardous waste, or existing units capped in
place.
In case* where municipal landfill site wastes arc
determined lo be hazardous wastes, and new disposal
units are created, the post-closure requirements will
be applicable.
Trcatncal
Standard* for miscellaneous uniu (long-
term retrievable storage, thermal
treatment other than incinerators, open
burning, open detonation, chemical,
physical, and biological treatment units
using other than tanks, surface
impoundments, or land treatment units)
require new miscellaneous units to satisfy
environmental performance standards by
protection of groundwater, surface water,
and air quality, and by limiting surface
and subsurface migration.
Use of the units for treatment of hazardous
wastes. These uniu do not meet the
definitions for units regulated elsewhere
under RCRA.
40 CFR 264
(Subparl X)
The requirement will be relevant and appropriate to
the construction, operation, maintenance, and closure
of any miscellaneous treatment unit (a treatment unit
that U not elsewhere regulated) constructed on
municipal landfill site for treatment and/or disposal
of nonhazardous wastes.
These requirements would be applicable lo the
construction and operation of a miscellaneous
treatment unit for the treatment and/or disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Treatment of wastes subject to ban or
land disposal must attain levels
achievable by best demonstrated available
treatment technologies (BOAT) for each
hazardous constituent in each listed
waste.
Effective date for CERCLA actions is
November 8.1988. for POO I-POOS hazardous
wastes, dioiin wastes, and certain * California
List" wastes. Other restricted wastes have
different effective dates as promulgated in 40
CFR 268.
40 CFR 268
(Subpan D)
These regulations are applicable to the disposal of
any municipal landfill site waste that can be defined
as restricted wastes.
These requirements are relevant and appropriate to
the treatment prior to land disposal of any wastes
that contain components of restricted wastes in
concentrations that make the site wastes sufficiently
similar to the regulated wastes. The requirements
specify levels of treatment thai must be attained
tprior to land disposal.
OperMioa and
Maintenance (O&M)
Post-closure can lo ensure that site is
maintained and monitored.
40 CFR 264.118
(RCTA, Subparl G)
Post-closure requirements for operation and
maintenance of municipal landfill sites are relevant
and appropriate lo new disposal units with
nonhazardous waste, or existing units capped in
place.
In cases where municipal landfill site wastes are
determined to be hazardous wastes, and new disposal
units are created, the post-closure requirements will
be applicable. ^^^
C6581
-------
TABLE 16
POTENTIAL COMMONWEALTH ARAfU Md TBCi FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL
REQUIREMENT
OuMiml Prohibitions
General Solid Wast* Facility Prohibitions
Geaenl Prohibition Again* Contamination of Oroundwater
Rut* II • 106 tMlHMH t.rf.hj.k.l
Rule D - 114 Section* d.e.gji.i j
Kmit n-«06
Rut* 1201
General Water Quality Sundarda Ankle 2.1.1
Gcacnl Water Quality Siaadarda 6.1.1
Geiktnl Article 6.1. 2
CITATION
EQB Pact III
Rule 302
EQB Part III
Rule 304
EQB Part 111
Rule 305
OmundwaMr PniUctiim
Landfills
Permit 10 Operate a Nnn-Hazafdous Solid Waste Generating
Activity
Land Disposal Restrictions
Solids and Other Mailer
Pollution of the Waters of Puerto Rico
Discharge of Pollution
DESCRIPTION
General prohibitions and requirements for f enerstioo and handling
of solid wast*.
General prohibitions for solid wane facility r*g aiding floodplains,
endangered species, disease vector* and public safely.
Prohibitions all person* from causing or permitting the
contamination of existing or potential underground drinking water
source. t
Requirements frw gnMndwatar protection at facilities that met,
•lore, or dispose of hazardous waste; Includes sianJsrds,
identification of hazardous constituents, monitoring requirements
for detection and compliance, and corrective action.
General prohibition* tod requirement* for inspection, monitoring
•nd recordkecping, a* well a* disposal of ignitable or reactive
incompatible, bulk, and containerized waste landfills.
General requirement* for application and approval of Permit to
Operate non-hazardous waste generating activities.
Identification of hazardous waste* restricted from Land disposal at
definition of exception and treatment requircmenta.
Prohibits material attributable to discharges which will telile to
from objectionable deposits or which will float in amounts
sufficient to be unsightly or deleterious
Prohibitatpolluiionoflhe Waste of Puerto Rico. ,
Prohibits discharge of water pollution in violation of applicable
rules and regulation* established by Puerto Rko thsl prevents the
attachment of applicable water quality standards.
C6S8.I
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
SENT ox Telecopier 7021 ! i-28-83 I 3U3PM ! 809799S900* $5061031* 2
COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
September 28, 1993
Mr. George Pavlou
Director
Emergency and Remedial Response Div.
U.S. Envl;ciu.cntal Protection Agency
26th Federal Plaza, Room 747
New York, New York 10278
RE: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
CONCURRENCE LETTER
DECISION SUMMARY
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO
Dew Mr, Pavlou:
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) received the Decision Summary
of -.he Juncos Landfill Site, Second Operable Unit or OU-n, Juncos, Puerto Rico on Friday,
September 24, 1993. On this document the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) proposed Alternative U: Natural Attenuation/Institutional Controls/Monitoring, as their
preferred remedial action.
PREQB's concurs with this alternative based primarily ou the decisions made on a
meeting held on July 27,1993 between USBPA and PREQB personnel, PREQB's concurrence
wa* already communicated to Eng. Jose* Font, Remedial Project Manager on a letter dated
September 1, 1993.
Green forwto and cryitalllne water*, clean air and ctar dries,
(You protect life If you do bof conUmio*l«1
NATIONAL BANK PLAZA / 431 PONCE DB LEON AVE. / HATO KEY, PUERTO RICO M917
FROM C.P.O.-U.S.
-------
IK
:NT
Page 2 of 2
If you have any question regarding this matter please contact Bng, Francisco Qaudio Rfo»,
Director, Air Quality Area, at phone number* (809) 767-8071 or 767*8056,
Cordially,
Chairman
VR/inj
xc: Mr. Mclv;n Hauptman
Eng. Carl-Axel P. Sodetberg
Eng. Josd Pont
Bng. Francisco Qaudio
FROM C.F.0.-U.S. EPP
09/23/93 16:35 P. 2
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
FOR THE
REMEDIAL ACTION
AT THE
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE, JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Introduction 1
I. Background on Community Involvement and Concerns 2
II. Comprehensive Summary of Major Questions, Comments,
Concerns, and Responses 3
A. Summary of Oral Questions and Responses from the
Public Meeting Concerning the Second Operable
Unit for the Juncos Landfill Site 3
B. Summary of Written Questions and Responses Received
During the Public Comment Period 9
ATTACHMENT
Community Relations Activities at the Juncos Landfill Site
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
SECOND OPERABLE UNIT
JUNCOS, PUERTO RICO
INTRODUCTION
This Responsiveness Summary summarizes the public's comments and
concerns and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
responses to those comments regarding the Proposed Plan for the
Second Operable Unit at the Juncos Landfill Site (the Site or the
Landfill) in Juncos, Puerto Rico. EPA's preferred remedial
alternative for operable unit two (OU-II) is comprised of natural
attenuation of the groundwater, institutional controls consisting
of restrictions on groundwater withdrawal in the area north of the
landfill, and groundwater monitoring to ensure that the
concentrations of contaminants are decreasing over time. EPA
signed a Record of Decision for the Site's first operable unit (OU-
I) in 1991. The selected remedy for OU-I is the installation of a
single-barrier cap with a geomembrane to control the source of
contamination.
EPA held a public comment period from August 9, 1993 through
September 7, 1993 to provide interested parties with the
opportunity to comment on the OU-II Proposed Plan for the Juncos
Site.
EPA held a public information meeting to present its preferred
remedial action alternative for addressing the groundwater
contamination at the site. EPA held this meeting for local
residents and officials on August 25, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. in the
Juncos Town Hall, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
EPA conducted the meeting in Spanish because Spanish is spoken by
the majority of the local residents. An EPA Region II Caribbean
Field Office staff member summarized and translated into Spanish
questions from and responses to non-Spanish speaking EPA
representatives who attended the meeting. EPA distributed copies
of the Spanish Proposed Plan to the citizens who attended the
meeting. In addition, English and Spanish versions of the Proposed
Plan were made available to the public for review in the
information repository, which is located at the Juncos Town Hall in
Juncos, Puerto Rico and at EPA's Caribbean Field Office in Santurce
at 1413 Fernandez Juncos Avenue.
Based on the tone of the comments received during the public
comment period, EPA believes that the residents and town officials
of Juncos and the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board were
responsive to the Proposed Plan and generally supported EPA's
preferred alternative for addressing the groundwater contamination
at the Site. At the public meeting, citizens and officials raised
no major objections to the Proposed Plan or to EPA's preferred
alternative.
-------
This Responsiveness Summary is divided into the following sections:
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS; This
section provides the history of community concerns and
describes community involvement in the process of selecting a
remedy for the Juncos Landfill Site.
II. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS,
AND RESPONSES; This sections summarizes the comments EPA
received during the public comment period. Oral comments
received at the public meeting and written comments received
during the public comment period, in addition to EPA's
responses to those comments, are included.
In addition to Sections I and II, a list of EPA community relations
activities conducted at the Juncos Site is included as an
attachment to this Responsiveness Summary. A Spanish transcript of
the proceedings of the public meeting is available in the
information repository.
I. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
The Municipality of Juncos has a total population of approximately
25,000 people and is governed by a mayor and municipal assembly,
all of whom are elected by ,the community at large to serve four-
year terms.
Most of the industrial facilities in Juncos are owned by Fomento,
a Commonwealth agency also known as the Puerto Rico Industrial
Development Company. Fomento leased the facilities to various
businesses, including pharmaceutical firms and other manufacturing
facilities.
Community involvement regarding the Juncos Landfill began in May
1971, when a local citizens group filed a complaint with the Puerto
Rico Department of Health regarding Landfill operations. Residents
registered complaints of exposed waste materials and on-site
burning of these materials. In addition, residents complained of
mercury contamination in 1976, when, as part of a legal action,
employees reported that Becton Dickinson disposed of broken
thermometers at the Site. In March 1976, a local newspaper
published a story concerning thermometer waste materials at the
Site. Other citizen complaints focused on burning garbage,
windblown trash, air contamination, Landfill leachate, thermometer
wastes, and vehicular traffic generated by the Landfill.
In 1979, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico began the development of
parcels of land immediately adjacent to the Landfill. The
government sponsored this program to allow qualified citizens to
purchase small plots of land for minimal cost. The government
assisted these citizens in constructing homes on the parcels of
land.
-------
In May 1984, the Town of Juncos held a public meeting concerning
upcoming remedial activities at the Site. Approximately 70
residents attended the meeting and expressed a moderate level of
interest. In June 1986, EPA conducted a public meeting at the
Juncos Town Hall to explain the nature of the Site and the scope of
the upcoming Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
In June 1991, EPA held a public meeting for citizens to comment on
the OU-I Proposed Plan that was prepared based on the results of
the OU-I RI/FS. Approximately 80 residents attended the meeting
and expressed a high level of interest. In August 1993, EPA held
another public meeting for citizens to comment on the OU-II
Proposed Plan presenting EPA's preferred no action alternative for
the groundwater.
II. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY OF MAJOR QUESTIONS. COMMENTS. CONCERNS
AND RESPONSES
Public comments on the Proposed Plan submitted between August 9,
1993 and September 7, 1993 are summarized and addressed below. EPA
has separated oral comments from written comments. EPA has
categorized the comments by topic and has consolidated similar
comments into a single topic. Individual commentors and their
questions are identified in the meeting transcript on file in the
information repository.
A. SUMMARY OF ORAL QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC MEETING
CONCERNING THE SECOND OPERABLE UNIT FOR THE JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
1. Concerns about the Preferred Alternative
Comment: A citizen expressed a concern regarding the origin of
chloroform in the groundwater.
EPA Response: Chloroform is one of the degradation by-products of
landfill waste material. It could be formed by the chlorination of
methane. Other potential sources of groundwater chloroform
contamination within the immediate area of the Site include,
discharges to septic systems, discharges of wastewaters to storm
drains including observation of a discharge of what appeared to be
oil and spent degreasing fluids noted in a storm drain and
discharge of household wastewater presumably from washing machines.
However, based on the groundwater sampling results from various
locations and depths, we can conclude that the Landfill is the
major contributor for the groundwater chloroform contamination.
Comment: A citizen expressed his concern about the relationship
between capping the Landfill and the groundwater contamination.
EPA Response: The source control action under the first operable
unit selected remedy of capping the landfill will reduce the
potential threat to human health and the environment by isolating
-------
the landfill. This will reduce precipitation infiltration which
minimizes the potential for subsequent groundwater impacts.
Natural attenuation will then serve to reduce the concentration of
chloroform in the groundwater over time through various physical
and chemical processes.
Comment: A citizen expressed his concern regarding the potential
impact of groundwater contaminants to the nearby Public Supply
Wells.
EPA Response: The municipal public water supply well field is
located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of the site. This well
field provides approximately 25% of the drinking water consumed in
Juncos. Groundwater flows to the north - northeast direction from
the Site. All operational wells within the Juncos Municipal Public
Water Supply Well Field were sampled and analyzed for leachate
indicators, EPA priority pollutants and major cations or anions.
No volatile organic compounds (including chloroform) were detected
at concentrations above the detection limit, and all other
parameters were below federal Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
In addition, sampling of a USGS monitoring well located between the
RI monitoring wells and the Public Supply Wells showed no presence
of chloroform. Furthermore, EPA's preferred remedy requires the
installation of a two-well cluster located between the RI J-10
wells and the USGS monitoring wells, to serve as an early warning
for chloroform migration towards the public supply wells, even
though it is highly unlikely since the groundwater flow direction
within the site area is northeast.
2. Length of Time for Remediation
Comment: A citizen asked how much time will be required for
chloroform concentrations to reach the MCL after the capping has
been imp1emented.
EPA Response: Based on the results of a groundwater contaminant
transport model for the overburden aquifer conducted by McLaren
Hart, it is estimated that it will take approximately 13 years for
chloroform concentration reduction to the MCL after the capping of
the landfill is completed. However, this is only an estimate, and
the actual time period may be shorter or longer. Groundwater
monitoring will take place to make sure that concentrations are
decreasing. This reduction will take place by natural attenuation.
Natural attenuation is a combination of physical and chemical
processes by which the toxicity of chloroform is reduced over time.
No exposure above MCLs will take place since the proposed
institutional controls will restrict access to the site groundwater
from residents in a potential future use scenario until MCL's are
met. In addition, all water is obtained from the public supply
wells locate 1.5 miles northwest of the Site.
-------
3. Groundwater Concerns
Comment: A citizen requested a clarification on how groundwater
flow occurs within the bedrock aquifer.
EPA Response: Groundwater flow in the bedrock aquifer occurs along
individual fault planes (i.e. fractures) heterogeneously located at
various depths below the ground surface. Test results and
observations indicate that mineral growths along the fault planes
reduces the amount of ground water flow transmitted to a calculated
value of 5 gallons per minute.
4. Health-Related Concerns
Comment: Many residents asked if the Site presents a problem to
public health in its current condition.
EPA Response: Since 1981 when the Landfill was closed, several
studies have been conducted to evaluate the nature and extent of
contamination at the Site and to evaluate any potential health
threats posed by the Site, specifically to nearby residents. In
1984 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) assisted EPA by
evaluating the data collected during a preliminary remedial
investigation geared to determine if the Site poses an immediate
health threat to nearby residents. This investigation was
performed under a CERCLA Administrative Order issued by EPA to
Becton Dickinson. CDC's evaluation concluded that the Site posed
no immediate threat to human health. Then, EPA continued with the
long-term investigations at the site by conducting an RI/FS
pursuant to another CERCLA Administrative Order issued to Becton
Dickinson. This study was geared to define the nature and extent
of contamination at the site and included the performance of an
Endangerment Assessment or Risk Assessment which estimated the long
term human health risks which could result from the contamination
at the site if no remedial action were taken under both operable
units for the Site (i.e. landfill source control actions,
groundwater remediation).
The Endangerment Assessment for both operable units for the Site
evaluated several potential exposure pathways by which the public
may be exposed to contaminant releases from the landfill under a
current land use scenario (OU-I) and groundwater under a future use
scenario.
The potential exposure routes identified for the Site OU-I
included:
• 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 potential exposure routes identified for the Site OU-II
included:
• future exposure to contaminants as a result of ingestion, dermal
contact (from showering) and inhalation (from showering) of
contaminated groundwater.
Results of the Endangerment Assessments for both operable units
indicate that under current Landfill conditions and future use of
the contaminated groundwater within the site, the entire Site poses
an unacceptable carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risk to human
health.
Implementation of the 1991 selected remedy for OU-I (landfill
capping) and EPA's preferred remedy under OU-II (groundwater
remediation) will reduce those risks to acceptable levels,
therefore, resulting in the site posing an acceptable risk to human
health and/or the environment.
Comment: Many citizens claimed to be suffering Site related health
problems. They demanded a health study be performed to investigate
their health problems.
EPA Response: Health effect studies are the responsibility of the
Puerto Rico Department of Health. However, after the meeting, EPA
requested assistance from the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) in evaluating any connection between the
Site and the health problems claimed to be suffered by Juncos
residents. ATSDR is already in the process of collecting available
information in preparation for interviewing the allegedly affected
citizens.
5. Concerns Regarding First Operable Unit Selected Remedy
Comment: A citizen asked why EPA's selected alternative for OU-I
calls for capping instead of removing the contaminated waste
material from the landfill.
EPA Response: The remedial investigation conducted at the landfill
revealed that the contaminated waste material within the landfill
is heterogeneously distributed throughout; therefore removal of hot
spots was not appropriate. Generally, EPA does not excavate and
remove entire landfills because it is technically impracticable and
the costs of removing such a large volume of waste are
prohibitively expensive.
Comment: A citizen asked when is the remedial action for operable
unit one at the Site, scheduled to start.
-------
EPA Response: Construction of the Landfill cap is projected to
start during 1994 and be completed in 1995.
Comment: Various citizens asked if air releases originating at the
Landfill represent a health problem.
EPA Response: Air sampling for mercury and priority pollutant
volatile organics was conducted during the OU-I RI in the vicinity
of the Juncos Landfill to assess if the Landfill was impacting
ambient air. Air sampling was also conducted at off-site locations
during drilling for health and safety purposes. Detected values
were compared to Threshold Limit Values (TLVs), where applicable.
TLVs are concentrations established for worker safety during
routine 8-hour work days. Three out of twenty 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 (for TLVs 0.05 mg/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.
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 directed Becton Dickinson and the Municipality of Juncos to
implement immediate corrective actions at the site that included
covering the crevices of the Landfill that were smoking with fill
material.
Comment: A citizen expressed concern regarding cattle access to
the landfill and how this will be prevented to maintain the
integrity of landfill cap.
EPA Response: One of the components of the OU-I selected remedy is
the installation of a security fence around the perimeter of the
Landfill property to restrict access to the site.
-------
6. Other Concerns Not Related To The site
Comment: A citizen expressed a concern regarding the potential for
chloroform to represent a problem at every landfill.
EPA Response: Leachate is generated by water percolating through
a landfill. The type of contaminants found in leachate is usually
dependent upon physical, chemical and biological influences as well
as the type of waste disposed. Leachate usually does contain
hazardous substances, which may or may not include chloroform,
depending upon the type of waste disposed.
Comment: A citizen expressed a concern regarding the new Juncos
Landfill (North of the site) operation and inquired about EPA
involvement and/or actions taken at this facility. He mentioned an
incident in which 8 cows died while at the new landfill and the
plans for converting this municipal landfill into a regional
facility by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
EPA Response: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region II Superfund Program is not currently involved in any
investigation regarding the New Juncos Landfill. This is an active
solid waste facility regulated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), Subtitle D regulations and under the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board regulations
for solid wastes.
In addition EPA has recently promulgated the revisions to the
Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices set forth in 40 CFR part 257. This regulation
establishes the federal minimum criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills, including location restrictions, facility design and
operating criteria, groundwater monitoring requirements, corrective
action requirements, financial assurance requirements, and closure
and post closure requirements. This new federal regulation will
become effective on October 9, 1993. All current and future
activities at the New Juncos Landfill will be subjected to these
regulations.
B. SUMMARY OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES RECEIVED DURING THE
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
EPA received the following written comments from the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico Agencies:
Comment: Well CJ-TW6 (USGS monitoring well) is too far from the
site to serve as an early warning of contaminant migration towards
the Public Supply Well Field.
EPA Response: A well cluster composed of two monitoring wells at
different depths is required to be installed under the preferred
alternative in a location between monitoring wells J-10 and CJ-TW6.
-------
This well cluster will better serve the purpose of an early warning
for groundwater plume migration towards the public supply wells.
It is unlikely for contaminants in groundwater originated at the
landfill to migrate toward the Public Supply Wells since they are
located northwest of the site and groundwater flow direction is to
the northeast.
Comment: EQB expressed concern about leachate flowing out of the
landfill.
EPA Response: The OU-I selected remedy will address the leachate
generation issue in two ways. First, by capping the landfill the
leachate generation should be significantly reduced by isolating
the landfill . therefore avoiding the infiltration of surface
precipitation. Second, the selected remedy includes the
installation of a leachate control system, as necessary.
Comment: Chain of custody records were not followed correctly.
EPA Response: All sampling data had been Quality Assure/Quality
Control audited and validated according to EPA guidances and
protocols established within the EPA approved Site Operations Plan
for the Site.
Comment: The Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewage Authority (PRASA)
does not endorse any remedial action at a Superfund Site which
proposes to use their systems.
EPA Response: The preferred remedy under OU-II does not
contemplate the use of PRASA systems for discharge or disposal of
any waste streams originating from the Site since the groundwater
action only includes monitoring.
Comment: The Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources requested
a more precise description of the area targeted for restrictions on
groundwater withdrawal.
EPA Response: The targeted area for groundwater withdrawal
restriction includes groundwater in the area north of the Landfill
until it reaches the Gurabo River in the north direction with east
and west boundaries defined by the two unnamed creeks running on
both sides to the Landfill towards the north. The southern
boundary is determined by the landfill southern perimeter.
Comment: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Industrial Development
Company expressed concern regarding the length of time required for
groundwater withdrawal restrictions and its impact to the future
industrial development within the area.
EPA Response: The area in which the groundwater withdrawal
restrictions are to be imposed pursuant to the OU-II selected
remedy is already developed with housing projects. Therefore, no
-------
impact to the industrial development of the area is expected to
result from this action.
Furthermore, according to PRASA, future demand for water within the
Municipality of Juncos is projected to be supplied through the
construction of a surface water reservoir and filtration plant at
the Valenciano River.
10
-------
ATTACHMENT
COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
AT JUNCOS LANDFILL
Community relations activities conducted at the Juncos Landfill
Site to date have included the following:
• EPA conducted community interviews with local officials
and interested residents. (April 1984)
• The Town of Juncos held a public meeting at the Town Hall
concerning upcoming remedial activities at the Site.
Approximately 70 people attended, including citizens,
elected officials, and technical and legal
representatives of the responsible party. (May 1984)
• EPA prepared a Revised Community Relations Plan for the
Juncos Landfill to reassess community concerns. (August
1984)
• EPA conducted a public meeting at the Juncos Town Hall to
explain the nature of the Site and the scope of the
upcoming remedial investigation. (June 1986)
First Operable Unit
EPA established an information repository at the Juncos
Town Hall. Copies of documents at the repository were
placed in files in EPA's offices in Santurce and New
York. (1988)
EPA made Spanish translations of the Proposed Plan
available for public review and comment. The Proposed
Plan is in the information repository. (June 1991)
EPA publicized and held a public meeting at the Juncos
Town Hall to describe the RI/FS report and Proposed Plan
and to respond to citizen concerns. A Spanish transcript
of the proceedings of this meeting is available in the
information repository. (June 1991)
At citizens' requests, EPA extended the public comment
period on the Proposed Plan. The public comment period
lasted 60 days, from June 1, 1991 to July 30, 1991.
11
-------
EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary to document its
responses to all of the public comments received in
writing and at the public meeting. (August 1991)
Second Operable Unit
EPA established an information repository at the Juncos
City Hall in Juncos, Puerto Rico. Copies of the
documents in the repository were also placed in files in
EPA's offices in San Juan, and New York (1993).
EPA made Spanish translation of the Proposed Plan
available for public review and comment. The Proposed
Plan is part of the information repository. (August
1993)
EPA publicized and held a public meeting at the Juncos
Town Hall to describe the second operable unit RI/FS
Report and Proposed Plan and to respond to citizen
concerns. A Spanish transcript of the proceedings of
this meeting is available in the information repository.
(August 1993)
EPA prepared a Responsiveness Summary to document its
response to all of the public comments received in
writing and at the public meeting. (September 1993)
12
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
Final 05/19/93
JUNCOS LANDFILL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.5 Previous Operable Unit Information
P. 100001- Plan: Remedial Design Work Plan for Selected
100151 Remedial Alternative. Juncos Landfill Superfund
Site. Juncos. Puerto Rico, prepared for
Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico, Inc., Browning
Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc., RCA
Corporation/General Electric Company, prepared
by McLaren/Hart Environmental Engineering
Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, February,
1993.
P. 100152- Administrative Order for Remedial
100191 Design/Remedial Action, September 30, 1992.
P. 100192- News Release: EPA Selects Remedies at Three
100194 Superfund Sites in Puerto Rico, as prepared by EPA
Region II, for release: Wednesday, October 23,
1991.
P. 100195- Letter to Ms. Kathleen Callahan, Director
100197 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Region II, from Mr. Pedro Maldonado, Acting
Chairman, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
(PREQB) , re: Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Declaration for Record of Decision (ROD)
of Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico.
PREQB concurs with USEPA selected alternative and
requests specific information on all future
activities of the site, September 10, 1991.
P. 100198- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, USEPA Caribbean Field
100229 Office, Santurce, Puerto Rico, from Mr. Edwin A.
Hernandez, Comite Jungueno Pro Rescate del Medio
Ambiente, Juncos, Puerto Rico, re: Community
organization's recommendations for remedial action
(attached), July 29, 1991. (Note: Documents in
Spanish).
-------
P. 100230- Letter to United States Environmental Protection
100231 Agency, Region II, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, from Senora Carmen H., private citizen,
re: Response to lack of information from local
authorities and request for cooperation and
assistance, July 18, 1991.
P. 100232- Index: Operable Unit One, Juncos Landfill Site
100261 Administrative Record. This Administrative Record
is located at Juncos Town Hall, Juncos, Puerto
Rico; United States Environmental Protection
Agency Caribbean Field Office, 1413 Fernandez
Juncos Avenue, Santurce, Puerto Rico, 00909;
United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Records Center, Room 2900, 26 Federal Plaza, New
York, New York, 10278, June 20, 1991.
P. 100262- Letter to Hon. Jose Font, Gerente de Proyecto,
100264 Agencia Federal Proteccion Ambiental, from
Senora Carmen H., private citizen, re: Series of
questions and concerns about declining land value,
water contamination, and past harm resulting from
her home's proximity to the site, June 20, 1991.
(Note: Document in Spanish).
P. 100265- Transcript of public meeting on the Proposed
100372 Superfund Remedial Action Plan for Juncos Landfill
Site, presided over by Mr. Jose Font, Remedial
Project Manager, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Caribbean Regional Office, June
15, 1991. (Note: Document in Spanish).
P. 100373- List of Attendees, re: Proposed Remedial Action
100378 Plan Public Meeting, June 15, 1991.
P. 100379- Proposed Plan for Juncos Landfill Site, issued by
100393 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II, June, 1991.
P. 100394- Letter to Mr. Jose Font, Environmental Engineer,
100394 from Pedro A. Maldonado Ojeda Esq., Acting
Chairman, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board,
Santurce, Puerto Rico, re: Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), "Proposed Preferred
Alternative Plan", Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos,
Puerto Rico, May 31, 1991.
-------
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300001- Letter to Mr. Erwin Smieszek, TES V Regional
300234 Project Officer, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, from Mr. Scott Graber, COM
Federal Programs Corporation, re: Attached Final
Endangerment Assessment. Juncos Landfill operable
Unit Two. Juncos. Puerto Rico. Attachment A:
Letter to. Ms. Jill Naugle, COM Federal Programs
Corporation from Mr. Jose C. Font, Environmental
Engineer, re: EPA's comments on the Draft
Endangerment Assessment, Juncos Landfill OU2,
October 19, 1992, November 10, 1992.
P. 300235- Report: Final Phase II Remedial Investigation
300604 Report. Juncos Landfill. Juncos. Puerto Rico.
prepared for Becton Dickinson Puerto Rico Inc.,
Juncos, Puerto Rico, prepared by McLaren/Hart
Environmental Engineering Corporation, Warren, New
Jersey, July, 1991, REVISED November, 1991,
REVISED April, 1992.
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.5 Affidavits
P. 700001- Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Caribbean Field
700003 Office, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, from Mr. Luis Lomba, Country Manager,
Micropette, Inc., re: Cecilio Miranda Sworn
Statement. September 21, 1992. Attachment:
Affidavit signed by Cecilio Miranda, September 21,
1992. (Note: Document in Spanish).
P. 700004- Witness Interview Summary of Mr. Jose Martinez
700004 Agosto, former landfill employee, now retired.
Conducted by Mr. Jose C. Font, site RPM, at
witness residence in Juncos, June 24, 1992.
P. 700005- Witness Interview Summary of Mr. Carmelo Miranda,
700005 former private waste hauler, now retired.
Conducted by Mr. Jose C. Font, Juncos Landfill
Site Remedial Project Manager (RPM), at Becton
Dickinson plant in Juncos, June 10, 1992.
-------
P. 700006- Witness Interview Summary of Mr7 Luis Rogel
700006 Mojica, former landfill employee, now retired.
Conducted by Mr. Jose C. Font, site RPM, at Beeton
Dickinson plant in Juncos, June 10, 1992.
P. 700007- Witness Interview Summary of Mr. Ismael Melendez
700008 Arias, former landfill employee, now retired.
Conducted by Mr. Jose C. Font, site RPM, at Becton
Dickinson plant in Juncos, June 10, 1992.
7.8 correspondence
P. 700009- Letter from Mr. Henry Guzman, Assistant Regional
700011 Counsel, United States Environmental Protection
Agency Region II,' re: CERCLA 106 Administrative
Order Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico,
October 9, 1992. Attachment: List of Addressees,
P. 700012- Letter to Mr. Gamaliel Rodriguez Mercado,
700014 Executive Director, Administracion de Desarrollo y
Mejoras de Vivienda, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, from
Mr. Henry Guzman, Assistant Regional Counsel,
USEPA Region II, re: CERCLA 106 Administrative
Order for Remedial Design/Remedial Action
("RD/RA"), Juncos Landfill Superfund Site, Juncos,
Puerto Rico, October 9, 1992.
P. 700015- Memorandum to Juncos Landfill OU2 Site file from
700015 Mr. Jose C. Font, Environmental Engineer, Air and
Hazardous Substances Staff, re: Issuance of
unilateral order, Juncos Site OU2, for
implementation of September, 1991 Record of
Decision, October 6, 1992.
P. 700016- Letters to Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto
700025 Rico, Inc.; RCA Barinquen, Inc.; Mr. Mathew
Bigley, Manager for Safety and Loss Prevention,
Becton Dickinson and Company; Prince Matchabelli
Co. c/o Chesebrough-Pond's, Inc.; and Mr. Rafael
Betran Pena, Mayor, Municipality of Juncos, Puerto
Rico, from Ms. Kathleen C. Callahan, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, USEPA
Region II, re: Special Notice for Remedial
Design/Remedial Action ("RD/RA"), Juncos Landfill
Site, Juncos, Puerto Rico, December 31, 1991.
O
------- |