EPA/ROD/R02-96/284
1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
BARCELONETA LANDFILL
EPA ID: PRD980509129
OU01
FLORIDA AFUERA, PR
07/05/1996
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
New York, New York
July 1996
-------
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Barceloneta Landfill
Florida Afuera Ward
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision (ROD) documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) selection
of the remedial action for the Barceloneta Landfill Site in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) , as amended,
and the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision
document summarizes the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for this Site.
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) concurs with the selected remedy (see Appendix
IV) .
An administrative record for the Site contains the documents that form the basis for EPA's selection
of the remedial action, the index which is attached as Appendix III.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances for the Site, if not addressed by implementing
the response action in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The primary objective of this remedy is to control the source of contamination at the Site and to
reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants into Site media thereby minimizing any health and
environmental impacts.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Installing a low permeability cover system for the three landfill cells meeting the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's
Regulations Governing Landfill Closure. This cover system or landfill cap(s) will further
reduce infiltration of precipitation water into the landfill and reduce leachate generation
thus mitigating impacts to ground water.
• Regarding the Site and installing storm water management improvements at the Site to reduce
infiltration of storm water into the landfill and reduce leachate generation.
• Conducting long term ground water and surface water monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness
of cover system. It is anticipated that monitoring will be conducted on a quarterly basis
for the first year, semi-annually for the next four years, and then annually. Monitoring
will include the eight existing monitoring wells. Initially, the wells will be sampled for a
broad parameter list. The list was developed based on constituents detected above Safe
Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels in the Remedial Investigation and on the
requirement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's
Regulation Governing Landfill Closure (RMNHSW). After the first five years, the parameter
list would be reviewed and those parameters not detected above standards would be omitted.
The exact long term ground water monitoring program will be further defined during remedial
design (RD).
-------
• Conducting a landfill gas survey during predesign to determine the necessity of a landfill gas
collection system. The appropriate type of system, if necessary, will be determined during RD.
• Implementing a long term operation and maintenance for the cover system which will
include inspection of the system and provision for repair.
• Recommending to appropriate authorities that institutional controls be emplaced. Institutional
controls are recommended in order to protect the integrity of the landfill cover system and to
reduce potential exposure to landfill contents. The institutional controls will include
recommending that zoning restrictions be applied to the Site to limit future land use and
recommending that a deed restriction be established to limit future land and ground-water use.
• Installing a perimeter fence with signs to restrict access.
• Reevaluating Site conditions at least once every five years to determine if a modification of
the selected remedy is necessary.
DECLARATIONS OF STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
reguirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is
cost effective. This remedy utilizes permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to
the maximum extent practicable, given the scope of the action. However, because the contaminant
source, the Site itself, could not be effectively excavated and treated as a result of the volume of
waste and the absence of hot-spots representing major sources of contamination, the selected remedy
does not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment as a principal element of the remedy. Since
this remedy will allow hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to remain on-site above
health-based levels, a review of this remedy will be conducted at least once every five years after
the initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adeguate
protection of human health and the environment.
![]()
-------
RECORD OF DECISION FACT SHEET
EPA REGION II
Site:
Site name: Barceloneta Landfill
Site location: Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
HRS score: 62.5 dated August 3, 1982
Listed on the NPL: September 1st, 1983.
Record of Decision:
Date Signed:
Selected Remedy: Containment
Estimated Construction Completion: two years
Capital Cost: $5,453,200
0 & M Cost: $236,207/yr
Present-worth O&M Cost (5% discount rate for 30 years): $4,836,800
Total Cost: $10,290,000
Lead:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (enforcement lead)
Primary Contact: Luis E, Santos (787) 729-6951
Secondary Contact: Melvin Haurtman (212) 637-3952
Main PRPs:
Abbot Laboratories,
American Cyanamid Company,
Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc.,
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company,
Merck & Company, Inc.,
Roche Products, Inc.,
Schering Pharmaceuticals Corp.,
Sterling Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Town of Barceloneta,
Union Carbide Corporation &
Upjohn Manufacturing Co.
Waste:
Waste type: municipal solid waste with metals and volatile organics
Waste origin: households and industries
Estimated waste guantity: 500,000 yd3
Contaminated medium: ground water
-------
RECORD OF DECISION
DECISION SUMMARY
Barceloneta Landfill
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
New York, New York
TABIiE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 2
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 2
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 3
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS 4
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 7
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 8
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES 8
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES 13
SELECTED REMEDY 17
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 18
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 19
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
-------
SITE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The Barceloneta Landfill, an active non-hazardous domestic and industrial waste facility, is located
in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico on the north coast of the island, approximately 20 miles due west of San
Juan. The Landfill about 4.5 kilometers south of the town of Barceloneta in Florida Afuera Ward. The
entire property which comprises the Barceloneta Landfill is approximately 32.6 hectares (80.6 acres)
in size and is owned by the Municipality of Barceloneta. The Landfill is surrounded by a tropical
forest. The Quebrada Cimarrona, a tributary of the Rio Grande de Manti, is located 0.8 kilometers
north of the landfill. A small residential area of approximately 150 residences in Barro Bajura
Adentro is located approximately one kilometer east of the Site. Approximately two kilometers north
of the Site, in an area with more gentle topographic relief, there are a series of manufacturing
facilities. The nearest village is Cruce Magueyes, located approximately two kilometers to
west-north-west of the Site. The residences in the area of the landfill are served by a public supply
system that uses ground water as a source.
The Site comprises three separate waste disposal areas (the northern, southern, and southeastern), a
borrow area, and a dirt access road. The northern disposal area (NBA) is separated into two sections
by the access road, the southern disposal area is also know as the Superfund disposal area (SFDA) or
"El Superfondo". Both the northern and southern disposal areas are filled and inactive. The
southeastern disposal area (SDA) is still active, and is expected to reach capacity in another 2
years, depending on final grading plans. Although the southern disposal area is known as the SFDA, all
three areas are considered to be part of the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) site. The three
waste disposal areas comprise approximately six hectares (15 acres). Each disposal area is located in
a depression referred to as a "sumidero" (sinkhole) that is surrounded by conical limestone hills
referred to as "mogotes". See Figure 1.
The Landfill is located in a belt of rugged karst topography that extends along the north coast from
30 kilometers (19 miles) east of San Juan to the west of the island. In the vicinity of the Site,
this belt is located from about one kilometer south of the coast to about 20 kilometers (12 miles)
inland. North (seaward) of this rugged karst region is a belt of relatively flat coastal plain
sediments. South (landward), the rugged karst terrain transitions into the central mountainous core
of the island. Features of this karst landscape include numerous sumideros, steep scarp cliffs on the
mogotes and adjoining ridges which surround the sumideros, and a lack of surface streams or drainage
features associated with individual sumideros.
The Site is underlain by the northern limestone province of Puerto Rico which consists of blanket
deposits, the Aymamon Limestone, the Aguada Limestone, the Cibao Formation, and the Lares Formation.
Groundwater exists under unconfined conditions in the Aymamon and Aguada Limestones and under confined
conditions in the Cibao and Lares Formations. Groundwater flow is to the north.
Groundwater in this area of the northern province discharges to the Rio Grande de Manati (river) and
the Cano Tiburones (wetlands) which are 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) north of the Site. Groundwater
also feeds the Ojo de Guillo spring located 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) northeast of the Site.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The 32.6-hectare (80.6 acres) area where the Barceloneta Landfills located was purchased by the
municipality of Barceloneta as three separate parcels during the early 1970s. Preparation of the Site
for landfills use began in April 1972, and the landfill operations commenced in August 1973. During
operation of the landfill from 1973 to date, three depressions have been used for waste disposal.
Reportedly, the landfill was initially approved to receive both municipal and industrial waste.
(Ebasco Services, Inc. June 1990). Beginning in 1975, disposal in the Landfill was restricted to
municipal waste only. However, disposal of industrial wastes reportedly continued. Specific dates of
active filling each of the three disposal areas are difficult to determine given the lack of record
keeping at the Site. The EQB has information which indicates that the entire Landfill was used in the
late 1970's (prior to the passage of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) for disposal of
wastes which contained hazardous substances.
-------
Personnel from EQB and the Department of Health conducted numerous inspections of the Site and listed
various violations. These violations included insufficient cover material; allowing refuse to burn;
the presence of flies, rats and mosquitoes; allowing unlimited access to the landfill, and allowing
people to inhabit structures in the landfill.
The Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in December 1982, and was subsequently approved and
list as an NPL site September 1983. In 1984, a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was prepared by an
EPA contractor for the Site (NUS, 1984). Based on the RAMP, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) Work Plan was developed (Ebasco Services, Inc. June 1990). In September 1990, the
Consent Order was signed in which the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) agreed to perform the
RI/FS for the Site. Pursuant to the Work Plan, sampling of subsurface soils, ground water and surface
water was completed. The first phase of the RI was completed in 1992 and the second phase of the RI
field work was completed in January 1994. A final RI report was received by EPA in March 1995 and the
streamlined Risk Assessment (Abbreviated Risk Assessment) was completed in May 1995. An abbreviated
Final FS was conducted in accordance with EPA's Presumptive Remedy approach (this is discussed in
further detail in the "Scope and Role of Response Action" section). The FS was received by EPA in
September 1995.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The RI report, FS report, Abbreviated Risk Assessment and the Proposed Plan for the Site were released
to the public for comment on December 27, 1995. These documents were made available to the public in
the administrative record file at four information repositories maintained at the Sixto Escobar
Municipal Library, Barceloneta, P.R.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Caribbean Field Office,
Centre Europa Building; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office Superfund Record Center
in New York City; and Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board. The notice of availability for the
above-referenced documents was published in the San Juan Star, El Nuevo Dia on December 27, 1995 and
El Periodico El Norte on December 28, 1995. The public comment period on these documents was held
from December 27, 1995 to January 26, 1996. In addition, over the last four years EPA has conducted
numerous public meetings and maintained contact with local concerned groups as well as the community
at large.
On January 18, 1996, EPA conducted a public meeting at the Tosas Ward's Christian Pentecostal Church,
to inform local officials and interested citizens about the Superfund process, to present the Proposed
Plan for the Site including the preferred alternative for remediation of the Site, and to respond to
any questions from area residents and the other attendees. The comments received at the public
meeting generally focused on drinking water contamination, implementation schedule, and Site-related
risks. Response to the comments received at the public meeting and in writing during the public
comment period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
The primary objectives of the selected action are to control the source of contamination at the Site,
and reduce and minimize the migration of contaminants into Site media thereby minimizing any health
and ecological impacts.
EPA is considering containment as the appropriate technology to address conditions at the Site based
on the findings of the RI study. The Abbreviated Risk Assessment showed levels of contaminants found
at the Site pose a relatively low long-term threat to the public health and the environment. A
municipal landfill, such as the Barceloneta Landfill, is a type of site where removal of waste is not
practical because of the large volumes of waste and the diverse mixture of waste, e.g., municipal
waste with industrial waste. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP), which prescribes the rules for implementing the Superfund Law, provides for the use of
engineering controls, such as containment at sites where the waste poses a relatively low long-term
threat or where treatment is not practical.
Under ordinary circumstances, EPA would have conducted an FS as the next step in the Superfund process
-------
to evaluate alternative cleanup methods (remediation) for the Site. In the case of the Barceloneta
Landfill, which is a municipal landfill and where treatment is not practical, an abbreviated FS was
conducted in accordance with EPA's Presumptive Remedy approach. Presumptive remedies are preferred
technologies for common categories of sites, based on historical patterns of remedy selection and
EPA's scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. For
CERCLA municipal landfills, containment is the presumptive remedy. Containment under the Presumptive
Remedy approach may include the following components: landfill cap, control of affected groundwater
at the perimeter of the Landfill, leachate collection and treatment, and landfill gas collection and
treatment. A complete description of the Presumptive Remedy Guidance
for municipal landfill sites can be found in EPA's Directive No. 9355.0-49FS, EPA 540-F-93-035,
Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites dated September 1993.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The RI was conducted in two phases. Phase I of the RI was conducted from 1991 through 1992 by Paul C.
Rizzo Associates (Rizzo) , and is described in the Site Characterization Summary Report (SCSR) dated
September 1992. Phase II of the RI was conducted during 1993 through 1994 and is described in the
Revised SCSR dated May 1994. Phase II of the RI was initially by Rizzo and was completed by Golder
Associates.
The objectives of Phase I of the RI were to evaluate the nature and extent of potential impact from
site waste materials and to characterize potential contaminant migration pathways. Therefore, the
Phase I investigation focused on characterization geologic and hydrogeologic site conditions,
evaluating the characteristics and extent of waste materials, and collecting representative samples to
characterize soils and groundwater conditions at the Site. Specific field investigation efforts
conducted at the Site included the following activities:
-Waste delineation borings;
-Leachate sampling;
-Vadose zone soil sampling;
-Drilling and monitoring well installation;
-Water level measurements;
-Groundwater sampling analysis;
-Spring survey;
-Public and private well survey; and
-Topographic mapping and site surveying.
After the results of Phase I were reviewed, EPA determined that additional investigations (Phase II)
were necessary in order to provide enough information to complete the RI.
The additional activities performed during Phase II included:
-Redevelopment of monitoring wells;
-Additional measurement of groundwater elevations;
-Collection of two rounds of groundwater samples from eight on-site monitoring wells, the Ojo de
Guillo spring and one off-Landfill well;
-Performance of slug tests on the eight monitoring wells to evaluate the hydraulic conductivity of
the two water bearing units identified;
-Collection of 15 additional background soil samples for chemical analyses;
-Collection of 3 soil samples for geotechnical analyses; and
-Performance of further waste delineation in the Superfund Disposal Area.
This section summarizes the findings of the RI. A summary of the analytical data collected for the
Site, listed by chemical and medium, can be found in Appendix II.
Waste Characterization
The SDA is locally called "El Superfondo". The disposal area encompasses approximately 0.9 hectares
-------
(2.2 acres) of surface area. During the Phase I Site Characterization Investigation (Rizzo, Sept.
1992), four soil borings (SS-11, SS-11A, SS-11B, and SS-12) were installed in this disposal area to
delineate the extent of waste material. Soil boring SS-12, drilled in the southeastern portion of the
depression, encountered waste to a depth of 15.3 meters (50 feet). No waste material was encountered
in the other three soil borings, which were located in the northwestern portion of the depression.
Apparently, waste filling was restricted to the deeper part of the asymmetric depression in the
southeastern portion of the depression. To verify this, additional waste delineation activities were
performed during the Phase II Site Characterization Investigation, including excavation of two
trenches and installation of five shallow soil borings to define the northwestern extent of waste in
the depression. The two trenches extended from near the northern and western mogote walls toward the
center of the sumidero to the location where waste was encountered. Three of the soil borings (SB-1
to SB-3) encountered native soil with no waste material. The southern most soil boring (SB-4)
encountered waste material. Soil boring SB-5 encountered non-waste fill material.
The waste material in the SDA was reported, based on visual observations of drilling materials and
superficial wastes, to include glass vials, syringes, personal protective eguipment, various types of
wire and other metallic waste, and sludges (Rizzo, September 1992). Other waste materials encountered
were wood, cardboard, cloth and plastic. An estimated waste volume for this disposal area was
calculated to be approximately 40,000 cubic meters (52,000 cubic yards), based on waste delineation
activities conducted during the Phase I Site Characterization Investigation.
The NBA encompasses approximately 3.7 hectares (9.1 acres). The depth to the base of waste in tow
soil borings during the Phase I Site Characterization Investigation (i.e., SS-7 and SS-8) averaged 7.6
meters (25 feet). Much of the northern disposal area is revegetated, with intermittent waste
materials located at the ground surface.
The waste material in the NBA was reported, based on visual observations, to include paper, plastic,
metal, wood, glass, rubber tires, and cloth, with trace amounts of slag and sludge materials (Rizzo,
September 1992). An estimated waste volume for this disposal area was calculated to be approximately
250,000 cubic meters (340,000 cubic yards) based on waste delineation activities conduct during the
Phase I Site Characterization Investigation.
The SBA is currently being used for disposal of primarily municipal wastes. The disposal area
encompasses approximately 1.5 hectares (3.6 acres). The depth to the base of the waste based on two
soil borings installed during the Phase I Site Characterization Investigation (SS-9 and SS-10)
averaged 6.2 meters (20.5 feet). No data is available to determine the thickness of waste placement
since the Phase I soil borings were conducted. Given the active status of the disposal are, very
little vegetation is located within the depression.
The waste material in the SBA was reported, based on visual observations, to include plastic, cloth,
paper, wood, metal, and glass, with trace amounts of leather and rubber (Rizzo, September 1992). An
estimated waste volume for this area was calculated to be approximately 81,000 cubic meters (111,000
cubic yards) , based on waste delineation activities conducted during the Phase I Site Characterization
Investigation. No data is available to estimate the volume of waste since completion of the Phase I
Site Characterization Investigation.
Soil and Leachate Sampling
To determine the chemical nature of the source areas, samples of sub-waste soil and leachate were
collected. Sub-waste soil samples were collected during Phase I of the RI from five locations. Two
sub-waste soil samples were collected in each of the northern and southeastern disposal areas, and one
sample was collected from the Superfund disposal area. The analysis of soils indicate that sub-waste
soils were marginally impacted by waste disposal activities at the Site. Few organic contaminants and
no pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected in sub-waste soils.
Buring sampling of sub-waste soils, leachate was encountered in only one boring located in the
northern disposal area. The analysis of this sample indicated a leachate with a moderately high
-------
inorganic loading, but with few Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The VOCs which were reported in
the leachate sample included benzene, chlorobenzene, ethylbenzene and xylene. The temperature of the
leachate was also high (38°C), indicating probable microbial or thermal degradation occurring in the
landfill mass. Analysis of the leachate sample was found to be typical of municipal solid waste
leachate as referenced in literature and studies conducted by EPA.
Groundwater and Spring Sampling
Groundwater in the Barceloneta area primarily occur in the following principal water bearing units
that comprise much of the northern limestone province: the Aymamon Limestone, the Aguada Limestone,
the Cibao Formation and the Lares Formation. Groundwater is typically found under unconfined (water
table) aguifer conditions in the Aymamom and Aguada Limestones and under confined (artesian)
conditions in parts of the Cibao and Lares Formations. A confining unit (aguitard) at the top of the
Cibao Formation, consisting of calcareous marl, separates and confines groundwater in underlying units
of the Cibao Formation from the unconfined units above. Perched and/or semi-confined conditions may
also occur locally within the Aymamon and Aguada Limestones, as a result of localized low permeability
strata retarding groundwater flow.
At the Site precipitation which falls on the blanket sands and eventually recharges the aguifer either
flows overland directly to the more permeable limestone mogotes, or infiltrates into the waste and
then flows laterally to the limestone mogotes. In the limestone, the infiltrated water drains
downward through the porous media and solution features to the perched water table zone and/or the
unconfined regional aguifer. Groundwater flow is toward the north in both the localized perched water
table and the unconfined regional aguifer.
As part of Phase I of the RI, groundwater samples were collected from the eight monitoring wells
installed around the three landfill disposal areas during two sampling events. An off-site water
supply was also sampled. The results of the groundwater sample events demonstrated that groundwater
has been locally impacted by the disposal areas. Chloride and Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), typical
municipal landfill indicators, were detected below EPA's Secondary MCLs. However, 1,1-dichloroethane
was detected in MW-3 located near the northern disposal area during the groundwater sampling events at
concentrations ranging from 11 to 42 • g/1 which exceeds the MCL of 7 •g/l. Chloroform and
trichloroethane (TCE) were also detected in MW-6 at levels below the MCL.
Groundwater analytical results from Phase II of the RI indicated metal detections above MCL
concentrations. In MW-3 manganese was detected at 92.9 • g/l which exceeds the SMCL of 50 •g/l. In
MW-4 mercury was detected at concentrations ranging from 6.1 to 13.1 which exceeds the MCL of 2 •g/l.
In MW-5 chromium was detected at 826 • g/l which exceeds the MCL of 100 *g/l. In MW-6 chromium was
detected at 106 • g/l which slightly exceeds the MCL. In MW-7 nickel was detected at 101 • g/l which
slightly exceeds EPA's health advisory level of 100 •g/l. In MW-8 nickel was also detected at
concentrations ranging from 125 to 175 • g/l in filtered and unfiltered samples which exceeds EPA's
health advisory level, and chromium was detected at 204 • g/l which exceeds the MCL.
An additional monitoring well, MW-9, was installed 2500 feet downgradient of the Landfill in early
1995, and analytical results from that monitoring well indicated no exceedances of MCLs. Therefore,
although ground water is impacted on-site, the guality of groundwater off-site has not been found to
be impacted.
During the RI, the Ojo de Guillo Spring was sampled on three occasions because it was a viable
location to collect groundwater which could be impacted by the Site. The results of the sampling
indicated that only iron was detected slightly above the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in
one sample.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Based upon the results of the RI, a baseline risk assessment was conducted to estimate the risks
associated with current and future Site conditions. 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.
Consistent with EPA's Presumptive Remedy approach, EPA conducted a streamlined baseline risk
assessment by comparing the levels of contaminants in ground water to MCLs. These levels were
exceeded, indicating that the Landfill is a source of contamination to the ground water and therefore
remedial measures are necessary to protect human health and the environment. EPA's Abbreviated Risk
Assessment evaluated any potential adverse effects to human health from exposure to chemical
contamination present in the vicinity of the Site groundwater. The reasonable maximum human exposure
was used. The results indicate that the levels of contaminants present in the ground water pose a
relatively low long-term threat to human health. However, if no action is taken with respect to the
Landfill, the continued release of contaminants into ground water could potentially result in a
greater risk at some point in the future. Therefore, based on the results of the Abbreviated Risk
Assessment, EPA has determined that actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from this
Site, if not addressed by implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present a current
or potential threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives are specific goals to protect human health and the environment. The primary
objectives of this remedy are to control the source of contamination at the Site and to reduce and
minimize the migration of contaminants into Site media thereby minimizing any health and ecological
impacts.
The following remedial action objectives were established for the Site:
to prevent direct contact with waste material;
to reduce or eliminate the potential for the Landfill disposal areas to release hazardous
substances to ground water;
to reduce or eliminate the potential for migration of hazardous substances to ground water
downgradient of the Landfill;
to prevent the migration of and control Landfill gas; and
to minimize any potential future impacts of hazardous substances that may migrate into
environmental media.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended,
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. It 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
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 reguirements (ARARs) under federal and state laws, unless a waiver can be
justified.
The FSW report evaluates in detail six remedial alternatives for addressing the contamination
associated with the Site. The implementation time reflects only the time reguired to construct or
implement the remedy and does not include the time reguired to design the remedy, negotiate with the
responsible parties, procure contracts for design and construction, or conduct operation and
maintenance ("O&M") at the Site.
-------
In addition, in accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, EPA must review any remedial action that leaves
hazardous substance above health based levels at a site at least once every five years to assure that
the remedy selected continues to be protective of human health and the environmental. All of the
alternatives presented will require such a five year review. If justified by the review, remedial
actions may be implemented to remove or treat the wastes, or to otherwise change the remedial action
selected in the ROD.
Alternative 1: No Action
The Superfund program requires that the "No-Action" alternative be considered at every site to provide
a baseline of comparison among alternatives. The No Action alternative means that no remedial actions
would be conducted for any of the media of concern at the Site. This does not achieve all the remedial
action objectives. While the existing soil and vegetative cover reduces potential exposure to on-site
soil contaminants by direct contact, ingestion, and/or inhalation, it does not prevent such exposure.
The potential migration of contaminants from on-site waste materials into the ground water from water
infiltration through the waste materials or surface water runoff and erosion would not be prevented or
minimized and the release of landfill gas would not be controlled. The potential for continued access
to the Site would exist thereby allowing potential exposure to on-site waste materials and direct
contact, ingestion, and/or inhalation. The potential for future airborne releases from exposed waste
areas would not be prevented. The leachate generation and/or groundwater contamination from waste
areas would also not be prevented. In accordance with Section 121 of CERCLA, remedial actions that
leaves hazardous substances at a Site are to reviewed at least once every five years to assure that
the remedial action is protective of human health and the environmental. There are no costs
associated with the No Action alternative.
Capitol Cost: $0
Operation and Maintenance Cost: $0
Present-Worth Cost: $0
Implementation Time: None
Alternative 2: Site-Wide Area Institutional Controls
This alternative provides that institutional controls be implemented on a site-wide basis. The
institutional controls are to be used to minimize the potential for human exposure to the waste and to
monitor leachate generation and groundwater contamination at the Site. The controls include:
1. Recommending that zoning restriction be applied to the Site, limiting future land use;
2. Recommending that a deed restriction be applied to the Site, limiting future land and
groundwater use; and
3. Groundwater monitoring after the Landfill ceases accepting wastes and installing perimeter
fencing and sign posting to restrict access;
Access restrictions will be implemented in the form of fences and signs around the Site. The existing
fence will require inspection and upgrading, as necessary, to ensure that the existing fence
completely surrounds the Site. Signs indicating that the landfill is a Superfund site (with EPA's
telephone number for information) would be posted on the fence or at other appropriate locations;
language on the signs would be in both Spanish and English. On-going maintenance of the fence and
signs would also be required.
Restrictions on future use of the Site include zoning and/or deed restrictions directed toward the
prevention of the construction of new drinking water supply wells and prohibition of construction at
the Site to prevent excavation. Restrictions will be placed on the property deed to assure the
long-term maintenance of the Site.
This alternative also includes site-wide groundwater monitoring for the period after the landfills
-------
closed (0 & M period). The groundwater monitoring program will be developed during the Remedial
Design (RD) phase. The groundwater monitoring system is anticipated to include the eight existing
monitoring wells, and groundwater sampling is anticipated to be conducted guarterly for the first
year, semi-annually for the next four years, followed by annual sampling for the remainder of the
30-year O&M period. Initially, the wells would be sampled for a broad parameter list. The list was
developed based on constituents detected above MCLs in the RI and on the reguirements of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulation Governing Landfill
Closure (RMNHSW). After the first five years, the parameter list will be reviewed and those
parameters not above standards would be omitted. The initial parameter list includes:
* Site Volatile Organic Compounds of Concern (only 1,1-dichloroethane was detected above MCLs
during the RI. However, to be more conservative, the complete EPA Method scan for volatile
organic compounds will be analyzed in accordance with 40 CFR, Part 258, Appendix. I & II).
* Site Metals of Concern (only mercury, chromium, and nickel were detected above MCLs during
the RI. However, to be more conservative, the complete EPA method scan for metals compounds
will be analyzed in accordance with 40 CFR, Part. 258, Appendix.I & II).
* Chloride
* Total Dissolved Solids
* Total Suspended Solids
* pH (field measurement)
* Specific Conductivity (field measurement).
This alternative by itself does not provide for the prevention of leachate generation and protection
of the ground water.
Capitol Cost: $779,00
Operation & Management Cost: $73,207/yr
Present Worth O&M Cost: $1,628,000
Total Cost: $2,407,000
Implementation Time: six months
Alternative 3A: SFDA Partial Soil Cover System
This alternative addresses the SFDA or southern disposal area, and includes a soil cover which would
be placed or combined with portions of the existing cover (to be at least one-half meter thick) in the
areas which have been exposed debris or an inadeguate existing cover system. The soil cover will be
properly graded and vegetated to control surface water flow and erosion. The existing grades will
generally be the final grades for the partial cover, changing only in the areas reguiring partial
cover.
For the purposes of the FS, the area reguiring a partial cover is assumed to be approximately 25% of
the total area, but the exact area will need to be further evaluated as part of the RD process. This
alternative was evaluated because most of the SFDA is covered and the cover has substantial
vegetation. However, there are some limited areas where debris, such as broken glass vials, are
exposed on the surface. These areas are limited in size and the exposed waste appears to present only
a physical hazard (not a chemical hazard). Also, the majority of the disposal area appears to have an
adeguate cover with substantial vegetation. Therefore, this option was considered because it would
allow disturbance of only a portion of the disposal area and thereby limit the potential short-term
exposures and/or releases. However, this alternative does not provide reasonable protection against
leachate generation and groundwater contamination.
-------
Capitol Cost: $76,000
Operation & Management Cost: $5,500/yr
Present Worth 0 & M Cost: $168,500
Total Cost: $244,500
Implementation Time: one month
Alternative 3B: SFDA Subtitle D Cover System
This alternative includes placing a cover system consistent with Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Subtitle D and the Puerto Rico's Regulations Governing Landfill Closure (RMNHSW) over the
entire Superfund Disposal Area. The Subtitle D cover system proposed for this disposal area under
this alternative consists of an 18-inch-thick layer of clay, placed to have a maximum permeability of
1 X 10-5 cm/s, and a 6 inch vegetative layer to help control erosion. Existing vegetation in the area
will initially be cut (less than 6 inches) and the area regraded so that minimum grades can be
obtained. The regrading may include the re-distribution of some of the existing cover materials
and/or waste materials. In particular, there is an area of waste disposal which is outside the
property line. This waste be relocated to the disposal area. Additionally, a layer of general fill
materials will be utilized, as needed, to obtain grades.
The general fill grades for this alternative will have surface water runoff directed generally from
southwest to northeast and north into low area where a retention pond will be constructed. The grades
are generally 5% across the Landfill, with a 3H:1V slope at the northern end for typing into the
retention pond area. Therefore, adequate erosion control for the surface water system will need to
include reinforcement of slopes and/or channels. The perimeter ditches will also be designed to divert
surface water from off the Landfill to the retention pond area. These ditches are also anticipated to
require reinforcement.
Consistent with the RMNHSW, a landfill survey will be required as part of a predesign investigation to
determine if gas collection system is necessary. The appropriate type of system and system design
would further evaluation as part of the RD process.
Capitol Cost: $889,000
0 & M Cost: $20,500/yr
Present Worth O&M Cost: $445,000
Total Cost: $1,334,000
Implementation Time: six months
Alternative 4: NBA Subtitle D Cover System
This Alternative for the NBA includes a cover system consistent with RCRA Subtitle D and RMNHSW. The
Subtitle D cover system proposed for the NBA under this alternative consists of an 18-inch-thick layer
of clay, placed to have a maximum permeability of 1 X 10-5 cm/s, and a 6-inch vegetative layer which
includes vegetation to help control erosion. The area will be regarded so that minimum grades can be
obtained; this may include the redistribution of some of the existing cover materials and/or waste
materials. A layer of general fill material will be utilized as needed, to obtain grades. The
regrading and general fill placement will allow a uniform cover system to be placed, as described
below, while maintaining the grades needed for control of surface water flow and erosion.
The grading for the NBA is anticipated to be generally from the west towards the east and from the
south to the north. All surface water will be directed over the surface of the Landfill and/or to
perimeter ditches towards the low area to the north where a retention pond will be constructed. The
perimeter ditches are also anticipated to divert surface water from off the NBA to the retention pond
area. This retention pond area is anticipated to be sufficient to control and infiltrate the water
from the 25-year, 24-hour storm from the entire drainage area. Because the maximum grade on the NBA
is 5%, adequate erosion control for the surface water system may include reinforcement of slopes
and/or channels, particularly in the perimeter ditches.
-------
Consistent with RMNHSW, a landfill gas survey will be required as part of a predesign investigation to
determine if a collection system is necessary. The need for the gas system and/or the appropriate
type of system and system design would require further evaluation as part of the RD process.
Capitol Cost: $2,878,000
0 & M Cost: $78,000/yr
Present Worth O&M Cost: $1,507,000
Total Cost: $4,385,000
Implementation Time: one year
Alternative 5: SDA Subtitle D Cover System
This alternative for the SDA includes a cover system consistent with RCRA Subtitle D and RMNHSW. The
subtitle D cover system for the SDA under this alternative consists of an 18-inch-thick layer of clay,
placed to have a maximum permeability of 1 X 10-5 cm/s, and a 6 inch vegetative layer which includes
vegetation to help control erosion. The filling of this area is currently ongoing and will be
tailored for the installation of the final cover. A general fill layer (assumed to be 2 feet in
thickness) will be placed to obtain the final grades for surface water flow and erosion control.
The grading for the SDA is anticipated to generally be from west to east draining to a retention pond.
The retention pond is expected to be sufficient to control and infiltrate the water from a 25-year,
24-hour storm event. The slope on the SDA is anticipated to be approximately 3%, therefore, erosion
control will not likely require much reinforcement other than vegetation, although the perimeter
ditches may require additional protection such as rip rap.
Consistent with the RMNHSW, a landfill gas survey will be required as part of a predesign
investigation to determine if a gas collection system is necessary. The need for the system an/or the
appropriate type of system and system design would require further evaluation as part of the RD
process.
Capitol Cost: $907,200
O&M Cost: $64,500/yr
Present Worth O&M Cost: $1,256,800
Total Cost: $2,164,000
Implementation Time: six months
SUMMARY OF COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with the NCP a detailed analysis of each alternative is required. The detailed analysis
consists of an assessment of the individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria and
a comparative analysis focusing upon the relative performance of each alternative against those
criteria.
The following "threshold" criteria must be satisfied by an alternative in order to be eligible for
selection:
1. Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy
provides adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each exposure pathway
(based on a reasonable maximum exposure scenario) are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2. Compliance with ARARs addresses whether or not a remedy would meet all of the applicable
(legally enforceable), or relevant and appropriate (requirements that pertain to situations
sufficiently similar to those encountered at a Superfund site such that their use is well
suited to the Site) requirements of federal and state environmental statutes and requirements
or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
-------
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify the major
trade-offs between alternatives:
3. Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable
protection of human health and the environment over time, once cleanup goals have been met.
It also addresses the magnitude and effectiveness of the measures that may be reguired to
manage the risk posed by treatment residuals and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume via treatment refers to a remedial technology's
expected ability to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants at the Site.
5. Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any
adverse impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction
and implementation periods until cleanup goals are achieved.
6. Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance costs, and the present-worth
cost.
The following "modifying" criteria are considered fully after the formal public comment period on the
Proposed Plan is complete:
8. State acceptance indicated whether, based on its review of the RI/FS report and the Proposed
Plan, the Commonwealth supports, opposes, and/or has identified any reservations with the
preferred alternative.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives described in
the Proposed Plan and the RI/FS reports. Factors of community acceptance to be discussed
include support, reservation, and opposition by the community.
A comparative analysis of the remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria noted above
follows.
• Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
All of the alternatives except Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Institutional Controls)
provide for the landfill cover system. Alternative 1 does not meet the remedial action provide for
the landfill cover system. Alternative 1 does not meet the remedial action objectives. This
alternative does not provide protection of the public health and the environmental because the
potential risks associated with the Site are not mitigated. The existing source and exposure pathways
remain. Alternative 2 minimizes the potential exposure to waste and ground water with Site
restrictions and a drilling ban. The existing exposure pathways inside the area would remain and no
mitigation of risks associated with the Landfill would take place. This alternative by itself does
not provide for the prevention of leachate generation and groundwater protection from leachate nor for
landfill gas control. Alternative 3A somewhat protective of human health by reducing the potential
exposure to waste and leachate generation. It provides only limited protection of the ground water
since it does not adeguately prevent infiltration because of the poor impermeability of the cap soil.
Alternatives 3B, 4 and 5 are protective by minimizing potential exposure to waste and providing for
the protection of ground water by controlling leachate generation. They also prevent the accumulation
and potential migration of landfill gas, reduce infiltration, minimize migration of contaminants into
ground water, and provide vector control (insects and rodents).
• Compliance with ARARs
-------
The principal action-specific ARARs for this Site include the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulation Governing Landfill Closure (RMNHSW) reguirements, which
reguire the installation of a cover system.
Alternative 1, No Action, does not meet federal or Commonwealth ARARs established for the Site. It
allows the Site to continue to be a source of contamination. Alternative 2 would meet the ARARs for
groundwater monitoring but by itself does no comply with federal or Commonwealth RCRA Subtitle D
closure ARAR's, allowing the landfill to remain without a cover system. Alternative 3A provides a cap
with minimum reguirements. This proposed cap does not comply with federal and Commonwealth ARAR's
capping/closure reguirements for the Site. Alternatives 3B, 4 and 5, provide for the closure of the
landfill with a full RCRA Subtitle D cap at all units. This cap meets federal and Commonwealth ARAR's
for capping/closure of the Site.
• Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The No Action alternative provides no long-term effectiveness or permanence for the Site. The remedial
action objectives would not be met and the potential risks established for the Site would not
mitigated. Alternative 2 which provides for institutional controls, groundwater monitoring and
fencing would not by itself be effective in reducing the risks that the Site presents over the long
term because leachate would continue to be generated thereby causing groundwater contamination.
Alternative 3A does not provide long-term control for leachate generation, migration of contaminants
and groundwater protection. It is not completely effective in reducing the risks that the Site
presents.
The capping reguirements under Alternative 3B, 4 and 5 provide a long-term effective remedial approach
if the systems are properly maintained. Long-term cap maintenance reguirements include inspections,
vegetation maintenance, and cap system repair. Maintenance is critical to the long-term effectiveness
and permanence for contaminant because the landfill contents remain at the Site. Essentially, the
capping alternative and component technologies are egually effective in providing a permanent
containment of the waste.
leachate to ground water as a result of the installation of surface controls and a cap which
would reduce precipitation infiltration for all capping alternatives. Alternative 3A however,
would result in the least reduction of leachate generation as compared to Alternative 3B,
4 and 5 because Alternative 3A would employ an inferior cap only addressing those areas
where waste materials are exposed.
• Short-term Effectiveness
The No Action alternative does not have any other significant public health and environmental impacts
associated with implementation. Alternative 3A is anticipated to have the next least short effects
because it has the smallest area to cap. All of the other capping alternatives (3B, 4 and 5) are
anticipated to have similar short-term effects. During regrading operations related to installing a
RCRA cap, short-term risk to the on-site workers, the local residents in close proximity to the
landfill, and the environment would exist. Health and safety measures would be implemented during
construction to minimize these short term risks.
The capping alternatives would have the same short term effectiveness considerations during clearing
and grubbing, erosion and sediment control construction and gas management system installation. Other
short-term effectiveness considerations are related to increased vehicular traffic and noise during
the construction.
Alternative 3A could be constructed in the least amount of time (one month), followed by Alternative
2, 3B and 5 each with six months. Alternative 4 has the longest construction time of one year.
• Implementability
-------
All of the alternatives involve the use of commercially available products and accessible technology.
Alternatives 3B, 4 and 5 are easily implemented technically. The RCRA Subtitle D soil cap
alternatives would be simple to construct and maintain. The local availability of the clay has been
tentatively confirmed with the Soil Conservation Service in San Juan, Puerto Rico. There are several
construction companies in Puerto Rico constructing RCRA Subtitle D soil caps at municipal landfills.
The availability of soils and construction companies capable to construct the reguired cap makes these
alternatives fully implementable.
Cost
The combination of Alternative 2 (SWA Institutional Controls) with Alternative 3B (SFDA Subtitle D
Cover), Alternative 4 (NBA Subtitle D Cover System) and Alternative 5 (SDA Subtitle D Cover System)
provide the balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
Following are the alternatives in order of total cost:
Alternative 1: $0
Alternative 2: $2,407,000
Alternative 3A: $244,500
Alternative 3B: $1,334,000
Alternative 4: $4,385,000
Alternative 5: $2,164,000
Alternative 2, 3A,4 & 5: $10,290,000
• State Acceptance
The environmental Quality Board concurs with the selected remedy for the Barceloneta Landfill. A
letter of concurrence is attached to this ROD as Appendix IV.
• Community Acceptance
All significant comments submitted during the public comment period were evaluated and are addressed
in the attached Responsiveness Summary which is included as Appendix V.
SEIiECTED REMEDY
EPA has determined, after reviewing the alternatives and public comments, that the combined
Alternatives 2,3B,4 and 5 (RCRA subtitle D Cover System/Institutional Controls) is the appropriate
remedy for the Site because it best satisfies the reguirements of CERCLA and the NCP's nine evaluation
criteria for remedial alternatives.
The major components of the selected remedy are as follow:
Installing a low permeability cover system for the three Landfill cells meeting the
reguirements of the RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulations Governing Landfill Closure.
This cover system or landfill cap(s) will further reduce infiltration of precipitation water
into the landfill and reduce leachate generation this mitigating impacts to ground water.
Regrading the Site and installing storm water management improvements at the Site to reduce
infiltration of storm water into the Landfill and reduce leachate generation.
Regrading the Site and installing storm water management improvements at the Site to reduce
infiltration of storm water into the Landfill reduce leachate generation.
Conducting long term ground water and surface water monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness
of the cover system. It is anticipated that monitoring will be conducted on a guarterly
basis for the first year, semi-annually for the next four years, and then annually.
-------
Monitoring will include the eight existing monitoring wells. Initially, the wells will be
sampled for a broad parameter list. The list has been developed based on constituents
detected above Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels in the Remedial
Investigation and on the reguirements of the RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulation
Governing Landfill Closure (RMNHSW). After the first five years, the parameter list would be
reviewed and those parameters not detected above standards would be omitted. The exact long
term ground water monitoring program will be further defined remedial design (RD).
Conducting a landfill gas survey during predesign to determine the necessity of a landfill
gas collection system. The appropriate type of system, if necessary, will be determining
during RD.
Implementing a long term operation and maintenance program for the cover system which will
include inspection of the system and provision for repair.
Recommending to appropriate authorities that institutional controls be emplaced.
Institutional controls are recommended in order to protect the integrity of the landfill
cover system and to reduce potential exposure to landfill contents. The institutional
controls will include recommending that zoning restrictions be applied to the Site to limit
future land use and recommending that a deed restriction be established to limit future land
and ground-water use.
Installing a perimeter fence with signs to restrict access.
Reevaluating Site conditions at least once every five years to determine if a modification of
the selected remedy is necessary.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
As previously noted, CERCLA mandates that a remedial action must be protective of human health and the
environment, be cost effective, and utilize permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies
or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. CERCLA 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 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.
For the reasons discussed below, EPA has determined that the selected remedy meets the reguirements of
CERCLA and provides the best balance of trade-offs among alternatives with respect to the evaluation
criteria.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment. Contact with Landfill waste
materials will be eliminated through capping the three disposal areas. In addition, capping will
prevent further degradation of the groundwater from the leaching of contaminants into the groundwater.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy will be in compliance with all ARARs. Action-specific ARARs for the selected
remedy include RCRA and Puerto Rico's Regulations Governing Landfill Closure.
Cost-effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost-effective because it has been demonstrated to provide overall
effectiveness proportional to its cost. The combination of Alternatives 2, 3B, 4 and 5 contain
criteria components in meeting the remedial action objectives and satisfying the statutory criteria.
-------
The present worth cost of the selected remedy is $10,290,000.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum Extent
Practicable
The selected remedy utilizes permanent solutions and treatment technologies to the maximum extent
practicable. However, because the contaminant source, the Site itself, could not be effectively
excavated and treated as a result of the large volume of waste and the absence of hot-spots
representing major sources of contamination, the remedy does not satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment as a principal element. The selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among
the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
There are no significant changes from the preferred alternative presented in the Proposed Plan.
-------
FIGURE 1.
FIGURE 2.
FIGURE 3.
![]()
![]()
![]()
-------
APIENDIX II - TABIiE
TABLE 1. Summary of Threatened or Endangered Species
TABLE 2. Soil Headspace Results
TABLE 3. Soil Borings Drilling Summary
TABLE 4 . Summary of Waste Delineation Borings
TABLE 5. Target Compound List
TABLE 6. Target Compound List
TABLE 7. Monitoring Well Construction Data
TABLE 8. Groundwater elevation Data
TABLE 9. Monitoring Well Redevelopment Summary
TABLE 10. Summary of Slug Test Results
TABLE 11. Summary of Soil Geotechnical Data
TABLE 12. Groundwater Flow of the North Coast Limestones
TABLE 13. Background Soil Analytical Results - Summary of Detected Parameters
TABLE 14. Sub-waste Soil Analytical Results - Summary of Detected Parameters
TABLE 15. Leachate Analytical Results - Summary of Detected Parameters
TABLE 16. Groundwater and Spring Analytical Results - Summary of Detected Parameters
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Species occurring on the main island of Puerto Rico and considered by
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources to
be threatened or endangered
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
CLASS AMPHIBIA
Puerto Rican Crested Toad Peltophryne lemur T*
Eneida's Cogui Eleutherdactylus eneidae T
Golden Cogui Eleutherdactylus jasperi T*
Karl Schmidt's Cogui Eleutherdactylus karlschmidti T
CLASS REPTILIA
Dryland Anole Anolis cooki T
Puerto Rican Boa Epicrates inornatus E*
Sloan's Slink Mabuya mabuya T
CLASS AVES
Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus venator T*
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius E*
PLANTS
CLASS DICOTYLEDON
Vahl's Boxwood Buxus vahlii E*
Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbiltii E*
Species likely to occur in the Barceloneta are and considered by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service to be threatened or endangered.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
BIRDS
Arctic Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius T
REPTILES
Puerto Rican Boa Epicrates inornatus E
AMPHIBIANS
None
MAMMALS
None
PLANTS
Palo de Ramon Banara vanderbiltii E
Vahl's boxwood Buxus vahlii E
Palo de Nigua Cornutia obovata E
Palo de Rosa Ottoschulzia rhodoxylon E
Palms de Manaca Calyptroma rivalis T
Notes:
T - Threatened
E - Endangered
* - Likely to occur in the Barceloneta area
Reference:
Puerto Rican Department of Natural Resources, Regulations to Govern the
Management of Threatened and Endangered Species in the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Appendix 1.
-------
TABLE 2
SOIL HEADSPACE RESULTS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
DEPTH OF DEPTH OF BORING BORING
SAMPLE SAMPLE SS-1 SS-2
(meters) (feet) (ppmHa) (ppm)
0-1.5 0-5 NA(b) NA
1.5-3.0 5-10 NA NA
3.0-4.6 10-15 0 0
4.6-6.1 15-20
6.1-7.6 20-25
7.6-9.1 25-30
9.1-10.7 30-35
10.7-12.2 35-40
12.2-13.7 40-45
13.7-15.2 45-50
15.2-16.8 50-55
Notes: (a) ppm = parts per million.
BORING BORINI
SS-3 SS-4
(ppm) (ppm)
NA NA
0(c)
7.5 (c)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
NA
0
BORING BORING BORING BORING
SS-9 SS-10 SS-11 SS-11B
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
(b) NA = No headspace VOC measurement recorded.
(c) Value reported is average HNU reading for depth interval.
--- = Boring not advanced to this depth.
No headspace VOC measurements were recorded for soil borings SS-13 through SS-22 because they represent background conditions
and metals were the only analytical parameters of concern
-------
TABLE 3
SOIL BORING DRILLING SUMMARY
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
BORING I
SS-1
SS-2
SS-3
SS-4
SS-5
SS-6
SS-7
SS-8
SS-9
SS-10
SS-11
SS-11A
SS-11B
SS-12
SS-13A
SS-13B
SS-14
SS-15A
SS-15B
SS-1 6
SS-17
SS-18
SS-19
SS-20
SS-21A
SS-21B
SS-22A
SS-22B
Notes:
NA = Not
NS = No
DATE
.D. DRILLED
2/11/92
2/11/92
2/12/92
2/12/92
2/12/92
1/17/92
1/08/92-1/10/92
1/08/92-1/13/92
1/08/92-1/14/92
1/09/92-1/14/92
1/09/92-1/15/92
1/15/92-1/16/92
1/15/92-1/16/92
1/15/92-1/16/92
1/12/94
1/12/94
1/11/94
1/11/94
1/13/94
1/13/94
1/11/94
1/12/94
1/12/94
1/12/94
1/12/94
1/12/94
1/13/94
1/13/94
Available
Sample Collected
HSA = Hollow Stem Auger
RW = Rotary Wash (water)
HA = Han
d Auger
DRILLING
METHOD
HSA
HSA
HSA
HSA
HSA
HSA
HSA/RW
HSA/RW
HSA/RW
HSA/RW
HSA/RW
HSA/RW
HSA
HSA/RW
HSA
HSA
HA
HA
HSA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HSA
HSA
HA
HA
meters = meters below gro
meters MSL = meters above
ppm = parts per
VOC = Volatile Organic Co
TOTAL
DEPTH OF
BORING
(meters )
3.5
3.5
4.0
1.5
2.4
8.5
8.5
9.1
8.5
9 . 3
2.3
2.3
2 . 3
16. 6
4.0
4 .0
1.2
1.2
4 .0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0
4.0
4.0
4 .0
4.0
und surface
mean sea level
million
mpounds
ELEVATION AT
AT TOP OF
BORING
(meters MSL)
118.9
132.0
127.9
145.5
141. 0
145. 1
139.5
142.3
119.2
118.3
125.3
125.4
125.4
127.3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MAXIMUM
HEADS PACE
VOC
CONCENTRATION
(ppm)
0
0
7.5
NA
NA
8
15
11
41
10
NA
NA
0.2
18
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LABORATORY
SAMPLE
INTERVAL
(meters )
3.0-3.
3.0-3.
3.0-3.
NS
NS
7.6-8.
7.6-8.
8.2-8.
7.6-8.
9.0-9.
NS
NS
NS
5
5
5
1
1
7
1
3
15.2-15
0.6-1.
3.0-4.
0.6-1.
0.6-1.
3.0-4.
0.6-1.
0.6-1.
0.6-1.
0.6-1.
0.6-0.
0.6-1.
3.0-4.
0.6-1.
3.0-4.
2
0
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
9
2
0
2
0
-------
SUMMARY OF WASTER DELINEATION BORINGS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Boring I.D.
WASTE
DISPOSAL
AREA
Northern
Northern
TOTAL
DEPTH OF
BOREHOLE
(meters bgs)
8.5
9.1
ELEVATION AT
TOP OF
BORING
(meters MSL)
139.5
142.3
ELEVATION AT
BASE OF
WASTE
(meters MSL)
132.3
134.1
THICKNESS
OF
WASTE
(meters )
6.7
7.3
SUB-WASTE
SOIL SAMPLE
INTERVAL
(meters bgs)
7.6-8. 1
8.2-8.7
Notes:
(1) = Borings 88-11, 88-11A and 8 8-1IB were reportedly drilled immediately outside of the Superfund disposal area and only trace guantities of
waste were encountered in 88-11 at 1.0 meter bgs and at 0.5 meter bgs in SS-11A and SS-1IB.
(2) = Elevation at top of being was estimated using the site topographic map prepared by Paul C. Rizzo and Associates (SCSR, 1992) .
(3) = Base of waste not penetrated.
NA = Not Available
NS = Not Sampled
meters bgs = meters below ground surface
meters MSL = meters above mean sea level
-------
COMPOUNDS
VOLATILE COMPOUNDS
TABIiE 5
Page 1 of 4
TARGET COMPOUND LIST
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
CAS NUMBER
CONTRACT
REQUIRED
QUANTITATION
LIMIT Cg/1)
MAXIMUM
CONTAINMENT
LEVEL(• g/1)
Chloromethane 74-87-3
Bromomethane 74-83-9
Vinyl Chloride 75-01-4
Chloroethane 75-00-3
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2
Acetone 67-64-1
Carbon Disulfide 75-15-0
1,1-Dichloroethene 75-35-4
1,1-Dichloroethane 75-34-3
1,2-Dichloroethane(total) 540-59-0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2
6
7
100
Chloroform 67-66-3
1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2
2-Butanone 78-93-3
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 71-55-6
Carbon Tetrachloride 56-23-5
10
10
10
10
10
100
5
200
5
Bromodichloromethane 75-27-4
1,2-Dichloropropane 78-87-5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-01-5
Trichloroethane 79-01-6
Dibromochloromethane 124-48-1
10
10
10
10
10
100
5
5
100
1,1,2 Trichloroethane 79-00-5
Benzene 71-43-2
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 10061-02-6
Bromoform 75-25-2
4-Methyl-2-pentanone 108-10-1
2-Hexanone
Tetrachloroethane
Toluene
591-78-6
127-18-4
108-88-3
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 79-34-5
Chlorobenzene 108-90-7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5
5
100
5
1000
Ethyl Benzene
Styrene
Xylenes(total)
100-41-4
100-42-5
13330-20-7
10
10
10
700
100
10,000
-------
COMPOUNDS
SEMI-VOLATILE
COMPOUNDS
TABLE 5
Page 2 of 4
TARGET COMPOUND LIST
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
CASE NUMBER
CONTRACT
REQUIRED
QUANTITATION
LIMIT (• g/L)
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL (*g/l)
Phenol
bis- (2-Chloroethyl)ether
2-Chlorophenol
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2-Methylphenol
2,2-oxybis (1-Chloropropane)
4-Methylphenol
N-Nitroso-di-a-propylamine 621-64-7
Hexachloroethane
Nitrobenzene
Isophorene
2-Nitrophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
bis-(2-Chloroethoxy) methane
2,4-Dichlorophenol
1,2,4-Trichloroebenzene
Naphthalene
4-Chloroaniline
Hexachlorobutadiene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
2-Methylnaphthalene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2-Chloronaphhalene
2-Nitroaniline
Dimethylphthalate
Aceenaphthylene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
3-Nitroaniline
Acenaphthene
2, 4-Dinitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
108-95-2
111-44-4
95-57-8
541-73-1
106-46-7
95-50-1
95-48-7
108-60-1
106-44-5
-7
67-72-1
98-95-3
78-59-1
88-75-5
105-67-9
111-91-1
120-83-2
120-82-1
91-20-3
106-47-8
87-68-3
59-50-7
91-57-6
77-47-4
88-06-2
95-95-4
91-58-7
88-74-4
131-11-3
208-96-8
606-20-2
99-09-2
83-32-9
51-28-5
100-02-7
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
25
10
25
10
10
10
25
10
25
25
600
75
600
70
50
50
-------
COMPOUNDS
SEMI-VOLATILE
COMPOUNDS (cont'd)
TABIiE 5
Page 3 of 4
TARGET COMPOUND LIST
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
CAS NUMBER
CONTRACT
REQUIRED
QUANTITATION
LIMIT(• g/1)
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL(• g/1)
Dibenzofuran
2, 4-Dinitrotoluene
Diethylphthalate
4-Chlorophenyl-phenyl ether
Fluorene
4-Nitroaniline
4,6-Dinitro-2-methylphenol
N-nitrosodiphenyl-phenylether
4-Bromophenyl-phenylether
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Carbazole
Di-n-butylphthaiate
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Butylbenzlphthaiate
3, 3-Dichlorobenzidene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Chrysene
bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-octylphthaiate
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Dibenz(a,b)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
132-64-9
121-14-2
84-66-2
7005-72-3
86-73-7
100-01-6
534-52-1
86-30-6
101-55-3
118-74-1
87-86-5
85-01-8
120-12-7
86-74-8
84-74-2
206-44-0
129-00-0
85-68-7
91-94-1
56-55-3
218-01-9
117-81-7
117-84-0
205-99-2
207-08-9
50-32-8
193-39-5
53-70-3
191-24-2
10
10
10
10
10
25
25
10
10
10
25
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
100
0
0.1
0.2
6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
-------
COMPOUNDS
PESTICIDES/AROCLORS
TABLES 5
Page 4 of 4
TARGET COMPOUND LIST
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
CAS NUMBER
CONTRACT
REQUIRED
QUANTITATION
LIMIT Cg/1)
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL Cg/1)
Alpha-BHC
beta-BHC
delta-BHC
gamma-BHC (Lindane)
Heptachlor
Aldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
Endolsulfane I
Dieldrin
4,4' -DDE
Endrin
Endosulfane II
4-4 '-ODD
Endosulfane sulfate
4-4 '-DDT
Methoxychlor
Endrin ketone
Endrin aldehyde
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Toxaphene
Aroclor-1016
Aroclor-1221
Aroclor-1232
Aroclor-1242
Aroclor-1248
Aroclor-1254
Aroclor-1260
319-84-6
319-85-7
319-86-8
58-89-9
76-44-8
309-00-2
1024-57-3
959-98-8
60-57-1
72-55-9
72-20-8
33213-65-9
72-54-8
1031-07-8
50-29-3
72-43-5
53494-70-5
7421-36-3
5103-71-9
5103-74-2
8001-35-2
12674-11-2
11104-28-2
11141-16-5
53469-21-9
12672-29-6
11097-69-1
11096-82-5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,05
,1
,1
,1
,1
,1
,1
,1
,05
,1
,1
,05
,05
0.2
0.4
0.2
40
Note: - = No MCL has been established for this compound.
-------
TABIiE 6
TARGET ANALYTE LIST
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
ANALYTE
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Mangenese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Thallium
Vanadium
Zinc
Cyanide
CONTRACT
REQUIRED
DETECTION
LIMIT
Cg/1)
200
60
10
200
5
5
5000
10
50
25
100
3
5000
15
0.2
40
5000
5
10
5000
10
50
20
10
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL (MCL)
Cg/D
_
6
50
2000
4
5
-
100
-
-
-
15*
-
-
2
100
-
50
-
-
2
-
-
200
SECONDARY
MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT
LEVEL (SMCL)
Cg/D
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1000
300
-
-
50
-
-
-
-
100
-
-
-
5000
-
FN:\Disk\933-3928\TARANL.XLS
NOTE: "-" = No MCL or SMCL has been established for this analyte.
* = Action level for lead in drinking water.
-------
TABIiE 7
MONITORING WELL CONSTRUCTION DATA
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
SURFACE
MONITORING ELEVATION
WELL NUMBER (meters) (feet)
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
146,
127,
128,
145,
141,
145,
140,
135,
.09
.51
.78
.50
.01
.08
.53
.85
479,
418,
422,
477,
462,
475,
461,
445,
BORING TOTAL DEPTH
DEPTH
(meters) (feet)
.29
.33
.50
.36
.63
.98
.05
.70
103.6
73.2
85.3
85.3
91.4
118.9
109.7
121.9
DEPTH TO TOP OF
OF WELL
(meters) (feet)
340.
240.
280.
280.
300.
390.
360.
400.
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
,0
81.
69.
80.
80.
83.
98.
105
99.
9
8
8
8
8
5
.5
1
BENTONITE
(meters)
269
229
265
265
275
318
346
325
67.
56.
67.
(b)
71.
84.
92.
87.
DEPTH TO TOP OF
SEAL
(feet)
5
4
1
9
0
5
2
221.
185.
220.
(b)
236.
275.
303.
286.
SAND PACK
(meters) (feet)
5
0
0
0
5
5
0
71,
58,
68,
70,
74,
86,
96,
89,
.2
.8
.3
.1
.1
.9
.0
.3
233,
193,
224,
230,
243,
285,
315,
293,
.5
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
SCREENED DEPTH TO TOP
INTERVAL
(meters) (feet)
74,
62,
73,
73,
76,
90,
99,
93,
.4-80.
.2-68.
.2-79.
.2-79.
.2-82.
.8-96.
.4-105
.0-99.
5
3
2
2
3
9
.5
1
244-264
204-224
240-260
240-260
250-270
298-318
326-346
305-325
OF
SUMP (a)
(meters) (fee
80.5
68.3
79.2
79.2
82.3
96.9
(c)
(c)
264.0
224.0
260.0
260.0
270.0
318.0
(c)
(c)
Notes:
a. All sumps that were installed were 5-foot lengths of 4" I.D. stainless steel solid-wall pipe.
b. In MW-4, bentonite slurry was placed directly on top of the sand pack. A bentonite pellet seal was not installed.
c. A sump was not installed due to collapse in the boring prior to well installation.
-------
TABIiE 8
(Page 1 of 3)
GROUNDWATER EIiEVATION DATA
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
MONITORING TOG(a)
WELL ELEVATION ELEVATION
TOG GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
(meters) (feet)
3/12/
69.931 229.43
199.50
235.03
179.87
137.64
GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
NUMBER
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
Notes:
(meters) (feet) (meters) (feet)
1/27/1992 (b) 2/18/1992 (b)
146.570 480.87 69.995 229.64
127.980
129.310
146.040
141.620
145.690
141.130
136.200
—
419,
424,
479,
464,
477,
463,
.88
.24
.13
.63
.98
.02
446.84
Water
level data not recorded.
71.638
54.825
41.953
(meters) (feet) (meters)
>(b) 3/19-25/92 (b)
76.177(c) 249.92(c) 77.527(c)
60.696 199.13
60.107 197.20
54.560 179.00
40.228 131.98
40.609 133.23
60.619
60.208
71.089
54.596
40.210
40.551
(feet)
254.35(c)
198
197
233
179
131
133
.88
.53
.23
.12
.92
.04
Elevation data are provided referenced to meters and feet above mean sea level.
(a) = TOG is the top of casing from which water level measurements were recorded.
(b) = Water levels measured prior to development.
(c) = Groundwater elevation measurement may have been affected by water on the side of casing (Rizzo, September, 1992).
-------
TABLE 8
(Page 2 of 3)
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
MONITORING TOG(a) TOG GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
WELL ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
NUMBER (meters) (feet) (meters) (feet) (meters) (feet)
4/13-14/92 5/13-15/92 5/18-20/92
GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
(meters) (feet) (meters) (feet)
7/24/93
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
Notes:
146.570
127.980
129.310
146.040
141.620
145. 690
141.130
136.200
480.87
419.88
424 .24
479.13
464 . 63
477.98
463.02
446.84
= Water level
69
60
59.449
71.324
66.121
54
40.182
40.438
data not
.974
.686
.584
rec
229.57 69.974
199.10 60.500
195.04 59.357
234.00 71.342
216.93 60.091
179.08
131.83 40.167
132.67 40.094
Elevation data are provided referenced to meters and feet above mean sea level.
a. TOG is the top of well casing from which water level measurements were recorded.
b. Water levels measured prior to development.
c. Groundwater elevation measurement may have been affected by water on the side of casing (Rizzo,September, 1992).
69 . 989
60.860
59.543
71 .333
66.270
54 . 612
40.152
40.338
229
199.6
195.3
234 .0
217
179
131
132
.62
7
5
3
.42
.17
.73
.34
72.090 236.51
65.050 213.42
64.080 210.23
71.240 233.72
66.390 217.81
55.010 180.47
40.090 134.18
41.920 137.06
-------
TABLE 8
Page 3 of 3
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATA
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
MONITORING
WELL
NUMBER
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
NOTES:
TOC(a) TOG GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER GROUNDWATER
ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION
(meters) (feet) (meters) (feet) (meters) (feet)
11/11-17/93 1/13/94
146.570 480.87
127.980 419.88 63.880
129.310 424.24 64.760
146.040 479.13 71.730
141.620 464.63 66.020
145.690 477.98 54.660
141.130 463.02 40.640
136.200 446.84 41.320
= Water level data not recorded.
70.110 230.01
209.58 64.180 210.56
212.46 63.090 207.00
235.32 71.660 235.12
216.59 66.070 216.76
179.33 54.490 178.76
133.32 40.167 133.06
135.55 40.094 135.32
Elevation data are provided referenced to meters and feet above mean sea level.
a. TOG is the top of well casing from which water level measurement were recorded.
b. Water levels measured prior to development.
c. Groundwater elevation measurement may have been affected by water on the side
of casing (Rizzo, September, 1992).
-------
TABLE 9
MONITORING WELL REDEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
WELL
NO.
DEPTH
WELL TO
DEPTH WATER
(meters bgs) (meters toe)
TOTAL
DISCHARGE
RATE
(gpm) (gal)
STABILIZED FIELD PARAMETERS
sp.cond.
(• mhos/cm)
124
MW-2 6/17/93 69.8
6/22/93 NA
6/30/93
7/1/9 3
11/10-11/93
>1000 SS BAILER
SS BAILER
SS PUMP
SURGE BLOCK
PUMP/SURGE
SS PUMP
SS BAILER
PUMP/SURGE
NA
NA PUMP/BAILER
SS PUMP
110
NA
SS BAILER
SS PUMP
NA
11.0
C = Degrees Celcius
NTU = Nephelometric tubidity units
SS Pump = Stainless steel submmersible pump
gpm = gallons per minute
S.U. = Standard pH units
Sp. Cond. = Specific Conductance
umhos/cm = micromhos per centimeter
NA = Not available
>1000
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF SLUG TEST RESULTS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
WELL NO.
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
GEOMETRIC
FALLING
HYDRAULIC
(CM/SEC)
NA
NA
6.7E-04
NA
9.0E-04
NA
NA
NA
MEAN
BOUWER AND
HEAD TEST
CONDUCTIVITY
(FT/DAY)
NA
NA
1. 90
NA
2.54
NA
NA
NA
RICE METHOD
RISING HEAD TEST
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM/SEC) (FT/DAY)
9.4E-04 2.65
5.7E-05 0.16
4.7E-04 1.33
3.0E-05 0.08
9.5E-04 2.70
9.1E-04 2.58
1.2E-04 0.34
6.3E-05 0.18
2.8E-04 0.79
FALLING HEAD TEST
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
(CM/SEC)
NA
NA
7.6E-04
NA
1.1E-03
NA
NA
NA
HVORSLEV
RISING
HYDRAULIC
(FT/DAY)
NA
NA
2. 16
NA
3.25
NA
NA
NA
METHOD
HEAD TEST
CONDUCTIVITY
(CM/ SEC
1.3E-
7.9E-
5.3E-
4.1E-
1.2E-
1.2E-
1.7E-
9.0E-
3.6E-
HYDRAULIC
NOTE: Geometric mean includes both falling head test and rising head test data.
NA - Not Available. No falling head test results are reported for the wells in which the screened interval
brackets the water table. This could result in hydraulic conductivity values that are not representative
of site conditions, based on information presented in Bouwer (1989) .
-------
TABLE 14
SUB-WASTE SOIL ANALYTICAL RESULTS-SUMMARY OF DETECTED PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS
SAMPLE DATE
METALS
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
MERCURY
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SILVER
SODIUM
THALLIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
VOLATILE ORGANICS
ACETONE
BENZENE
SEMI VOLATILE ORGANICS
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE
2-METHYLPHENOL
4-METHYLPHENOL
PHENOL
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/ kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
mg/ kg
mg/kg
19200J
37. 8J
24.3B
1.2
14. 7 J
1850J
161J
14.1
41.3J
65500J
13.7J
442BJ
1570J
0.15J
15.4
741B
<0.62J
2830J
0.69JB
209J
83.2J
BACKGROUND
958 CONFIDENCE
PREDICTION
INTERVAL
43254
94 .5
101
133287
28.6
1140(1)
4544
1.74
37. 1
508
NC
2680(1)
NC
411
-------
NOTES:
a - duplicate sample of SS-9
• g/kg - microgram per kilogram
mg/kg - milligram per kilogram
< - less than the contract reguired detection limit (CRDL) or contract reguired guantitation limit (CROL).
J - the reported value was estimated as a result of data validation.
R - the data was rejected as a result of data validation.
B - the value was greater than the Method Detection Limit (MDL) but less than the CRDL or CROL
b - not detected substantially above level reported in the laboratory of field blanks.
NA - not applicable
NS - not sampled
(1) - The 95 percent confidence prediction interval was not calculated due to the lack of a definable population distribution and
apparent spatial variability. However, the highest background concentration is shown.
NC - not calculated due to high percentage of locations with non-detected values.
No pesticides or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were detected.
Shaded results indicate value exceeds the background 9b% Confidence Prediction Interval.
-------
METALS
ALUMINUM
ARSENIC
BARIUM
BERYLLIUM
CADMIUM
CALCIUM
CHROMIUM
COBALT
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGENESE
NICKEL
POTASSIUM
SODIUM
VANADIUM
ZINC
TABIiE 15
IiEACHATE ANALYTICAL RESULTS
SUMMARY OF DETECTED PARAMETERS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
MSWLF LANDFILL
CONCENTRATION LEACHATE LEACHATE
( mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
145.0
0.116
0.291
0.010
0.019
171.0
0.952
0.076
0.315
303.0
0.112
25.60
2.630
0.176
262.0
875.0
0.849
5.460 0.32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-
0
.0418
.852
.0056
.022
492
.175
.168
221
.162
227
.326
409
821
-
-
-
-
100-3.000
-
<10
1-1.000
<5
100-1,500
0.01-100
0.01-1
200-1,000
200-1,200
0.1-100
VOLATILE ORGANICS
BENZENE
CHLOROBENZENE
ETHYLBENZENE
XYLENE
0.14B
0.014B
0.044
0.049
0.221
0.128
0.274
0.141
GENERAL CHEMISTRY
ALKALINITY (to pH 4.5) 3.160 - 500-10,000
CHLORIDE 950 786 300-3,000
NITRATE ND - 0.1-10
SULFATE ND 244 10-1,000
TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON 379 2048 200-30,000
TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 3.750 5691 5.000-40,000
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS 5.760 813
pH(standard units) 5.8 6.79 4-8
SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE(• mhos/cm) 7.200
TEMPERATURE(*C) 38.0
TURBIDITY(qualitative) very turbid
NOTES:
MSWLF LEACHATE - from HUS, 1988.
LANDFILL LEACHATE - from Freeze and Cherry, 1979.
mg/1 = milligrams per liter.
B = indicates the result is greater than the method detection limit (MDL)
but less than the contract required detection limit (CDRL) or the contract required quantitation limit
(CROL).
No analyses were performed for semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs).
pesticides, or polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
-------
TABLE 16
(Page 1 of 7)
GROUNDWATER AND SPRING ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SUMMARY OF DETECTED PARAMETERS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
SAMPLE DATE
ORGANICS:
VOLATILES
MW-2
11/17
ACETONE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CARBON BISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
SEMI VOLATILES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PESTICIDES/PCB
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
AROCLOR 1254
- liter
tract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL)
e was estimated as a result of data validation.
cted as a result of data validation.
ter than the method detection limit (MDL) but less than the CRQL
tantially above the level reported in the blanks.
ed prior to Round 2 and analyzed with Round 2 samples.
on 07/23/93 (sample ID MW-21).
on 04/14/92 (sample ID DUP-1).
on 11/11/93 (sample ID MW-22).
on 05/20/92 (sample ID DUP-1).
MCL - maximum contaminant level established by USEPA.
- No MCL has been determined.
NR - not reported
Shaded results indicate the sample exceeds the primary or secondary MCL.
-------
SEMI VOLATILES
BIS (2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PESTICIDES/PCBs
TABLE 16
(Page 2 of 7)
GROUNDWATER AND SPRING ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SUMMARY OF DETECTED PARAMETERS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
SAMPLE DATE
ORGANICS:
VOLATILES
PRIMARY
MCL
ACETONE
BROMOCHLOROMETHANE
CARBON BISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
100
100
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
AROCLOR 1254
- liter
tract Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL)
e was estimated as a result of data validation.
cted as a result of data validation.
ter than the method detection limit (MDL) but less than the CRQL
tantially above the level reported in the blanks.
ed prior to Round 2 and analyzed with Round 2 samples.
on 07/23/93 (sample ID MW-21).
on 04/14/92 (sample ID DUP-1).
on 11/11/93 (sample ID MW-22).
on 05/20/92 (sample ID DUP-1).
MCL - maximum contaminant level established by USEPA.
- No MCL has been determined.
NR - not reported
Shaded results indicate the sample exceeds the primary or secondary MCL.
-------
SAMPLE DATE
ORGANICS:
VOLATILES
TABLE 16
(Page 3 of 7)
GROUNDWATER AND SPRING ANALYTICAL RESULTS - SUMMARY OF DETECTED PARAMETERS
Barceloneta Landfill Site
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
SP-1
11/10/
ACETONE
BROMODICHLOROMETHANE
CARBON BISULFIDE
CHLOROFORM
DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE
1,1-DICHLOROETHENE
TRICHLOROETHENE
TOLUENE
SEMI VOLATILES
BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL)PHTHALATE
PESTICIDES/PCB
ENDOSULFAN I
ENDOSULFAN SULFATE
AROCLOR 1254
Required Quantitation Limit (CRQL)
estimated as a result of data validation.
s a result of data validation.
an the method of detection limit (MDL) but less than the CRQL
lly above the level reported in the blanks.
or to Round 2 and analyzed with Round 2 samples.
723/93 (sample ID MW-21).
714/92 (sample ID DUP-1).
711/93 (sample ID MW-22).
720/92 (sample ID DUP-2).
(f) Duplicate of MW-7, ll/
(g) Duplicate of MW-8, (organics only) 07/22/93 (sample ID MW-20).
MCL - maximum contaminant level established by USEPA
- No MCL has been determined.
NR - not reported
Shaded results indicate the sample exceeds the primary or secondary MCL.
-------
API>ENDIX III
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
BARCELONETA LANDFILL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.2 Notification/Site Inspection Reports
P. 100001 - Report: Open Dump Inventory Report, prepared by
100003 U.S. EPA, September 15, 1980.
1.3 Preliminary Assessment
P. 100004 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site
100007 Identification and Preliminary Assessment,
prepared by Mr. Wayne Pierre, U.S. EPA, September 14, 1981.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
100008 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site
100017 Inspection Report, prepared by Mr. David Lipsky,
Assistant Field Investigation Team Leader, Fred C.
Hart Associates, prepared for U.S. EPA, August 6, 1981.
p. 100037 - Report: Potential Hazardous Waste Site, Site
100042 Inspection Report, prepared by Mr. Dave Lipsky,
Assistant Field Investigation Team Leader, Fred C.
Hart Associates, prepared for U.S. EPA, March 2, 1982.
P. 100043 - Report: Barceloneta Landfill, Site Investigation,
100058 Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, prepared by Ms. Kristen
K. Stout, Imagery Analyst, The Bionetics
Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, August, 1982.
P. 100059 - Report: Hazardous Ranking System Package, prepared
10094 by Mr. David Lipsky, Assistant Field Investigation
Team Leader, Fred C. Hart Associates, prepared for
U.S. EPA, August 3, 1982.
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 300001 - Plan: Revised Sampling and analysis Plan,
300158 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Part 2:
Slug Testing, Background Soil Sampling,
Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barrio Florida Afuera,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, prepared by Paul C.
Rizzo Associates, Inc. prepared for Barceloneta
Landfill Site PRP Group, March, 1993.
-------
p.
3.4
P.
P.
P.
300159 - Plan: Revised Sampling and analysis Plan,
300335 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Part 1:
Groundwater Sampling, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
Prepared by Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.,
prepared for Barceloneta Landfill Site PRP Group, June,
Remedial Investigation Reports
1993.
300336
300611
300612
300623
300624
301340
Report: Revised Site Characterization Summary
Report, Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, prepared by Golder Associates Inc.,
prepared for Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group, c/o
Mr. Gordon Spradley, Browning-Ferris Industries,
Inc., May 1994.
Guidance Document: Drinking Water Regulations and
Health Advisories, prepared by Office of Water,
U.S. EPA, May 1994.
Report: Remedial Investigation Report,
Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, Volume 1 of 2, prepared by Golder Associates
Inc., prepared for Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group,
c/o Ms. Susan Gilliland, Dupont Corporate
Remediation, March 1995.
P. 301341 - Report: Remedial Investigation Report,
302177 Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, Volume 2 of 2, prepared by Golder Associates
Inc., prepared for Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group,
c/o Ms. Susan Gilliland, DuPont Corporate
Remediation, March 1995.
P. 302178 - Report: Abbreviated Risk Assessment, Barceloneta
302180 Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, prepared by
U.S. EPA, Region II, May 4, 1995.
3.5 Correspondence
P. 302181 - Letter to Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
302435 York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA, from
Mr. Marc E. Dillon, P.G., Project Hydrogeologist,
Golder Associates Inc., Mr. Mark J. Jordana, P.G.,
Senior Project Manager, Golder Associates Inc.,
and Mr. Donald J. Miller, P.E., Associate, Golder
Associates Inc., re: Responses to EPA Comments,
Revised Site Characterization Summary Report,
Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, December 9, 1994. (Attached: tables and
chain of custody forms)
-------
P. 302436 - Letter to Barceloneta Landfill PRP's Group, c/o
302436 Ms. Susan K. Gilliland, P.G., Dupont Specialty
Chemicals, Corporate Remediation, from Ms. Carole
Petersen, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch II, U.S. EPA, re: Approval of a New
Monitoring Well Location and Procedures Described
in March 31, 1995 Letter, April 12, 1995.
P. 302437 - Facsimile Transmittal sheet to Mr. Luis Santos,
302444 U.S. EPA, Mr. Mel Hauptman, U.S. EPA, Mr. Genaro
Torres, Ms. Ivette Ortiz de Vega, Mr. Lisandro
Reyes, and Ms. Linette Velez Rodrigues, from Mr.
Don Miller, Golder Associates Inc., re:
Barceloneta Landfill Site, Letter Regarding
Filling Options for the Southeastern Disposal
Area, April 20, 1995. (Attached letter to Mr. Mel
Hauptman, Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Donald J.
Miller, P.E., Associate, Golder Associates Inc.,
re: Southeastern Disposal Area Fill Options,
Barceloneta Landfill Site, April 19, 1995.)
P. 302445 - Facsimile transmittal sheet to Ingeniero Carlos
302449 Oneill, U.S. EPA, and Mr. Luis Santos, U.S. EPA
from Honorable Sol Luis Fontanes Olivo, Alcalde,
Gobierno Municipal, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, re:
Copias de Convocatoria y Resolucion a Discutirse
en la Asamblea Municipal, April 20, 1995. (Note:
This document is written in Spanish.) (Attached:
1. Letter to Ingeniero Carlos Oneill, U.S. EPA,
from Honorable Sol Luis Fontanes Olivo, Alcalde,
Gobierno Municipal, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, re:
copias de la convocatoria y resolucion gue
discutiremos el miercoles 26 de abril a las 7:30
P.M. en la Asamble Municipal de Barceloneta,
April 20, 1995. (Note: This document is written
in Spanish.) 2. Letter to Asamblea Municipal de
Barceloneta, from Honorable Sol Luis Fontanes
Olivo, Alcalde, Gobierno Municipal, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, re: Convocatoria a Sesion
Extraordinaria, undated. (Note: This document is
written In Spanish.) 3. "Agenda, Sesion
Extraordinaria, 26 de abril de 1995", prepared by
Oficina del Alcalde, Gobierno Municipal,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, undated. (Note: This
document is written in Spanish.) 4. Resolution
regarding the Barceloneta Landfill, undated.
(Note: This document is written in Spanish.))
-------
302450 - Letter to Mr. Luis Santos, Remedial Project
302450 Manager, U.S. EPA, Region II, Caribbean Field
Office, from Mr. Genaro Torres Leon, Director,
Emergency Reponse and Superfund Area,
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico/Office of the
Governor, Environmental Quality Board, Superfund
Program, re: Prospective Closure Plan,
Barceloneta Landfill, April 1995.
302451- Letter to Honorable Sol L. Fontanes Olivo,
302452 Alcalde, Municipio de Barceloneta, from Mr. Israel
Torres Rivera, Director Interino, Area Control de
Contaminacion de Terrenes, Gobierno de Puerto
Rico, Oficina del Gobernador, Junta de Calidad
Ambiental, re: Plan de Cierre Prospective
Vertedero de Barceloneta, April 26, 1995. (Note:
This document is written in Spanish.)
302453 - Letter to Mr. Luis E. Santos, U.S. EPA, Region II,
302762 Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Donald J. Miller,
P.E., Office Manager/Associate, Golder Associates
Inc., re: Monitoring Well Installation,
Barceloneta Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, April 27, 1995. (Attached: 1. Report:
Comprehensive Quality Assurance Plan, prepared by
and for Savannah Laboratories and Environmental
Services, Inc., December, 1994. 2. Report:
Statement of Qualifications, prepared by Savannah
Laboratories & Environmental Services, Inc., undated.)
-------
P. 302763 - Letter to Ms. Sara Cortez, Departmiento de
302786 Recursos Naturales, from Mr. Donald J. Miller,
Associate, P.E., Golder Associates Inc., re:
Monitoring Well Installation at Barceloneta
Landfill, May 12, 1995. (Attached: 1. Figure:
"Well Location", prepared by Golder Associates
Inc., April 4, 1994. 2. Attachment 1: Letter to
Barceloneta Landfill PRP's Group, c/o Ms. Susan
Gilliland, Superfund Manager, Dupont Corporate
Remediation, from Ms. Carole Petersen, Chief, New
York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: January 31, 1995 Meeting Summary
and Modified RI/FS Schedule, Barceloneta Landfill
Superfund Site, February 23, 1995. 3. Attachment
2: Letter to Mr. Luis E. Santos, U.S. EPA, Region
II, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Donald J.
Miller, P.E., Office Manager/Associate, Golder
Associates Inc., re: Monitoring Well
Installation, Barceloneta Landfill Site,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, March 31, 1995. 4.
Map: "Approximate Off Site Well Location",
prepared by Golder Associates Inc., 4/4/95. 5.
Report excerpt: "Monitoring Well Installation",
prepared by Paul C. Rizzo Associates, Inc.,
November 25, 1991. 7. Attachment 3: Letter to
Barceloneta Landfill PRP's Group, c/o Ms. Susan K.
Gilliland, P.G., DuPont Specialty Chemicals,
Corporate Remediation, from Ms. Carole Petersen,
Chief, New York/Caribbean Superfund Branch II,
U.S. EPA, re: Approval of the New Monitoring Well
Location and Procedures Described in the March 31,
1995 Letter, April 18, 1995. 8. Attachment 4:
Letter to Mr. Marc Dillon, Golder Associates Inc.,
from Honorable Sol Luis Fontanes Olivo, Mayor,
Gobierno Municipal, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, and
Mr. Lisandro Reyes, Environmental Director,
Gobierno Municipal, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, re:
Permit to Drill a Sampling Water in City's
Properties, May 10, 1995.)
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001 - Guidance Document: Presumptive Remedies: Policy
400008 and Procedures, Quick Reference Fact Sheet,
prepared by Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, U.S. EPA, September 1993.
-------
p.
4.6
P.
7.0
7.3
P.
7.7
P.
P.
400009 - Guidance Document: Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA
400023 Municipal Landfill Sites, Quick Reference Fact
Sheet, prepared by Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. EPA, September 1993.
Correspondence
400024 - Letter to Mr. Melvin Hauptman, P.E., Chief,
400025 Eastern New York/Caribbean Superfund Section II,
U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Donald J. Miller,
P.E., Associate, Golder Associates Inc., re:
Draft Feasibility Study Report, Barceloneta
Landfill Site, June 14, 1995.
ENFORCEMENT
Administrative Orders
700001 - Administrative Order on Consent, in the matter of
700039 the Barceloneta Landfill Site, Index No. II
CERCLA-00304, September 28, 1990
Notice Letter and Responses
700040 - Reguest for Information letter to Abbot
700043 Laboratories, from Mr. Conrad Simon, Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA, re:
Reguest for Information regarding the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, June 15, 1983.
700044 - Reguest for Information letter to Browning-Ferris
700048 Industries of Puerto Rico, from Mr. Conrad Simon,
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, U.S.
EPA, re: Reguest for Information regarding the
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
June 15, 1983.
P. 700049 - Reguest for Information letter to Pfizer
700053 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from Conrad Simon,
Director, Reguest for Information regarding the
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
June 15, 1983.
P. 700054 - Reguest for Information letter to Carsera Foods,
700059 Inc., from Mr. Conrad Simon, Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA, re: Reguest
for Information regarding the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, June 15, 1983.
(Attached letter to Mr. Conrad Simon, Director,
Air and Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Miguel Pagan, Chase Specialty
Metals Corporation, re: Response to Reguest for
Information regarding Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, September 1983.)
-------
700060
700064
700065
700069
700070
700074
700075
700077
700078
700079
700080
700083
700084
700085
Request for Information letter to Pfizer Disks
Inc., from Mr. Conrad Simon, Director, Air and
Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA, re: Request
for information reqardinq the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, June 15, 1983.
Request for Information letter to Sterlinq
Products International, Inc., from Mr. Conrad
Simon, Director, Air and Waste Manaqement
Division, U.S. EPA, re: Request for Information
reqardinq the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, June 15, 1983.
Request for Information letter to Winthrop
Laboratories, Inc., from Mr. Conrad Simon,
Director, Air and Waste Manaqement Division, U.S.
EPA, re: Request for Information reqardinq the
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
June 15, 1983.
Letter to Mr. William K. Sawyer, Office of
Reqional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Reqion II, from Mr.
Steven J. Cieciura, Ph. D., Director of
Enqineerinq, Research and Technical Services,
Scherinq Corporation, Puerto Rico, re: Response
to Request for Information reqardinq Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, June 24, 1983.
Letter to Mr. William K. Sawyer, Office of
Reqional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Reqion II, from Mr.
Jose E. Casas, Environmental Enqineer, Abbott
Chemicals, Inc., re: Response to Request for
Information reqardinq Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, July 6, 1983.
Request for Information letter to E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Company, Inc., from Mr. Conrad Simon,
Director, Air and Waste Manaqement Division, U.S.
EPA, re: Request for Information reqardinq the
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
July 7, 1983.
Letter to Mr. William Sawyer, Office of Reqional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Reqion II, from Mr. Candido
Jimenez, President, Warner Lambert, Inc., Response
to Request for Information reqardinq Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, July 11, 1983.
(Attached letter to Mr. William Sawyer, Office of
Reqional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Reqion II, from Mr.
Candido Jimenez, President, Warner Lambert, Inc.,
Response to Request for Information reqardinq
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
July 18, 1983.)
-------
700086
700094
700095
700099
700100
700114
Letter to William K. Sawyer, Esquire, Office of
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Ms.
Carol Dudnick, Union Carbide Corporation, re:
Response to Request for Information regarding
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
July 13, 1983.
Letter to Wayne N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste Site
Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Othoniel
Garcia, Quality Assurance Manager, USV
Laboratories, Inc., re: Response to Request for
Information regarding Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, July 19, 1983.
(Attached Request for Information letter to USV
Laboratories, from Mr. Conrad Simon, Director, Air
and Waste Management Division, U.S. EPA, re:
Request for Information regarding the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, July 7, 1983.)
Letter to Mr. William K. Sawyer, Office of
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr.
John L. Ashby, Vice President and General Manager,
Merck Sharp & Dohme Quimica de Puerto Rico, Inc.,
re: Reponse to Request for Information, July 20, 1983.
700115 - Letter to Mr. Wayne N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste
700117 Site Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. W.A.
Adams, President, DuPont Agrichemicals Caribe,
Inc., re: Response to Request for Information
regarding Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, August 1, 1983.
700118 - Letter to Mr. Wayne N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste
700120 Site Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. I.J.
Ferrer, Vice President and General Manager,
Bristol Alpha Corporation, re: Response to
Request for Information regarding Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, August 2,
1983.
700121 - Letter to Mr. Wayne N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste
700122 Site Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Manuel
L. Hormaza, Engineering and Maintenance Group
Manager, The Upjohn Manufacturing Company, re:
Response to Request for Information regarding
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
August 4, 1983.
700123 - Letter to Mr. Wayne N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste
700123 Site Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, from Mr. Frank
Lequerica, Vice President & General Manager,
Cyanamid Agricultural de P.R., Inc., re:
Response to Request for Information regarding
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
August 9, 1983.
-------
700124 - Second Request for Information letter to Bristol-
700126 Alpha Corporation, from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700127 - Second Request for Information letter to American
700129 Cyanamid Company, from Mr. Stephan D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700130 - Second Request for Information letter to Upjohn
700132 Manufacturing, Company, from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700133 - Second Request for Information letter to Roche
700135 Products, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700136 - Second Request for Information letter to Sterling
700138 Pharmaceuticals, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700139 - Second Request for Information letter to Warner
700141 Lambert, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Request
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, December 1, 1987.
700142 - Second Request for Information letter to Schering
700144 Pharmaceuticals Corporation/Schering Corporation,
from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
II, re: Second Request for Information Pertaining
to the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, December 1, 1987.
700145 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700145 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. C.M.
Jimenez Barber, Environmental Compliance Manager,
Schering Industrial Development Corporation, re:
extension of deadline to submit response to the
Request for information, December 8, 1987.
-------
P. 700146 - Letter to Andrew L. Praschak, Esquire, Office of
700150 Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Caribbean Field
Office, from Ms. Laurel D. Breitkopf, Senior
Attorney, Office of General Counsel, Abbott
Laboratories, re: extension of time to respond
Second Information Request, December 23, 1987.
(Attached: 1. Letter to Andrew L. Praschak,
Esquire, Office of Reqional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Laurel D.
Breitkopf, Senior Attorney, Office of General
Counsel, Abbott Laboratories, re: request for
extension of time to respond to Second Information
Request, December 16, 1987. 2. Letter to Mr. Jose
C. Font, Project Manager, U.S. EPA, Caribbean
Field Office, from Mr. Brian J. Smith, Division
Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Abbott
Laboratories, re: Response to Second Request for
Information, February 1, 1988.)
P. 700151 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700725 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Yazmin I
Reyes, Environmental Manager, Bristol-Myers
Barceloneta, Inc., re: enclosed certified
document, January 4, 1988. (Attached: 1.
"Attachment 3, Certification of Answers to Request
for Information", prepared by Mr. Tiber A. Racz,
General Manager, Bristol-Myers Barceloneta, Inc.,
prepared for U.S. EPA, January 4, 1988. 2. Letter
to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Tiber A. Racz,
General Manager, Bristol-Myers Barceloneta, Inc.,
re: Response to Second Request for Information,
December 22, 1987. )
P. 700726 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700771 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Don
Woodhouse, General Manager, Sterling
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., re: Reponse to Request
for Information regarding Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, January 12, 1988.
P. 700772 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700775 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Edward A.
MacMullan, Vice President of Manufacturing
Operations, Roche Products, Inc., re: Response to
Request for Information regarding Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, January 13, 1988.
P. 700776 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700781 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Bernabe
Martir, Manager, Environmental Affairs, The Upjohn
Manufacturing Company, re: Response to Second
Request for Information, January 14, 1988.
-------
P. 700782 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700897 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Dr. Richard S.
Bowles, III, General Manager, Merck Sharp & Dohme
Quimica de Puerto Rico, Inc., re: Response to
Second Reguest for Information regarding the
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
January 21, 1988. Note: Pages 700891 - 700895
of this document are CONFIDENTIAL. They are
located at U.S. EPA Remedial Records Center, 290
Broadway, New York, New York, 10007)
P. 700898 - Second Reguest for Information letter to Mr.
700904 Candido Jimenez, President, Warner Lambert, Inc.,
from U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Reguest for
Information Pertaining to Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, January 26, 1988.
P. 700905 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700910 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Frank
Leguerica, Vice President and General Manager,
Cyanamid Agricultural de Puerto Rico, Inc., re:
Response to Second Reguest for Information,
January 28, 1988. (Attached letter to Mr. Wayne
N. Pierre, Hazardous Waste Site Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region II, from Mr. Frank Leguerica, Vice
President & General Manager, Cyanamid Agricultural
de Puerto Rico, Inc., re: Response to Reguest for
Information regarding Barceloneta Landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, August 9, 1983.)
P. 700911 - Letter to Mr. Jose Font, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
700913 Eduardo Negron-Navas, Fiddler, Gonzalez &
Rodriguez, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law, re:
enclosed Certification of Answers to Reguest for
Information, February 1, 1988. (Note: this
document is written in Spanish.) (Attached:
"Attachment 3, Certification of Answers to Reguest
for Information", prepared by Mr. Frank Leguerica,
Vice President and General Manager, Cyanamid
Agricultural de Puerto Rico, Inc., prepared for
U.S. EPA, January 29, 1988)
P. 700914 - Letter to Andrew L. Praschak, Esguire, Office of
700914 Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, from Mr. William F.
Kirchoff, Assistant Counsel, Regulatory and
Governmental Affairs, Warner Lambert Company, re:
Reguest for Information regarding Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, February 8, 1988.
P. 700915 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
700938 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Frank
Leguerica, Vice President and General Manager,
Cyanamid Agricultural de Puerto Rico, Inc., re:
Additional Information Regarding the Second
Reguest for Information, February 12, 1988.
-------
700939 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
701050 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Carlos M.
Jimenez Barber, Environmental Compliance Manager,
Schering Industrial Development Corporation, re:
Response to Second Reguest for Information
regarding Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, February 12, 1988.
701051 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
701070 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Ms. Donna L.
Kolar, Attorney, Browning-Ferris Industries of
Puerto Rico, Inc., re: Response to Reguest for
Information, February 17, 1988.
701071 - Letter to Mr. Jose Font, U.S. EPA, from Mr.
701073 Eduardo Negron Navas, Fiddler, Gonzalez &
Rodriguez, Attorneys and Counsellors at Law, re:
enclosed Certification of Answers to Reguest for
Information, February 17, 1988. (Note: this
document is written in Spanish) (Attached:
"Attachment 3, Certification of Answers to Reguest
for Information", prepared by Mr. Carlos M.
Jimenez Barber, Environmental Compliance Manager,
Schering Industrial Development Corporation,
February 16, 1988.)
701074 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
701107 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. William G.
Speenburgh, Manager, Environmental Control,
Warner-Lambert Company, re: Response to Reguest
for Information regarding Barceloneta landfill,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, March 4, 1988.
701108 - Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, Project Manager, U.S.
701133 EPA, Caribbean Field Office, from Mr. Michael A.
Miller, Manager, Remedial Engineering, Corporate
Environmental Programs, General Electric Company,
re: Response to Reguest for Information regarding
Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico,
March 4, 1988.
701134 - Notice letter to Abbott Pharmaceuticals, E.I.
701136 DuPont de Nemours & Company, Honorable Sol Luis
Fontanez, Mayer, Town of Barceloneta, Merck Sharp
& Dohme Quimica de Puerto Rico, Inc., and Upjohn
Manufacturing Company, re: Reguest to perform
RI/FS at the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, June 18, 1990.
701137 - Notice Letter to Union Carbide Corporation, from
701139 U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Reguest to perform RI/FS
at the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, and notification of PRP status, August 16, 1990.
-------
p.
701140
701180
701181
701181
701182
701192
701193
701201
701202
701209
701210
701337
701338
701346
Facsimile transmittal sheet to Mr. Jose Font, U.S.
EPA, Region II, Caribbean Field Office, From Mr.
Jim Doyle, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
Region II, re: enclosed letter from Hoffman-
LaRoche regarding Barceloneta Landfill, October 4,
1990. (Attached: 1. Letter to James Doyle,
Esguire, Office of Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA,
from Mr. John D. Alexander, Senior Counsel,
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., re: Amendment to 104(e)
response, September 25, 1990. 2. Analytical
results, prepared by Analytikem, prepared for
Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., July 31, 1987.)
Letter to Mr. Jose C. Font, New York/Caribbean
Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, from Ms. Laurel D.
Breitkopf, Division Counsel, Office of General
Counsel, Abbott Laboratories, re; Updated
Response to Reguest for Information, Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, October 18, 1990.
Second Reguest for Information letter to Browning-
Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc., from Mr.
Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Second Reguest for Information Pertaining to
the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, undated.
Second Reguest for Information letter to Abbott
Chemicals, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Reguest
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, undated.
Second Reguest for Information letter to Roche
Products, Inc., from Mr. Stephen D. Luftig,
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Reguest
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, undated.
"Answers to Attachment 2, EPA's Second Reguest for
Information on the Barceloneta Landfill", prepared
by E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Company, prepared for
U.S. EPA, undated.
Second Reguest for Information letter to E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Company, from Mr. Stephen D.
Luftig, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region II, re: Second Reguest
for Information Pertaining to the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, undated.
-------
P. 701347 - Second Request for Information letter to Merck,
701355 Sharp and Dohme Quimica de Puerto Rico, Inc., from
Mr. Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Emergency and
Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region II,
re: Second Request for Information Pertaining to
the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, undated.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plan
P. 1000001 - Letter to Ms. Catherine E. Moyik, TES Regional
1000034 Project Officer, EPA, from Scott B.
Graber, TES V Regional Manager, COM Federal
Programs Corporation,, re: Final Community
Relations Plan Revision for Barceloneta Landfill,
May 26, 1992. (Attached report: Final Community
Relations Plan, Community Relations work
Assignment, Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico, prepared by Booz-Allen & Hamilton
Inc., prepared for Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, U.S. EPA, May 26, 1992.)
10.3 Public Notices
P. 1000035 - Public Notice: "Aviso de Reunion Publica sobre
1000035 Limpieza por Superfundo del Vertedero de
Barceloneta Martes, 9 de Julio de 1991 - 6:30
P.M., Casa Alcaldia de Barceloneta", prepared by
U.S. EPA, undated. (Note: this document is
written in Spanish.)
P. 1000036 - Public Notice: "Aviso de Reunion Publica sobre
1000036 Limpiezo por Superfondo del Vertedero de
Barceloneta Martes, 7 de Enero de 1992 - 6:30
P.M., Barrio Tosas, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico",
prepared by U.S. EPA, undated. (Note: This
document is written in Spanish.)
10.6 Fact Sheets and Press Releases
P. 1000037 - Fact Sheet: "Hoja de Dates Superfundo, El
1000038 Vertedero de Barceloneta, Puerto Rico", prepared
by U.S. EPA, Region II, July 1991. (Note: This
document is written in Spanish.)
P. 1000039 - Fact Sheet: "Superfund Fact Sheet, Barceloneta
1000040 Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico", prepared
by U.S. EPA, Region II, July, 1991.
P. 1000041 - Fact Sheet: " Superfund Fact Sheet, Barceloneta
1000042 Landfill Site, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico, EPA
Considers Containment as Presumptive Remedy for
Barceloneta Landfill", prepared by U.S. EPA,
Region II, Caribbean Field Office, undated.
-------
P. 1000043 - Fact Sheet: "Hoja de Informacion del Superfondo,
1000044 Vertedero de Barceloneta, Barceloneta, Puerto
Rico, La EPA Considera la Contencion Como Remedio
Presuntivo para Vertedero de Barceloneta",
prepared by U.S. EPA, Region II, Caribbean Field
Office, undated.
-------
APPENDIX IV
PUERTO RICO ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT A
LETTER SUBMITTED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
Golder Associates Inc.
8933 Western Way, Suite 12
Jacksonville, FL USA 32256 ![]()
Telephone (904) 363-3430
Fax (904) 363-3445
January 24, 1996
Mr. Luis Santos
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Centre Europa Building, Suite 417
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Stop 22
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
RE: TECHNICAL COMMENTS CONCERNING
EPA'S PROPOSED PLAN FOR THE
BARCELONETA LANDFILL, PUERTO RICO
Dear Luis:
On behalf of the Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group, Golder Associates Inc. submits the following
technical comments to the agency's proposed plan for the above referenced site.
1. In the third paragraph of the left-hand column on the first page, the agency makes specific
reference to the RI report dated March 1995 and the FS report dated September 1995. However,
the Risk Assessment is not similarly identified. Specific reference to the Abbreviated Risk
Assessment produced in May of 1995 should be made.
2. In the last paragraph of the right-hand column on page 3, the proposed plan describes the
results of the risk assessment activities at the site. In the paragraph, the proposed plan
indicates that consistent with the presumptive remedy approach, the risk assessment was
conducted by comparing groundwater concentrations to MCLs and because MCLs were exceeded
remediation is necessary. However, the presumptive remedy guidance only states that if ARARs
are exceeded, remedial action is generally warranted. This statement in the proposed plan
should be modified to reflect that remediation is generally warranted.
The fourth sentence in the last paragraph of the right-hand column on page 3 continues by
describing that a reasonable maximum human exposure was used. However, as stated above, the
results with MCLs. This sentence be deleted.
The sixth sentence in the last paragraph of the right-hand column on page 3 (continuing to the
top of the left-hand column on page 4) is not discussed on the Abbreviated Risk Assessment. If
this statement represents the agency's belief, it should be stated as such by beginning the
sentence in question with the statement, "However, it is EPA's belief that if no action is
taken...."
OFFICES IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, GERMANY, HUNGARY, ITALY, SWEDEN,UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency January 24, 1996
Attn: Mr. Luis Santos 933-3928
3. In the first and second bullets of the left-hand column on page 5, the agency proposes a suite
of analytes for the long term groundwater monitoring program for the site. This suite of
analytes is different than that described in the FS document. In the FS document, a suite of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analyzed by EPA Method 601 along with mercury, chromium, and
nickel were proposed (along with parameters listed in the last five bullets). In the proposed
plan, the agency substituted volatile organic compounds and metals in accordance with 40 CFR
Part 258, Appendices I and II, even though Appendix II is not applicable for detection
monitoring (such as the long term groundwater monitoring proposed for this site). The only
reason provided for the different parameter group from that proposed in the FS is to be more
conservative. as described below, the parameter group proposed in the FS is already
conservative.
As part of the RI for this site, a very broad suite of analytical parameters was used to
determine which constituents were present and at what concentrations. This broad suite included
the complete target compound list and target analyte list (149 different parameters). As a
result of four rounds of groundwater sampling using this broad parameter list (149 different
parameters), the only organic compound detected above MCL was 1,1-dichloroethane. Similarly,
only a few metals were detected above MCL (mercury, chromium, and nickel) in the last two rounds
of groundwater sampling, and these, only mercury was detected above MCLs in the dissolved
metal analyses. It is unreasonable for the proposed plan to include so many parameters with
this much data available.
The parameter group proposed in the FS document is a conservative suite of initial parameters
for the long term monitoring program for the site. The proposed parameters includes 29 VOCs
(EPA Method 601) , three metals (mercury, chromium, and nickel), chloride, Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS), Total Suspended Solids (TSS) , pH, and Specific Conductivity. Chloride, TDS, TSS, pH,
and Specific Conductivity historically are common landfill indicator parameters. The 29 VOCs
included on EPA's Method 601 list are sufficient to monitor the historical detections as well as
provide ample assurance of detecting any other organic impact. The three metals (mercury,
chromium, and nickel) were proposed because these parameters were detected above MCLs and it
is appropriate to monitor the trend of these compounds over time. Consequently, the Barceloneta
Landfill PRPs do not believe the expansion of the parameter list include Appendices I and II
volatile organic and metal constituents is necessary or appropriate for this site.
4. In the second paragraph under the Short-Term Effectiveness bullet on the left-hand column on
page 8, mention is made of a leachate control system. Leachate was only detected in one of
seven borings that were drilled through the waste disposal areas at the site. The leachate was
analyzed and found to be typical of, or less concentrated than, landfill leachate referenced by
EPA and others in the literature (see references in the RI Report (Freeze and Cherry (1979) and
NUS Corporation (1988) . Consequently, none of the remedies in the FS include a provision
for the installation of a leachate control system. The reference to a leachate control system
should be deleted.
Should you have any questions concerning any these comments, please call.
Very truly yours,
![]()
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
(MAIL TO)
P.O. BOX 1945
PETER J. HERZBERG MORRISTOWN, NEW JERSEY 07962-1945 26 EAST 64TH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021
DIRECT DIAL NUMBER (DELIVERY TO) (212) 371-8880
(201) 966-8058 200 CAMPUS DRIVE FACSIMILE (212) 371-8540
FLORHAM PARK, NEW JERSEY 07932-0950
(201) 966-6300
FACSIMILE (201) 966-1550
January 25, 1996
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Mr. Luis Santos
Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Centre Europa Building, Suite 417
1429 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Stop 22
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
Re: Comments to USEPA's Proposed Plan
for the Barceloneta Landfill
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico
Dear Mr. Santos:
On behalf of the Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group (the "PRP Group")!, we submit the following
comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Proposed Remedial Action
Plan (PRAP) for the Barceloneta Landfill (the "Site").
The PRP Group concurs with the proposed selected remedies for the Northern Disposal Area (NDA)
and the Southern Disposal Area, also known as the Superfund Disposal Area (SFDA), subject to
the technical comments regarding the details of the selected remedies, submitted by the PRP Group's
environmental consultant, Golder Associates Inc.2
IThe members of the Barceloneta Landfill PRP Group included the following: Abbott
Laboratories, American Home Products Corp., Browning-Ferris Industries, E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., Merck & Co. Inc., Nycomed, Inc., Roche Products, Inc., Schering-Plough
Corporation, Union Carbide Chemical & Plastics Co., Inc., and Upjohn Manufacturing. The
PRP Group does not include the City of Barceloneta, which has failed to pay for any of the
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) activities undertaken by the PRP Group to
the AOC.
2The PRP Group, however, does not concede or agree that it is fully responsible for
implementing the selected remedy for the NDA or SFDA.
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
Page 2
These comments focus on the Southeastern Disposal Area (SDA) as part of the "Superfund National
Priorities List (NPL) site", as defined in the third paragraph in the left column on page
3 of the PRAP. USEPA's efforts to include the SDA as part of a Record of Decision (ROD) is beyond its
legal authority and impractical. The scope of the ROD should be limited to the NDA and SFDA only.
I. USEPA Has No Authority to Include the SDA As Part of the Site
USEPA cannot properly include the SDA as part of the NPL listed site. The Site was proposed
for inclusion on the Superfund NPL in December 1982, and was subseguently approved and listed as
an NPL site in September 1983. Approval for listing the Site on the NPL was premised on the findings
of the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) score in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
The HRS scoring for the Barceloneta site was only prepared for the areas identified as the NDA
and SFDA. The HRS was prepared for only these two areas because the SDA did not exist as a disposal
area in 1982. In fact, the USEPA and Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREOB) allowed the SDA
to be opened and operated by the City of Barceloneta after the landfill was listed on the NPL. To
date, the USEPA continues to allow the City of Barceloneta to dispose of waste in the SDA, which is
inconsistent with the mandates of CERCLA.
An NPL site includes all releases evaluated as part of the HRS3 analysis. 55 Fed. Reg. 6154
(1990) . Furthermore, "HRS data upon which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent,
describe which release is at issue." UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SUPERFUND
FACILITY (SITE) BOUNDARIES (1995). Thus, since the HRS did not include the SDA, the SDA cannot be
considered part of the NPL listed site.
3The HRS serves as a screening device to evaluate the relative potential of uncontrolled
hazardous substances to cause harm to human health or the environment. The HRS score is
calculated by estimating risks presented in three potential pathways of human or
environmental exposure: groundwater, surface water, and air. Within each pathway, the HRS
considers factors which indicate the presence or likelihood of a release to the environment;
the nature and guantity of the substances presenting the potential threat; and the human or
environmental targets potentially at risk from the site. The factors are assigned a
numerical value which is used to compute a final score for the site; if the score is 28.50
or greater, the site is eligible for listing on the NPL. See 40 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A
(1994) .
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
Also, USEPA cannot justify inclusion of the SDA simply because it is within the boundaries of
the property owned by the Municipality of Barceloneta on which it conducted landfilling activities. A
CERCLA site is not defined by its property boundaries. CERCLA defines the term "facility" as "...
impoundment, ditch, landfill, ... or any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited,
stored, or area where a placed, or otherwise come to be located." CERCLA §101 (9), 42
U.S.C. § 9601 (9). While there is no dispute that portions of the Barceloneta Landfill constitute a
facility under CERCLA, there is an issue as to the extent of the facility.
In Nurad, Inc. V. William E. Hooper & Sons Co., 966 F.2d 837 (4th Cir. 1992), the Fourth
Circuit held that "facility" was properly confined to the area in an around designated underground
storage tanks since that was the only area where hazardous substances had "come to be located." The
court specifically noted that this was true even though the tanks were part of a larger piece of
property.
The USEPA recently issued guidance regarding the definition of a facility which is essentially
the same as the Nurad holding. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, SUPERFUND FACILITY
(SITE) BOUNDARIES (1995). The guidance specifies that only waste disposal areas of a installation are
considered Superfund sites, even if the name suggests that the entire installation or property
boundary is covered. Thus, as a legal matter, the site is not coextensive with the property
boundaries of an installation.
In addition, by attempting to include the SDA in the NPL Site reguiring CERCLA remediation,
USEPA has failed to comply with the notice and comment reguirements for rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) , 5 U.S.C. § 5532(c) . It is elementary that a hazardous waste site
can only be placed on the NPL after rulemaking by notice and comment. Anne Arundel County,
Md. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 963 F.2d 412, 414 (D.C. Cir. 1992). See
Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 553 (c). To list a site, the USEPA must make a
determination to include the site on the NPL, notice its intent to list the site, accept comment and
make a final determination. Administrative determinations, which are not made in the manner set
forth in the APA, are void. Indeed, if the USEPA determines a site should be included on the NPL, the
USEPA must (1) publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register and solicit comments through
a public comment period and (2) publish the final rule in the Federal Register and make available a
response to each significant comment or new data submitted during the comment period. 40 C.F.R.
§ 300.425(d)(5).4
4The only exception to this rule is if EPA determines that the SDA poses an imminent and
substantial endangerment caused by and actual or threatened release. CERCLA, § 106, 42
U.S.C. §9606; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9833.01-A,
GUIDANCE ON CERCLA SECTION 106 (A) UNILATERAL ADMINISTRATION ORDERS FOR REMEDIAL DESIGNS AND
REMEDIAL ACTIONS (1990).
No data supports a claim that this area poses an imminent and substantial endangerment. The
Remedial Investigation data would not support such an administrative determination by USEPA.
The Final Feasibility Study does no indicate that there are observed releases of hazardous
substances that can be clearly attributed to the SDA. Also, USEPA's abbreviated risk
assessment concluded that the site poses a low level long-term threat. In fact, USEPA's PRAP
clearly refutes that this area poses a imminent hazard because it provides for this area to
remain open for waste disposal for a period of two and one half years to six years, as stated
in the third paragraph in the left column on page 9 of the PRAP. Clearly, the SDA poses,
little, if any, risk to human health and the environment. Any minimal risks can and should
be addressed under local programs, not through the Superfund program.
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
In sum, the Barceloneta Site should not include the SDA as part of the NPL listed site for
remediation. The SDA was not included in the HRS process to allow for proper inclusion on the NPL,
nor was it included in USEPA's proposal to list the area on the NPL. It is hardly dispositive that
the Barceloneta Landfill site name has, in the past, commonly been used to refer to the entire parcel
of land owner by the City of Barceloneta. Rather, according to the CERCLA definition of a "facility"
and USEPA's guidance, only the two disposal areas operational at the time of NPL listing comprise the
Superfund site; i.e., the NBA and SFDA.5
If USEPA chooses to list the SDA on the NPL in the future and to bring it within the regulatory
sphere of Superfund, the USEPA will have to comply with the administrative procedures set
forth above for listing a release on the NPL. Since it has not complied with the procedures, the SDA
cannot be included as part of the NPL listed site subject to remediation. Presently, the USEPA
does not have authority to include the SDA within the NPL listed site based on the administrative
record, nor does it have authority to issue a proposed remedial action plan for the SDA prior to
complying with the proper administrative procedures.
II. The City Barceloneta is Responsible for Closure of the SDA, Which Should be Done as a Separate
Unit Under Puerto Rican Law
Under Section 107 (a) of CERCLA, a party can be held responsible for cleanup of a Superfund
site if a prima facie cause of action consisting of five elements can be made: (1) the party falls
within one of the four classes of responsible parties defined in CERCLA Section 107(a); (2) the site
is a facility; (3) there is a release or threatened release of hazardous substances at the facility;
(4) the release or threaten release of hazardous substances must cause response costs to be incurred,
and (5) the costs and response actions are consistent with the NCP promulgated under CERCLA. See 42
U.S.C. §9607 (a); B.F. Goodrich Company, et al. v. Harold Murtha, et al. , 958 F.2d 1192 (2d Cir. 1992).
Most of the prima facie elements have not been satisfied to hold the private PRPs responsible for the
SDA as addressed above, i.e., elements (l)-(3) and (5).
5Nor is it of any significance that the PRPs addressed the SDA as part of the RI/FS. The
proposed plan states in the third paragraph of the left column on page 3, that the PRPs
signed an AOC in September 1990 in which the PRP Group to perform the RI/FS (Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study) for the three areas. The only reason an RI/FS was
conducted for the SDA by the PRP Group was because the private PRPs were ordered by USEPA to
do so even though the Group disputed that the SDA was part of the listed NPL site. In fact,
City of Barceloneta retained an environmental consultant to prepare a closure plan for the
SDA and NDA and relied on the PRP Group to prepare the FS for the NDA and the SFDA.
Members of the PRP Group did not dispose of hazardous waste in the SDA. The SDA was opened for
waste disposal after Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seg. was in
effect. Any hazardous waste from the members of the PRP Group were disposed in accordance with RCRA
regulations. At the most, some members of the PRP Group may have continued to dispose of solid waste,
i.e., office and cafeteria trash. Morever, the burden of proof to hold a PRP liable for solid waste
disposal reguires a showing that hazardous substances are contained in the solid waste; such a showing
for office and cafeteria trash is extremely difficult and indeed similar cases have been dismissed on
motions for summary judgment. See B.F. Goodrich v. Murtha, 840 F. Supp. 180 (D. Conn. 1993).
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
Indeed, the City of Barceloneta should be responsible for the management, care, and
coordination of the proper closure of the SDA in conjunction with the requirements of the local
agencies responsible for closure of municipal landfills. In addition to the fact that the SDA has not
been properly designated as part of the Site to bring it within CERCLA regulation, courts have held
that parties are only liable under CERCLA for costs of remediation caused by hazardous substances. In
Barnes Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Highland, 802 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), the court held that
"[o]rdinary closing or clean-up costs not pertaining to hazardous substances, incurred under state law
or otherwise, would not be a basis for holding defendants responsible under CERCLA" and that the
owner/operator was responsible for those costs. Id. at 1088. Consistent with the Barnes decision, the
district court in City of Seattle v. Amalgamated Services, Inc., 1994 WL 869839, *2 (W.D. Wash. March
4, 1994), held that as a matter of law, "costs required to meet the minimum functional standards
required by State and local law in the closure" of a landfill are excluded from CERCLA Section 107
(a)(4) costs and that the owner/operator of a landfill may not seek to recover those costs. See also
Town of Wallkill v. Tesa Tape, Inc., 891 F. Supp. 955 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).
The City of Barceloneta is the party that owns and operates the SDA as a municipal landfill and
should be required to close the landfill in accordance with Puerto Rican laws and regulations.
Presently, the SDA is the only solid waste unit the City has to dispose for its residents' wastes. It
has clear liability under Puerto Rican law to close the landfill. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 12 §1301 et.
seq. (1980). The private PRPs should not be required to close this area merely because of their
potential ability to finance the closure of a municipal landfill.
There are many reasons to support why the SDA should be under the jurisdiction of Puerto Rican
officials. First, the SDA was opened upon approval of the USEPA, PREQB and/or PRSWMA after
the NDA and SFDA were listed on the NPL. Second, the PREQB and/or PRSWMA continued to allow the City
of Barceloneta to dispose of wastes. Third, the City Barceloneta has virtually admitted it
is responsible for closure of the SDA by hired its own environmental consultant to prepare a closure
plan for the SDA and NDA, which closure plan was submitted to the Puerto Rican agencies and the USEPA.
Fourth, the City of Barceloneta is required under Puerto Rican laws and regulations to close the SDA.
Fifth, the selected remedy for closure of the SDA in the PRAP is appropriate and consistent with
Puerto Rico's Solid Waste Management Authority Act and regulations promulgated thereto. Sixth, there
is a no need for the SDA to be closed under the Superfund program because EPA
has concluded that the Site "poses a relatively low long-term threat to public health and the
environment." (PRAP at page 20.) Morever, this area is not properly included in the NPL listed site
because legally-mandated administrative procedures were not followed, as stated in Point I above.
There are additional reasons to let Puerto Rican officials remediate and close the SDA. That
is, once a ROD is issued, USEPA will look to the PRP Group and the City of Barceloneta to finance the
closure. The City of Barceloneta has shown no indication or ability to finance this project. As a
result, the private PRPs, if not also City of Barceloneta, will look to the Fund for reimbursement of
the costs not attributed to the PRP Group for which there is a reasonable basis.6 USEPA could avoid
having to reimburse settling parties for the closure costs of the SDA, if it does not include the SDA
as part of the NPL listed site.
6The PRP Group will seek a refund for the costs for closure of the SDA because they are not
responsible for those costs and the divisibility of harm can be established resulting in a
reasonable basis for apportioning the liability for the SDA solely to the City of
Barceloneta. In U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 964 F.2d 252 (3d Cir. 1992), the Court relied
on Sections 433A and 881 of the Restatement on divisibility of liability among tortfeasors.
The Alcan court reasoned that joint and several liability for clean up of an entire site can
be avoided if the parties can establish the divisibility of the harm caused by each party's
waste and there is a reasonable basis for apportioning damages incurred as a result of that
harm.
-------
PITNEY, HARDIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
In further support of giving supervision over the closure of the SDA to Puerto Rican
authorities. Puerto Rico has been given federal grants to help fund closure of municipal landfills.
These funds are disbursed by PRSWMA based need. A large number of municipal landfills in Puerto Rico
need funding to get into compliance and/or closure. PRSWMA has advised the PRP Group and the city of
Barceloneta that it will not provide its limited grant funding to the City of Barceloneta for closure
of the SDA because the SDA is regulated under the Superfund program. Thus, by including the SDA in
the NPL listed site, a significant source of funding for the City of Barceloneta to properly close the
SDA will be lost. The result will be increase the burden on the already taxed Superfund for the
closure costs for the SDA.
In sum, it is more advantageous to the City of Barceloneta and the USEPA for the SDA to be
deferred to the PRSWMA and PREQB to oversee closure in accordance with Puerto Rico's regulations. The
City of Barceloneta would have a great probability of obtaining federal grant funds from PRSWMA for
the closure of the SDA and the Superfund would not be subject to funding the orphan share. In
addition, the level of protection to human health and the environment would be the same if the SDA was
deferred to the local agencies because the Puerto Rico Solid Waste Management Authority Act and
applicable regulations would reguire the landfill to be closed in the same manner as the proposed
remedy in the PRAP and there is only a "relatively low long-term threat to public health and the
environment". (PRAP at 2.) While EPA would like the private PRPs to close the SDA, due to their
"deep pockets", this clearly is unfair in the extreme since the private PRPs did not contribute
hazardous waste to this disposal area and are not responsible for its closure.
III. The PRAP is Not Practical to Implement
The USEPA states in paragraph 2 of the right column on page 2 of the PRAP, that it "will
reguire the coordinated closure of all areas of the Site." Not only is it unclear what USEPA is
suggesting by this statement, but it is also impractical to coordinate the closure of the three areas
the USEPA designates as the site because USEPA is proposing to close two of the three areas
immediately and allow the City of Barceloneta to continue disposing waste in the SDA for two and one
half to six years. (See PRAP at 9.)
Significantly, the PRAP does not provide a plan for how such on-going disposal activity can be
coordinated with closure of the two inactive areas. The private PRPs do not own or operate the
municipal landfill. They have no authority to control the City of Barceloneta's landfill operations,
nor does EPA have the ability to provide the private PRPs with such authority. The private PRPs will
not undertake to operate a municipal landfill even if such authority is granted to them. Such a legal
obligation is beyond the scope of CERCLA. Clearly, USEPA's vision of how the
coordination of the closure of the two areas that comprise the NPL listed site will work, along with
and the on-going operation of the SDA, should be more comprehensive in the proposed plan.
In addition, the PRAP, as drafted, would reguire the mobilization and construction of landfill
caps for the NDA and SFDA and then demobilization. Two and one half to six years later,
closure of the SDA would reguired remobilization and construction of a cap once USEPA determines that
it should be closed, and then demobilization for second time after capping is complete. Not
only is this not a cost-effective approach to remediation, it is not a logical approach for closure of
landfills. A significant portion of the remedial costs are associated with mobilization and
demobilization. Indeed, the term "arbitrary and capricious" well describes this process.
-------
PITNEY, HARBIN, KIPP & SZUCH
Mr. Luis Santos
January 25, 1996
Furthermore, the surrounding area will be subject to short-term disturbances, such as increased
vehicular traffic and noise during the construction phase. To plan to unnecessarily
create these types of disturbances twice is a burden on the surrounding area with little resulting
benefit because there is a negligible threatened risk from the NPL listed portion of the landfill. In
fact, the USEPA' abbreviated risk assessment concluded that the site poses a "relatively low long-term
health threat".
Also, USEPA states in the fifth paragraph in the left column on page 8, that the alternatives
are "easily implemented technically." While capping a landfill is usually not technically difficult
to implement, the proposed plan for the on-going operation of the SDA results in difficult technical
implementability issues, such as access to the SDA during and after closure of the NBA. Presently,
access to the SDA is through the middle of the NBA. During and once a cap is constructed for the
NBA, access to the SDA will have to be constructed and maintained. Give the steep slope on the NBA a
stable, all weather road will most likely need to be constructed on top of the cap which would be
expensive and increase the cost of capping the NBA which is not addressed in the PRAP. It should not
be the burden of PRPs whose obligation under CERCLA is to cleanup a NPL listed site and not to
provide on-going access for waste disposal. Thus, USEPA's "coordination" must be clearly articulated.
Furthermore, the PRP Group does not have control over the landfill to prevent intrusion into
the NBA cap once it is constructed. That is, the cap could be damaged by operators using the soil cap
for daily cover. In addition, as trucks enter the landfill, it is likely that debris from the trucks
will spill while crossing the NBA cap resulting in additional operations and maintenance problems and
costs not anticipated in the FS and resulting in a great burden to USEPA and PRP Group.
The practical solution for coordinating the closure of the entire landfill is to defer closure
of the NBA and SFBA until the SBA is no longer an active waste disposal facility. In the
interim, the selected site wide institutional controls can be implemented by restricting access to
further reduce any potential risk the NBA and SFBA may pose by restricting access. Once the SBA
is no longer active, the PRPs can coordinate with the City of Barceloneta and mobilize once to
properly and completely close the NBA and SFBA. Any short-term disturbances to the surrounding
community, such as increased vehicular traffic and noise will only occur once, as opposed to the
proposed plan to carry out this activity twice, with no coordination between the proposed closure
plan and the on-going waste disposal. In addition, this solution is a more cost effective remedial
proposal than that presently proposed by USEPA. USEPA should reconsider and abandon the concept set
fort in the PRAP for a more practical approach of allowing the implementation of the closure of the
NBA and SFBA to occur concurrently with the closure of the SBA.
IV. Conclusion
We reguest the USEPA to reconsider the scope of the PRAP because the SBA cannot be included in
the ROB. USEPA did not follow administrative procedures to include the SBA as part of the NPL listed
site, and thus, it is not properly regulated under CERCLA. Morever, the SBA cannot be included as
part of the NPL listed site because the EPA allowed the SBA to be opened and operated by the City of
Barceloneta after the NBA and SFBA were listed on the NPL. In addition, the remedy selected for the
NBA and SFBA is not practical to perform until the SBA ceases to take in additional wastes. Finally,
a coordinated closure of the NBA and SFBA concurrent with City of Barceloneta's closure of the SBA is
a more practicable, cost effective approach without jeopardizing overall protection of human health
and the environment because, as USEPA states, the NPL listed site poses a relatively low level
long-term threat.
![]()
-------
![]()
Como Presidente del Comite Timon de Calidad Ambiental (COTICAM) entendemos que la decision tomada por
la Junta de Calidad Ambiental y muy en particular por la E.P.A. sobre el cierre del vertedero de
Barceloneta ubicado en el Barrio Florida Afuera es muy acertada.
Consideramos que es un poco tardia por las consecuencias ya ocasionadas a la naturaleza de esta area y
muy especialmente a nuestro suelo y nuestras aquas subterraneas.
Dentro de esa decision que respaldamos tenemos que senalar que entre las opciones y decisiones que se
puedan implantar en ese cierre las mejores serian la remocion y restauracion de esa area o de esos
terrenes.
Si la otra opcion de encapsulacion nos qarantiza que ahora y en el future no nos creara problemas ni
riesqos mas alia de los ocurridos entonces la respaldamos.
Tambien donde se incluyen los medics de cierre solicitamos que se analicen hasta donde sea posible y
se restablezcan las areas que han sido afectadas si es que las hay. Vertederos de esa naturaleza
son improcedentes en el future.
Entendemos que se requiere un sistema de monitoreo bien detallado de los pozos. Se debe tener ademas
un plan de continqencia para que de surqir alqun problema este se puede atacar a tiempo.
Suqerimos que se ubiquen ademas de los pozos de observacion alqunos pozos de extraccion para recoqer,
concentrar y extraer el contaminante que pudiera surqir evitando asi que los lixibiados
vayan qradiante abajo de surqir la situacion.
TRABAJANDO POR UN AMBIENTE
LIMPIO Y SANO PARA TODOS
-------
NOV-08-1996 14:51 FROM EPA TO 82126374360 P.03
Sr. Luis Santos, Gerente de Proyecto
26 de enero de 1996
Nosotros como comunidad lo que podemos decir es que confiamos en que ustedes los que tienen en sus
manos la potestad de tomar decisiones lo haqan lo mas justamente posible. Esperantos que tenqan en
cuenta que la Justicia Ambiental deber ser aplicada en este caso y en otros que no vienen a lo mejor
directamente a estar relacionados con el problema que tratamos de resolver con el referido vertedero.
Si me qustaria recibir de ustedes informacion y orientacion sobre deberes y derechos que tenemos las
comunidades menos privileqiadas y que estemos acosadas diariamente con los vertederos clandestinos
que por ende estan causando los mismos problemas por los cuales se cierra este. Dichos vertederos
abundan y crecen qiqantemente en Puerto Rico y en estos mementos existen en esa misma jurisdiccion
en diferentes sectores y pueblos de la reqion. Entre otros estan el de la carretera 167 del Bo.
Cortes de Manati y el de 3 millas y media en la carr. 672 del Bo. Palo Alto Sector Hoyos y Calderas
(Goto Sur) de Manati.
Si es que andamos buscando proteqer nuestras aquas subterraneas en estos vertederos donde hay miles de
toneladas de chatarra y toda clase de desperdicios cubriendo o rodeando un sin numero de sumideros que
sirven de recarqa a nuestro acuifero Aymamon. Estas contaminaciones han sido senaladas por la Junta
de Planificacion en su Plan de Manejo de la Laquna Tortuquero pues la misma esta seriamente impactada
por los problemas que estamos senalando.
Como representantes y miembros de las comunidades, le informamos y le solicitamos con urqencia que se
tome accion sobre nuestra solicitud. Tenemos informes en nuestro poder donde la Junta de Calidad
Ambiental en el 1992 le solicito a Recursos Naturales que declarara esta zona critica por los
hallazqos encontrados a traves de sus investiqaciones al iqual que tenemos senalamientos de otros
estudios y entre ellos el de Conservacion de Suelos Federal. Estos estudios tienen base y justifican
lo que senalan pues se han cerrado diferentes pozos en estas jurisdicciones por contaminacion de
nitrate y otros contaminantes que siquen lleqando a traves de escorrenterias que lleqan a los
sumideros y de ellos a nuestras aquas potables.
-------
Sr. Luis Santos, Gerente de Proyecto
26 de enero de 1996
Es preocupante y hay mementos de desesperacion y confusion pues si esto continua sin control podemos
un dia quedar sin agua limpia y no seria tan tarde si la accion no se toma ahora pues hace alrededor
de cuatro anos el Sr. Arturo Torres, Subdirector de Servicios Geologicos dijo en una reunion de esta
organizacion gue de no actuar y buscarle soluciones de limpieza y prevencion a estas fuentes podriamos
estar sin ese precioso liguido en o antes de 10 anos. Esto suena alarmante pero mientras sigan las
autoridades y las fuentes gue hemos senalado sin una accion positiva entonces no tendremos otros
recursos a donde recurrir gue no sea aguel gue emana de la ciudadania.
![]()
-------
![]()
Center Office Manati 884-6083 854-2110
P.O. Box 1459, Manati, ext. 35
Puerto Rico 00674
January 26, 1996
Mr. Luis Santos, Project Manager
Environmental Protection Agency
Caribbean Fiel Office
Centre Europa Building, Suite 417
1492 Ponce De Leon Ave.
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907-4127
Dear Mr. Santos:
As the President of Comite Timon de Calidad Ambiental (COTICAM) we understand that decision took by
Environmental Quality Board and in particular by EPA about the close of Barceloneta landfill in Barrio
Florida Afuera is correct.
We consider that it's late for the consecuences wich cause by the nature in this area and very
especial in our soil and our ground waters.
In that decision we support, we have to point between the options and the decisions that can implant
in the close landfill. the improvements maybe the removal and restauration of those areas in the
soil.
Is the other of containment can Warranty that now and in the future not will create problems, no risk
beyond of the success that we support.
Where Also is include the medium to close, We apply to be analysis until be possible and reestablish
the areas that have been affected it is presumed. the Landfills of that nature are improper for
future.
We understand that reguire a monitor system full detail in the well. Is should be have a contingency
plan for the possible problems to be attack at time. We suggetts to place furthermore of the
observation wells. The extract wells to pickup, containt, and take out the posible pollutan avoid the
leacheat go down to be occur that situation.
We as the communitty can argue that we can trust in you who have the power to make desicions, do as
fairly posible. we expect that take in mind the Environmental Justice. is should be apply in this
case and in other that might be not related with this case that we tray to resolve with mention
landfill.
-------
I like to receive information and advise about the rights and duties that have the least privilege
communitty and we are pursuit by the ilegal solid-wastes. In order to the problems. that landfills
abundant and grow up bigger in Puerto Rico. At this moment exists in the jurisdication. In different
sectors and towns in the region. Among theirs at the road 167 at Bo. Cortes de Manati
and the 3 miles in half at the road 672 in th Bo. Palo Alto, Sector Hoyos y Calderas (Goto Sur) of
Manati.
We are looking to protect the ground waters in those landfills there are miles of tons of Scrap iron
and every type of disposal that cover around many sewer that overload to our aguifer Aymamon. this
pollutant have been point by the Planning Board in their management plan of the Laguna Tortuguero.
Because that have a great impact like the above.
As the represant and menbers of the comunnitty we inform and we apply urgently take action about our
demand. We have files in our hands where the Environmental Quality Board in 1992, applied to Natural
Resources (DRNA) to declared critic zone by the finding trouwght of their investigation and also we
have signs of other studies and between the Soil Conservation Service. That studies have a base and
justification that means the close of different wells is that jurisdiction by pollutant of nitrate and
other pollutants that follow arrival across storm waters that coming to the sewer from their to our
potable waters.
Is to worry and moment exasperating and confussion because if that continue without control some day
will don't have clean water and will be not late if the action dont take place now. Because four
years ago Mr. Arturo Torres, Subdirector of the Geological Survey said in a meeting that this
organization if don't took action and find solution about clean up and prevent at this emition we
could be without this precious liguid in or before ten years. That sound is alarmant, but a while the
authorities continue and the emitions above describe without a positive action then we will haven't
other resources where to go that not been that came from the humanity.
Sincerely
Frank Coss
Presidente
COTICAM
-------
APPENDIX V
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
BARCELONETA LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
BARCELONETA, PUERTO RICO
A. INTRODUCTION 1
B. OVERVIEW 1
C. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS 1
D. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES 3
Part I - SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO LOCAL COMMUNITY
CONCERNS 3
Part II - COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC WRITTEN
LEGAL AND TECHNICAL ISSUES 6
Attention Readers:
This section of the Record of Decision for Barceloneta Landfill has been incorrectly numbered. The
index page was numbered page 2. Page 3 should be page #2, page #4 should be page #3, page #5
should be page #4 and so on and so on.
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
BARCELONETA LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE
BARCELONETA, PUERTO RICO
A. INTRODUCTION
A Responsiveness Summary is required by Superfund policy. It provides a summary of citizens' comments
and concerns received during the public comment period, and the responses of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to those comments and concerns. All comments
summarized in this document have been considered in EPA's final decision of a remedial action for the
Barceloneta Landfill Superfund (the "Site").
EPA held a public comment period from December 27, 1995 through January 26, 1996 to provide interested
parties with the opportunity to comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan for the Site. A public meeting
was held on January 18, 1996 to discuss the remedial alternatives described in the FS and to present
EPA's preferred remedial alternatives for controlling contamination at the Site.
The meeting was held at the Tosas Ward's Christian Pentecostal Church in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
B. OVERVIEW
At the time of the public comment period, EPA had already selected a preferred alternative for the
Site. EPA's recommended alternative addressed the three landfill disposal areas and called for
capping the disposal areas pursuant to promulgated federal and commonwealth regulations governing
closure of municipal landfills. The selected remedy described in the Record of Decision is the
combination of Alternative 2, 3B, 4, and 5 which specifies a RCRA Subtitle D Cover System, as well as
institutional controls.
Comments received during the public comment period were supportive of capping the disposal areas
although the majority of concerns raised by the public at the public meeting focused on the issue of
contamination to the groundwater.
C. BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS
Community interest in the Site appears to be relatively high. In general, most concerns are related
to the potential for contamination of the groundwater (drinking water) and the length and complexity
of the Superfund process.
EPA performed a number of community relations related activities at the Site. EPA met with local
officials and interested citizens to initiate community involvement and discuss their concerns
regarding the Site. A community Relations Plan ("CPR") was formulated, including an outline of
community concerns, a listing of required and suggested community relations activities, and a
comprehensive list of federal, state, and local contacts. A written CRP was finalized and Site
information repositories were established, one at the EPA Region II office in New York City, one at
the EPA Caribbean Field Office in Santurce, one at the Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") in Hato
Rey, and locally at the Sixto Escobar Municipal Library in Barceloneta. The information
repositories, which contain the RI/FS Report and other relevant documents, were updated periodically.
Additionally, the EPA Proposed Plan, describing the Agency's proposed remedial action for the Site,
was sent to the information repositories and distributed for review to citizens and officials on EPA's
Site mailing list.
To obtain public input on the RI/FS and proposed remedy, EPA established a public comment period from
December 27, 1995 to January 26, 1996. A public meeting notice appeared in the December 27, 1995
edition of the San Juan Star, El Nuevo Dia, and in the December 28, 1995 edition of the El Periodico
El Norte. A public meeting was held on January 18, 1996. Approximately 40 people attending the
meeting. The audience consisted of local business people, residents, and commonwealth and local
-------
government officials. The question and answer session lasted approximately 30 minutes,
during which time comments and questions were presented pertaining to the following issues: drinking
water contamination, cleanup schedule, remedy implementation, and Site-related risks. A summary of
these comments/questions is provided in Section D, Part I, below.
D. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND EPA RESPONSES
Part I - SUMMARY AND RESPONSE TO LOCAL COMMUNITY CONCERNS
The following are verbal questions and comments from the public meeting held at the Tosas Ward's
Christian Pentecostal Church in Barceloneta, Puerto Rico on January 18, 1996.
1. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked and commented: The wells that have been
drilled are on the periphery of the Site and the waste. Would it be advisable to drill a
well at the center of the Site through the largest amount of waste, so that the strata of
limestone rock could be seen as well as any contamination?
EPA Response: Monitoring wells have been located inside the perimeter of the landfill property to
determine groundwater flow and to define the nature and extent of contamination. The hydrogeologic
evaluation and analytical results indicate that the monitoring wells are sufficient to define the
geology and to characterize contamination originating from the Site. A monitoring well was not
drilled into the center of the landfill for several reasons. Monitoring wells are not generally
drilled through waste because of health and safety concerns. Also, monitoring wells are used to
define the geology of the area, and to determine the nature and extent of groundwater contamination.
The geology of the area has already been defined through interpretation of the monitoring well data.
The nature and extent of contamination has been evaluated using monitoring well data. It is unlikely
that a monitoring well located at the center of the landfill would provide any additional information
regarding the source of the contamination, the nature and extent of contamination, or the geology of
the area.
2. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked and commented: There is some concern about
the locations and depths where groundwater samples were obtained. It seems that in order to
determine the impact on drinking water, ground water samples were obtained from great depths.
However, the aquifers existing beneath the Barceloneta Landfill are not one big aquifer, but
several aquifers, existing like pockets of water not related to one another. Are the
monitoring wells strategically placed so that all areas of contamination have been
discovered? Should not they be placed throughout the Landfill. It seems as though the waste
initially brought to the Landfill could have been disposed in an area where a well does not
exist.
EPA Response: Monitoring wells have been strategically placed to determine the geological and
hydrogeologic properties of the aquifers beneath the Site. The wells were drilled at varying depths
and various locations to define the aquifer and aquifer properties. EPA believes that a sufficient
number of wells were installed at various locations to adequately define the nature and extent of the
contamination in the aquifers beneath the Site.
3. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked and commented: It is agreed that a
combination of alternatives, as in EPA's preferred remedy, is the best choice for the
Barceloneta Landfill, where all the disposal areas will be remediated similarly at the
Superfund site. It is not known exactly what type of wastes were brought in by truck for
disposal in the landfill. It is also not known exactly in what areas of the landfill this
waste was disposed. In addition, it is suggested that the clay cap should be 24 inches and
not 18 inches thick.
EPA Response: The combination of alternatives selected for the Site include placing a cover system
consistent with RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulations Covering Landfill Closure over the
three disposal areas. The RCRA Subtitle D and Commonwealth regulations indicate that the cover should
-------
minimize infiltration and promote runoff. These regulations state that the cover system
should include a barrier layer with a maximum permeability of 1x10-5 cm/s, which must be at least 18
inches in thickness. Calculations to estimate the infiltration were performed using USEPA's
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance model. The model evaluated two cover systems, both
including 6 inches of vegetative cover and one with 18 inches of 1x10-5 cm/s clay, and one with 24
inches of 1x10-5 cm/s clay. The model indicated that there was no significant reduction in the
infiltration for the cover with 24 inches of clay as compared to the cover with 18 inches of clay.
Therefore, the 18 inch clay layer provides performance substantially eguivalent to the 24 inch clay
layer and is considered sufficient to meet the performance reguirements the regulations.
4. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked and commented: Regarding the retention
pond, will it be water-tight or will water be able to filter through it?
EPA Response: Once the landfill is capped, the movement of contaminants will be halted. The
contaminants are able to move by way of runoff and also infiltration, which is water passing through
the wastes creating what is referred to as leachate. The leachate eventually reaches the aguifer and
contaminates the groundwater. Therefore, in order to lower the contaminant levels in the groundwater,
the landfill is capped so that water cannot infiltrate it. However, when it rains, it will be
necessary to divert surface water away from the landfill. Because there is no surface water
body, and the water cannot be discharged into a stream or river, it will have to go to another
sinkhole in the area that will serve as a recharge point to the underlying aguifer. The runoff
diverted to the sinkhole will be non-contact runoff which will not contain landfill constituents.
5. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked: Have you determined whether water
migration in that area is horizontal or perpendicular?
EPA Response: It has been determined that the landfill is located in the recharge area of the
aguifer; therefore it feeds the aguifer. This zone feeds the confined and confined aguifer, so
there are both kinds of movement, vertical as well as horizontal.
6. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill commented: Although the wastes are capped, the
leaching will continue to occur, because the waste will continue to decompose. Even if the
water does not filter through, the decomposition will continue, resulting in leachate
with less liguid, because it will not receive any rainwater.
EPA Response: The rate of leachate generation will diminish over time once the caps are constructed
over the disposal areas. By preventing the water from penetrating the wastes, the mechanism for
leachate transport will also be minimized. Nevertheless, groundwater sampling is part of the remedy
selected in the ROD to closely monitor the ground water. The groundwater monitoring will
demonstrate how the implemented remedy is functioning for the Site.
The Superfund law calls for evaluation of remedies like this one to be performed at least once every
five years and the ROD calls for such evaluation.
7. A resident in the vicinity of the Landfill asked: What will happen to this project, if the
United States Congress cuts funds allocated for environmental use?
EPA Response: It is expected that the PRPs will implement this remedy following negotiations with
EPA. If not, the Remedial Design could be conducted using EPA funds. In order for the Remedial
Action to funded by EPA, in accordance with the Superfund law, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico must
contribute up to 50% of the funding for construction of the remedy. At this time, the Commonwealth
does not have funding to provide this matching share.
Part II - COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC WRITTEN COMMENTS
The following correspondence (see Attachment A) was received during the public comment period:
-------
-January 24, 1996 letter from Donald J. Miller of Golder Associates.
-January 25, 1996 letter from Peter J. Herzberg of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch.
-January 26, 1996 letter from Frank Coss of COTTICAM ("Comite Timon Calidad Amiental de Manati")
EPA also received a letter dated April 25, 1996 from Sheila D. Jones of Cutle & Stanfield representing
the Municipality of Barceloneta. The letter responded to and commented upon the
January 25, 1996 Peter J. Herzberg letter and said that in the 1970's, the Southeastern Disposal Area
had begun to be used for disposal. The letter went on to discuss the definition and relevant case law
regarding the definition of "site". This letter was not submitted during the public comment period,
but EPA has reviewed the letter and intends to include it in the administrative
record supporting this ROD.
1. The following technical comments were received by EPA from Golder Associates in a letter dated
January 24, 1996, commenting on EPA's Proposed Plan for the Barceloneta Landfill, Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico.
1. Comment: The commenter reguests that specific reference be made to the May 1995
Abbreviated Risk Assessment.
EPA Response: The ROD references the Abbreviated Risk Assessment that was utilized in the decision
making process and this risk assessment is the only risk assessment document that was utilized in the
decision making process.
2. Comment: The commenter (a) states that a statement in the Proposed Plan is not
consistent with the presumptive remedy guidance, (b) recommends the deletion of a
sentence in the Proposed Plan regarding the reasonable maximum human exposure, and (c)
recommends that EPA guality of statement in the Proposed Plan regarding the risk
potential if no action is taken as "EPA1s belief" rather than as a conclusion.
EPA Response: Since the Proposed Plan has already been issued, and there is no reason to reissue it,
the recommended modifications can not be made. However, EPA accepts the substance of the underlying
technical comments presented and they are reflected in the ROD.
3. Comment: The commenter states that the parameter list for ground water sampling be
limited to those volatiles and metals detected above MCLs in the RI and recommends
that it is not necessary or appropriate to expand the list for this Site.
EPA Response: Initially, the wells will be sampled for a broad parameter list. This list was
developed based on parameter list reguirements of RCRA Subtitle D and Commonwealth regulations.
After the first five years, the parameter list will be reviewed and those parameters not detected
above standard will be omitted. EPA believes that the expanded list of parameters is warranted.
4. Comment: The commenter states that the reference in the Proposed Plan to a leachate
control system is inappropriate.
EPA Response: This observation is correct and no reference to a leachate control system is in the
ROD.
2. The following written comments were received by EPA from Peter J. Herzberg, Pitney, Hardin, Kipp &
Szuch in a letter dated January 25, 1996, commenting on EPA's Proposed Plan for the Barceloneta
Landfill, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
1. Comment: EPA has not properly included the Southeastern Disposal Area ("SDA") as part
of the NPL listed site for the Barceloneta Landfill. As a result, EPA may not "bring
it [the SDA] within the regulatory sphere of Superfund" to reguire remediation and does
-------
not have authority to issue a proposed remedial action plan for the SDA.
The Barceloneta Landfill site was listed on the NPL based on the findings of the
Hazard Ranking System ("HRS") package which was prepared only for the areas known as
Northern Disposal Area ("NBA") and Superfund Disposal Area ("SFDA"). The SDA did not
exist in 1982. In addition, EPA and EQB allowed the SDA to be opened after the listing
of the Landfill. This operation is allowed to continue to this date, which is
inconsistent with the mandates of CERCLA.
Furthermore, the SDA cannot be included just because it is within the boundaries of
the property owned by the Municipality of Barceloneta. According to CERCLA, a facility
is defined as an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, or
disposed of or placed, or otherwise come to be located. Therefore, there is some
dispute as to the extent of the property owned by the Municipality of Barceloneta that
actually constitutes a facility. EPA guidance indicates that only the waste disposal
areas of an installation are considered Superfund sites, even though the site name may
suggest that the entire installation or property boundary is covered.
Also, legally mandated administrative procedures were not followed to include SDA as
part of the NPL-listed site. By attempting to include the SDA as part of the NPL
listed site, EPA has failed to comply with the notice and comment requirements for
rule making under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S. C. §8553 (C).
EPA Response: This comment reflects a misunderstanding of the purposes of the NPL as stated in the
NCP. The NPL status of the SDA does not effect EPA's authority to include it in the ROD for the
Barceloneta Landfill or to issue orders to responsible parties to clean it up. A release is "within
the regulatory sphere of Superfund" regardless of its NPL status. NPL listing is not a precondition
to planning for remediation activities or to requiring remediation by responsible parties.
Section 425(b)(4) of the NCP states, [i]nclusion on the NPL is not a precondition to action
. . . under CERCLA sections 106 or 122 or to action under CERCLA section 107 for recovery
. . . of Fund-financed costs other than Fund-financed remedial construction costs.
40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b) (4). Further, "[r]emoval actions (including remedial planning activities,
RI/FS, and other actions taken pursuant to CERCLA section 104(b)) are not limited to NPL sites."
40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b)(1) [emphasis added].
The NPL is used primarily for information purposes as a list of priority releases for long-term
remedial evaluation and response. See 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b). NPL listing is one of a
number of factors to guide allocation of Superfund resources among releases. 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b)
(2). EPA may pursue other appropriate authorities to address releases, including CERCLA enforcement
actions. Id. The sole legal effect of NPL listing is that only NPL-listed release are eligible for
Fund-financed remedial action. 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(b) (1).
For information purposes EPA provides, below, a general explanation of issues that related top
the extent of the NPL site. This explanation is merely an attempt to clarify EPA's NPL listing
process for the benefit of the commenter.
In support of its argument that failure to include a portion of the Barceloneta Landfill site on the
NPL precludes Superfund jurisdiction, the commenter cities an EPA guidance document ("Superfund
Facility (Site) Boundaries"). However, the substances of the guidance document does not support the
commenter's conclusion. The guidance document articulates a policy that the geographic boundaries of a
property do not define a site, but that it is the nature and extent of contamination which does. A
site is not limited to those releases identified at the time of the listing. Portions of the text of
that guidance which pertain to EPA policy regarding the areas included in a "site" follow:
The National Priorities List does not describe releases in precise geographic terms; it would
-------
be neither feasible nor consistent with the limited purpose of the NPL (as the mere
identification of releases), for it to do so.
CERCLA section 105(a)(8)(B) directs the Environmental Protection Agency to list national
priorities among the known "releases or threatened releases." Thus the purpose of the NPL is
merely to identify releases that are priorities for further evalution. Although a CERCLA
"facility" is broadly defined to include any area where a hazardous substance release has
"come to be located" (CERCLA section 101(9)), the listing process itself is not intended to
define or reflect the boundaries of such facilities or releases. Of course, HRS data upon
which the NPL placement was based will, to some extent, describe which releases are at issue.
That is, the NPL site would include all releases evaluated as part of that HRS analysis
(emphasis added).
When a site is listed, it is necessary to define the release (or releases) encompassed within
the listing. The approach generally used is to delineate a geographical area (usually the
are within the installation or plant boundaries) and define the site by reference to that
area. As a legal matter, the site is not coexistensive with that area, and the boundaries of
the installation or plant are not the "boundaries" of the site. Rather, the site consists of
all contaminated areas within the area used to define the site, and any other location to
which contamination from that area has come to be located (emphasis added).
While geographic terms are often used to designate the site (e.g., the "Jones Co. plant
site") in terms of the property owned by the particular party, the site properly understood
is not limited to that property (e.g., it may extend beyond the property due to contaminant
migration), and conversely may no occupy the full extent of the property (e.g., where there
are uncontaminated parts of the identified property, they may not be, strictly speaking, part
of the "site"). The "site" is thus neither equal to nor confined by the boundaries of any
specific property that may give the site its name, and the name itself should not be read to
imply that the site is coexistensive with the entire area within the property boundary of the
facility or plant. The precise nature and extent of the site are typically not known at the
time of listing (emphasis added).
EPA regulations provide that the "nature and extent of the threat presented by a release"
will be determined by an RI/FS as more information is developed on site contamination.
During the RI/FS process, the release may be found to be larger or smaller than was
originally thought, as more is learned about the source and the migration of the
contamination.
However, this inquiry focuses on an evaluation of the threat posed; the boundaries of the
release need not be defined. Moreover, it generally is impossible to discover the full
extent of where the contamination "has come to be located" before all necessary studies and
remedial work are completed at a site. Indeed, the boundaries of the contamination can be
expected to change over time (emphasis added). Thus, in most cases, it will be impossible to
describe the boundaries of a release with certainty.
For these reasons, the NPL need not be amended if further research into the extent of the
contamination expands the apparent boundaries of the release...
Guidance Document Entitled, "Clarification of NPL Listing Process," dated August 3, 1995.
Also, in Washington State Department of Transportation v. EPA, 917 F.2d 1309 (D.C. Cir. 1990), the
court held that, "[a] source not mentioned in the listing package could later be treated as part of
the Site if it is later found to be contributing to the listed contaminated."
Thus, in general there is no need for EPA to amend the NPL if subsequent investigation reveals
more precise boundaries of the release. Further, because the extent of the NPL listing has no effect
on any of the activities proposed in the ROD, there is no reason to reopen the rulemaking, since it
-------
would serve no useful purpose. Nor, apparently, is the commenter requesting such a
reopening.
Nevertheless, there are many indications which suggest that the facts cited by the commenter
are not correct regarding the extent of the NPL listing. Because of the questions regarding the
operation of the Landfill, it cannot be conclusively stated that the HRS package was limited to the
NBA and the SFDA. The HRS package mentions "the landfill" in general (described as a 20 acre area)
and sinkholes and disposal areas, in plural, and it does not mention the specific number of disposal
areas, never mind the NBA and the SFDA in particular. Therefore, if the SDA existed in 1982, it is
possible that the NPL rulemaking considered the SDA in its evaluation.
Moreover, evidence that has come to light since the NPL rulemaking confirms this fact. First, there
are questions concerning the operation of the Landfill between 1972 and 1982. While the commenter
states that the SDA did not exist in 1982, the Municipality of Barceloneta, which operated the
Landfill, asserts that disposal of waste occurred in the SDA prior to 1982, and as early as the late
1970's. Also, in an October 29, 1975 report by an inspector for the Junta de Calidad Ambiental (EQB)
the Site is described as containing large amounts of industrial wastes and chemical products, and
three different disposal areas are specifically mentioned. Consequently, we cannot conclude that the
SDA was not receiving waste nor in existence prior to 1982, as the commenter asserts.
Any place where hazardous substances have come to be located constitute the full extent of
releases subject to the NPL. Even though the full extent may have been discovered after the NPL
listing determination, such releases are still part of the Site. Finally, further evaluation during
the investigation of remedial options confirms the risks from the SDA, since the RI/FS revealed that
all three disposal areas pose a risk at the Site. The entire landfill is likely the source of
groundwater contamination. The commenter does not dispute this. Capping only the NDA and the SFDA
areas will not effectively reduce the flow of contamination to groundwater. Therefore, it is
appropriate for all three disposal areas to be remediated.
Furthermore, contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA's position of not objecting to a municipality
continuing to operate part of a solid waste landfill at a CERCLA site is not inconsistent with the
mandates of CERCLA because it is necessary that the Southeastern Disposal Area be filled up to
surrounding grade so it can be capped. If it were not filled up and remained as a depression below
grade and then capped below grade, rain water would pool in the depression and that would require the
additional operation and maintenance of pumping that water out. In addition, the pooled water would
facilitate the infiltration of water through the cap causing further groundwater contamination.
2. Comment: As the owner, the Municipality of Barceloneta should be responsible for
closure of the SDA as a separate unit in accordance with Puerto Rican laws and
regulations. The SDA was opened for waste disposal after RCRA was in affect, and
although some members of the PRP Group may have continued to dispose of solid waste,
such as office and cafeteria trash, none of the members of the PRP Group disposed of
hazardous waste in the SDA. Furthermore, any hazardous waste from the PRP Group was
disposed in accordance with RCRA regulations. In one court case, it was noted that
closing or clean-up costs not related to hazardous substances should be the
responsibility of the owner/operator (the Municipality of Barceloneta).
The rationale to support why the SDA falls under Puerto Rican jurisdiction is as
follows:
1. the SDA was opened when approval was granted by the
EPA, the EQB, and/or Puerto Rico Solid Waste
Management Authority ("SWMA") and after the NDA and
SFDA were listed on the NPL;
2 . EQB and/or SWMA continued to allow the Municipality
of Barceloneta to dispose of Wastes;
-------
3. the Municipality of Barceloneta has essentially
admitted it is responsible for the closure of the
SDA by hiring an environmental consultant to
prepare a closure plan;
4. the Municipality of Barceloneta is required under
the local laws and regulations to close the SDA.
5. the preferred remedy set forth in the PRAP for
closure of the SDA is appropriate and consistent
with Solid Waste Management Act and its regulations;
6. there is no need to close the SDA under the
Superfund program because EPA has concluded that
the Site "poses a relatively low long-term threat
to public health and the environment."
7. as already noted, the SDA is not properly included
in the NPL-listed Site because legally-mandated
administrative procedures were not followed.
Additionally, because the private PRPs will seek reimbursement from the Superfund for
costs associated with the closure of the SDA, EPA can avoid having to provide
reimbursement for those costs if it does not include the SDA as part of the NPL-listed
Site. Furthermore, Puerto Rico has been given federal grants for closure of landfills
located in Puerto Rico, and SWMA has indicated that monies will not be available for
the closure of the SDA because it is regulated under the Superfund program. By
including the SDA in the Site, a significant source of funding for the closure of the
SDA will be lost.
EPA Response: Many of the issues raised by the commenter are in dispute. Its is known that several
parties deposited solid waste which may have contained hazardous constituents. As stated above,
EPA and the EQB have information which indicates that the entire Landfill (all three disposal areas)
was used in the late 1970's (prior or RCRA) for disposal of wastes which may have included hazardous
waste. The information, which includes aerial photographs, suggests that the NDA was partially filled
prior to filling the SFDA and all areas were used simultaneously in the late 1970's.
The fact alleged by the PRP Group that their wastes were disposed in accordance with RCRA regulations
is not a defense to CERCLA liability. It is also not relevant to the appropriateness of the proposed
response action for the Site.
The statement that the Municipality of Barceloneta is obligated to close or finance the clean-up of
the non-hazardous substances at the Landfill is also not relevant to the appropriateness of the
proposed response action for the Site. The commenter's point focuses not on the proposed responses
action but on who should perform the action, an issue upon which the Proposed Plan is silent.
Addressing the SDA is necessary to protect human health and the environment.
In response to the rationale to support the SDA falling under Puerto Rican jurisdiction:
1. The date of the commencement of disposal in the SDA has
not been demonstrated to be subsequent to NPL listing,
but regardless, EPA, EQB, and/or SWMA approval or
subsequent approval is not relevant to the
appropriateness of the proposed response action for the Site.
2. The fact that EQB and/or SWMA's has allowed the continued
operation is not relevant to the appropriateness of the
-------
proposed response action for the Site.
3. The fact that the Municipality may have been prudent in
hiring an environmental consultant to prepare a closure
plan is wholly irrelevant to CERCLA or the Site, and
especially the appropriateness of the proposed response
action for the Site.
4 . The fact that the Municipality of Barceloneta may be
required under the local laws and regulations to close
the SDA is not relevant to CERCLA or the appropriateness
of the proposed response action for the Site.
5. EPA agrees that the proposed action for the SDA
is consistent with Solid Waste Management Act and its
regulations. They are ARARs.
6. The distinction being made as to whether to close the SDA
under the Superfund program or the Commonwealth
regulations is confused; the risk assessment supports the
conclusion that the SDA must be closed, and CERCLA
mandates that ARARs, including in this instance the
Commonwealth landfill closure regulations, be satisfied.
Landfill closure is governed by federal regulations,
including RCRA, Subtitle D, and Puerto Rican regulations.
The three cells, which reports indicate received similar
wastes, will all be closed. It is not an instance where
one or the other will be satisfied, but both.
7. Whether or not the SDA is properly included in the NPL-
listed site HRS package was addressed previously. EPA
did follow the correct procedures in listing the Site.
The HRS package mentions "the landfill" in general
(described as a 20 acre area) and sinkholes and disposal
areas, in plural.
Lastly, the commenter's two points concerning the PRPs intention to seek reimbursement from the
Superfund and the potential impact the proposed remedy may have on federal grant monies are not
relevant. Again, while the EPA's selection of a remedy under the NCP does not include a costs-benefit
analysis, such factors are considered when comparing different remedial approaches. EPA does not
consider potential external financial implications in evaluating what is the appropriate remedy for a
Site.
3. Comment: The PRAP is not practical to implement. EPA states that it "will require
the coordinated closure of all areas of the Site." First, it is not clear what EPA
is suggesting by this statement. In addition, it is impractical to coordinate the
closure of the three areas designated as the Site because EPA is proposing the
immediate closure of two of the three areas followed by the closure of the SDA 2^4 to 6
years later. The PRAP does not present a plan showing how the continuing disposal
activity at SDA can be coordinated with closure of the two inactive areas. It is
recommended that EPA's plan for coordinating the closure of the two NPL-listed
areas along with the continuing operation of the SDA be included in the Proposed Plan.
Another point is that the PRAP would require mobilization, construction of landfill
caps for the NDA and the SFDA, and then demobilization. Closure of the SDA, which would
happen 2 1/2 to 6years later, would require remobilization, construction of a cap, and
demobilization once EPA determine that the SDA should be closed. This is not a
-------
cost-effective approach to remediation, and it is not a logical approach for closure
of landfills. A significant portion of the remedial costs are associated with
mobilization and demobilization. This is arbitrary and capricious. In addition,
subjecting the surrounding area twice to short-term disturbances, such as increased
vehicular traffic and noise during the construction phase, is a burden with little
resulting benefit since the NPL-listed portion of the Site presents a low risk.
A final point is that the PRAP stated that the alternatives are "easily implemented
technically." However, the plan for continuing the operation of the SDA results in
difficult implementability issues, such as access to the SDA during and after closure
of the NBA. Currently, access to the SDA is through the middle of the NBA. Once
closure of the NBA is complete, access to the SBA will have to be constructed and
maintained, possibly on top of the NBA cap. Therefore, the cost capping the NBA will
be increased, which is not addressed in the Proposed Plan. It should not be the burden
of the PRP Group to provide on-going access for waste disposal. Furthermore, the PRP
Group will not be able to prevent damage to the NBA cap once it is constructed because
they do not have control over the landfill.
It is suggested that closure of the NBA and SFBA be deferred until the SBA is no
longer an active waste disposal facility. In the interim, site wide institutional
controls could be implemented, such as site access restrictions.
EPA Response: The Feasibility Study recommends site-wide institutional controls along with a Subtitle
B cover system for each of the three disposal areas. It is therefore necessary to continue filling
the SBA with solid waste until it is at a level that can be successfully capped so that all rainwater
can be collected in an area which is not contaminated. The Commonwealth has concurred with these
decisions. The Municipality has agreed to fill the active cell and EPA, EQB and SWMA have agreed to
allow the continued operation of the SBA until it is ready for closure, which has been estimated to be
approximately eighteen months.
The commenter suggests that, because of logistical obstacles, only the site wide institutional
controls be implemented until the SBA area is suitable for closure, and then we proceed with the
closure. The design period associated with the closure of multiple disposal areas is routinely two
years in length. This design would proceed after negotiations for design and construction have been
concluded; these negotiations should last for 120 days. While all of this time is elapsing (two and
one-quarter years, optimistically), the SBA will continue to be utilized.
3. The following written comment was received by EPA from Frank Coss, President, COTICAM ("Comite
Timon Calidad Ambiental de Manati") Oficina Central Manati, commenting on the Proposed Plan
for the Barceloneta Landfill dated January 26, 1996.
1. Comment: Another option to the preferred alternative is removal of the soil and
restoration of the affected areas.
EPA Response: Removal of the affected soil would not be cost effective or practical due to the volume
and heterogeneity of the waste in the Landfill. The preferred alternative will adequately
contain the contamination within the landfill area. In addition, this remedy is consistent with EPA
policy. EPA issued a directive titled, "Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites" in
September 1993 and that policy calls for containment of municipal landfills.
2. Comment: If the option of capping the landfill can guarantee that no problems or risks will be
created now or in the future, then the preferred alternative is supported. However, restoration
of the affected areas is preferred.
EPA Response: As noted above, removal of the affected soil and restoration of the affected areas
would not be cost effective or practical because of the volume and heterogeneity of the waste in
-------
the Landfill. Therefore, the preferred alternative which includes capping the affected soil, thus
minimizing contamination of the groundwater, was chosen rather than restoring the affected areas.
3. Comment: It is understood that a monitoring system is reguired at the site. However,
a contingency plan is suggested, such as more observation wells and extraction
wells to recover, contain, and remove the possible contaminants.
EPA Response: The preferred alternatives include a comprehensive monitoring plan at the Site which
should be sufficient to determine the effectiveness of the preferred alternatives. If problems are
encountered, the alternatives will be reevaluated. At this time, it is expected that the selected
alternatives will be protective of human health and the environment. Thus, further remediation such
as groundwater extraction wells is not planned at this time.
4. Comment: It is expected that EPA will not forget Environmental Justice, and will it
in this case and in any other case that is not related to this case. In addition, the
COTICAM Oficina Central Manati (Manati Office) would like to receive more information
concerning the rights and duties of communities that are in pursuit of illegal solid
waste disposal. It seems that landfills are more abundant and grow larger in Puerto
Rico. Currently, there are two in this jurisdiction. One is located at Road 167 at Bo.
Cortes de Manati. The other is located at mile 3%, road 672 in Bo. Palo Alto, Sector
Hoyos y Calderas (Goto Sur) de Manati.
EPA Response: The EQB has responsibility for regulating non-hazardous waste landfills and overseeing
other solid waste regulations under the RCRA program. EPA and the local government coordinate
landfill closures with the EQB. However, the EQB is responsible for the day-to-day solid waste
reguirements under RCRA. We will forward this information to EQB, and the COTICAM Oficina
Central Manati (Manati Office) should contact EQB for more specific information regarding the
communities rights and duties with respect to illegal solid waste disposal.
5. Comment: The COTICAM Oficina Central Manati (Manati Office) is concerned about
protecting the groundwater in the vicinity of the landfills in the area. There are
miles of tons of scrap iron and every other type of waste disposed in and around the
sewer systems which has leaked in the past and discharged to the aguifer Aymamon. This
contamination was discussed in the Planning Board's Management Plan for the Laguna
Tortuguero.
Reports exist which indicate that various wells in the Manati area are contaminated
with nitrates and other pollutants. It is a concern that these pollutants could
be migrating via storm waters through the sewer system and from there to the potable
waters.
It is of great concern to the Manati area that some action is taken to clean up the
landfills (specifically the Manati and prevent the contamination of the groundwater.
It has been stated that without action the groundwater could be completely contaminated
within 10 years.
EPA Response: As stated above, EPA understands the concerns of the COTICAM Oficina Central Manati
(Manati Office). The Puerto Rico EQB has responsibility for regulating non-hazardous waste landfills
and overseeing other solid waste regulations under the RCRA program. EPA and the local government
coordinate landfill closures with the EQB. However, the EQB is responsible for the day-to-day solid
waste reguirements under RCRA. Again, we well forward this information to EQB, and the COTICAM
Oficina Central Manati (Manati Office) should contact EQB for more specific information regarding
these issues.
-------
With regards to the Barceloneta Landfill, EPA determined that active remediation of the groundwater
was unnecessary. The results of EPA's Abbreviated Risk Assessment indicated that the levels of
contaminants present in the ground water pose a relatively low long-term threat to human health.
However, if the Landfill is not capped, the continued release of contaminants into ground water
could potentially result in a greater risk at some point in the future.
------- |