109645
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
OPERABLE UNIT 2 SOILS
EPA ID: PRD980512669
RIO ABAJO WARD, PR
09/30/2010
500001
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
RECORD OF DECISION
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
OPERABLE UNIT 2 - SOILS
VEGA BAJA, PUERTO RICO
SEPTEMBER 2010
500002
-------
PART 1: DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION (
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site -
Operable Unit 2 - Soils
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
National Superfund Database Identification Number: PRD980512669
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This Record of Decision ("ROD") presents the selected remedial action for the Vega Baja
Solid Waste Disposal Site, Operable Unit 2 - Soils (the "Site"), located in the Municipality
of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, which was chosen in accordance with the requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan ("NCP"), 40 CFR Part 300. This decision
document explains the factual and legal basis for selecting the remedy for the Site. The
information supporting this remedial action decision is contained in the Administrative
Record for the Site. The attached index (Appendix III) identifies the items that comprise
the Administrative Record upon which the selection of the remedy is based.
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board ("EQB") was consulted on the planned
remedy, in accordance with CERCLA Section 121(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9621(f), and it concurs,
on behalf of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, with the selected remedy (Appendix IV).
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Site, if not addressed by
implementing the response action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY - SOIL REMOVAL WITH
ON-SITE CONSOLIDATION AND COVER IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA
The response action described in this document represents the second of two planned
remedial phases or operable units (OUs) for the Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site. It
addresses soil contamination and has been designated OU-2. A previous record of decision
dealt with the groundwater, designated OU-1.
The major components of the selected remedy include the following:
• Performance of a remedial design to provide the details necessary for the
construction and monitoring of the remedial action;
500003
-------
• Pre-design investigation (PDI) to include detailed surveying of property features
and topography, soil sampling at two properties where access could not be obtained
during the OU-2 remedial investigation (RI), additional soil sampling at a minimum
of eight properties where more lead concentration data are needed to support
design, additional drainage ditch soil sampling for lead, and delineation and
surveying of the horizontal extent and top elevations of the existing trash mounds
based on visual observations and the basemap survey;
• Removal of lead-contaminated soils above the cleanup goal of 450 milligrams per
kilogram (mg/kg) from residential yards, trash mounds, a drainage ditch, and a
portion of an area referred to as the "Non Residential Area;"
• . Consolidation of excavated materials/soils in an approximately 8.5-acre area of the
Non-Residential Area that contains lead above screening criteria based on the
delineation activities performed during the OU-2 RI;
• Installation of a cover system over the consolidated excavated materials in the
approximately 8.5-acre contaminated area in the Non-Residential Area. The final
design of the cover system will be determined during detailed design, but it is
anticipated that it will include a non-woven geotextile overlain by 12 inches of
clean soil consistent with the Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites
Handbook. The soil cover will be vegetated to prevent erosion that could otherwise
potentially result in unacceptable exposure to underlying materials;
• Placement of clean soil in the residential yards where excavation occurs and re-
vegetation to restore pre-excavation conditions, to the extent practicable;
• Imposition of institutional controls (a) to protect the integrity of the cover system in
the Non-Residential Area where a cover is used to contain contaminated materials;
(b) restricting contact with soils beneath structures on properties where soil removal
is undertaken; (c) restricting contact with soils under paved areas and/or buildings
immediately adjoining an area where soil removal is undertaken; (d) restricting
contact with soils in areas where final post-excavation sampling indicates lead
concentrations remain above the cleanup goal; and (e) restricting contact with soils
under roadways adjacent to properties where soil removal is undertaken;
• Indoor dust monitoring and management program to include engineering controls
during remedial activities such that migration of lead in fugitive dust into homes is
minimized, as well as post-remediation confirmation sampling three months after
completion of the excavation activities associated with the selected remedy at the
two properties where elevated levels of indoor dust lead were measured in the OU-2
RI;
• An off-site disposal option for large materials which may be encountered in the
trash mounds or the Non-Residential Area (e.g., large/bulky debris, putrescent
materials, etc.), as well as lead-contaminated soils which violate the land disposal
restrictions, that may prove to be unsuitable for on-site consolidation;
• A surface water management and erosion control plan to provide for the effective
control of surface water runoff during the implementation of the remedy and to
minimize soil erosion from covered areas;
• Construction/performance monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy
including post-excavation sampling, air monitoring to ensure protection of workers
ii
500004
-------
and nearby residents, and performance monitoring including cover inspections and
maintenance to confirm long-term effectiveness;
• Five-Year Reviews by EPA to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of
public health and the environment;
• Incorporation of applicable green remediation practices per EPA Region 2's Clean
and Green Policy into the detailed design of the remedial action.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy meets the requirements for remedial actions set forth in CERCLA
Section 121. It is protective of human health and the environment, complies with Federal
and State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. Although the remedy does not satisfy the statutory
preference to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of hazardous substances, pollutants,
or contamin;mts through treatment, the reduction of exposure to lead-contaminated soil
accomplishes the required end result of protection of human health and the environment.
Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
remaining on-site in the Non-Residential Area and under structures and roadways in the
Residential Area above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a
review will be conducted no less often than once every five years after completion of
construction of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to be protective of
human health and the environment.
ROD DATA CERTIFICATION CHECKLIST v
The ROD contains the remedy selection information noted below. More details may be
found in the Administrative Record file for this Site.
• Chemicals of concern and their respective concentrations (see ROD pages 14 and
15); '
• Baseline risk represented by the chemicals of concern (see ROD pages 16 through
19, and Tables 1 and 2);
• Cleanup levels established for chemicals of concern and the basis for these levels
(see ROD pages 17 and 18);
• Current and reasonably anticipated future land use assumptions used in the
baseline risk assessment and ROD (see ROD page 15);
• Estimated capital, annual operation and maintenance, and total present worth
costs, discount rate, and the.number of years over which the selected remedy cost
estimates are projected (see ROD page 35, and Tables 3 and 4); and
• Key factor (s) that led to selecting the remedy (i.e., how the selected remedy
provides the best balance of tradeoffs with respect to the balancing and modifying
criteria, highlighting criteria key to the decision)(see ROD pages 25 through 29).
iii
500005
-------
ArntoKiziM; sicixA'ii'RK
fin she o»"rhr rotm\5U! ,»nd (he rssk ^s^Nsnictit^ i^dn-n-RCn! a! ic IJKfxwai Sue, the- >ck\HtV, rcn»wi> iot %\*turr.na?tf»® soil* at tf*c SH„«
(tkrMgnalcU cii, .2) irwCis ihc axjupjianwiM f-"fr rcnvcito! .scThi* see i^rili in CER'TLA
NxIiimj 1 T I I'OH »!»t hchtil! iH'j < oniuitii ?' krf.i R.\ .> Ji.i> ^HKUUiV \% itl> tl?c
ML'kxtai rc?(Htliii! w\ rnvson^af ru ih.t RU'»
W.i'icr }: Vfu^dar,. tlWclc-r
l'n?t"tg«itcy „«id HcmttHal kt>p>mixc Himsm>ft
H'A Rit'iifl 2
IMt "
500006
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
DECISION SUMMARY
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
VEGA BAJA, PUERTO RICO
OPERABLE UNIT 2 - SOILS
t
500007
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION 1
SITE HISTORY AND REMOVAL ACTIONS 1
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 7
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION 8
SITE CHARACTERISTICS 8
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE USE 15
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS 16
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES 20
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES 20
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES . 25
PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES 29
SELECTED REMEDY 29
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS 33
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES 36
ATTACHMENTS
APPENDIX I. FIGURES
APPENDIX II. TABLES
APPENDIX III. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
APPENDIX IV. STATE LETTER OF CONCURRENCE
APPENDIX V. RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
500008
-------
PART 2: DECISION SUMMARY
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
The Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site (Site) comprises approximately 72 acres and
includes an unlined and uncapped solid waste disposal and open burning area. It is located
in the Rio Abajo Ward of Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, approximately 1.2 miles south of the
Vega Baja downtown area (Appendix I, Figure 1). The Site includes a 55-acre residential
area currently known as "Brisas del Rosario" which contains an estimate of 213 dwellings
and a 17-acre undeveloped, uninhabited area. The Site is situated on relatively flat terrain
and is surrounded by other residential areas to the north, east and west and is bordered to
the south by conical limestone hills, known as "mogotes" (Appendix I, Figure 2). Four
"trash mounds," believed to contain trash associated with the former solid waste disposal
operations, as well as native soils, rocks, and boulders, are present within the residential
area of the Site, extending up to 10 feet in height.
The Rio Abajo Head Start is the nearest school and is located next to a baseball park
about 0.21 of a mile from the Site. According to the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board's (EQB's) Expanded Site Investigation (ESI), the population within a four-mile
radius of the Site is more than 40,000. The population within a one-mile radius of the Site
is approximately 6,871, and 2,280 within one-quarter mile.
SITE HISTORY AND REMOVAL ACTIONS
Between approximately 1948 to 1979, the Municipality of Vega Baja operated the Site as
an unlined solid waste disposal and open burning facility that received commercial,
industrial, and domestic waste. It is estimated that more than 1.1 million cubic yards of
waste were disposed of and/or burned at the facility. At the time of disposal and burning
activities, the Site was owned by the Puerto Rico Land Authority (PRLA).
During the late 1970s, EQB, in response to complaints of neighboring residents, conducted
several inspections at the active waste disposal facility. As a result of these inspections,
EQB cited the Municipality of Vega Baja for ineffective environmental and management
control of the Site's daily operations.
The waste disposal operations at the Site were discontinued in 1979, when the Municipality
of Vega Baja opened a new landfill at Cibuco Ward, Vega Baja. Based upon historical
aerial photographs, disposal activities were largely concentrated in the southwestern
portion of the now developed area, and in the northern portion of the undeveloped area of
the Site.
Local residents began constructing homes on portions of the uncapped waste disposal area
beginning in the late 1970s. Many houses at the Site are built on and around the landfill.
trash.
l
500009
-------
In 1984, the PRLA apparently attempted to transfer some portion of the Site property to the
Puerto Rico Housing Department (PRHD). The Puerto Rico Housing Department
subsequently attempted to convey certain properties to several residents; however, it is not
clear in the land records which residents, if any, hold valid deeds to their properties. The
PRHD is believed to be the current owner of thel7 undeveloped acres within the Site and
of certain unconveyed or invalidly conveyed parcels within the residential area of the Site.
Beginning in 1994, EQB and EPA conducted the following investigations at the Site.
Site Inspection, May 1994. In May of 1994, EQB conducted a Site Inspection (SI) at the
Site. During the SI, five surface soil samples, one background soil sample, five sediment
samples, and two groundwater samples (from one upgradient and one downgradient well)
were collected.
The surface soil samples were collected from the backyards of five residential properties
that were located on the former waste disposal area at the Site. Analytical results indicated
lead concentrations up to 3,410 parts per million (ppm), and copper concentrations up to
350 ppm, in the soil samples. Organics detected above background levels included bis(2-
ethyhexyl) phthalate, fluoranthene, pyrene, and Aroclor 1260. Sediment samples were
collected from two locations along a drainage ditch located at the Site and from three
locations along a nearby river, the Rio Indio: one upstream of the Site; one at the drainage
ditch's probable point of entry/discharge to the River; and one downstream of the Site.
Acetone, 2-butanone, tetrachloroethene, and copper were detected at concentrations above
background in the sediment samples.
Groundwater samples were collected from the upgradient Villa Pinares municipal well and
from a downgradient Vega Baja municipal well, which is located approximately 0.9 mile
north of the Site. Copper was detected in the downgradient well sample at 34 parts per
billion (ppb). Analysis of the data indicate that the detected copper concentration in the
public supply well did not represent a health threat to the community.
Expanded Site Inspection, August 1996. An ESI was conducted from June through
August 1996 by EQB and EPA's Superfund Technical Assistance and Response Team
(START). As part of the ESI, a limited number of samples from groundwater, surface
water, sediment, and surface soil were collected to better characterize the extent of
contamination within the waste disposal area at the Site and to determine if the Site
represented a potential threat to human health. Data were also collected to provide
information for an Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) health
consultation.
The surface soil samples collected from residential properties were screened for lead with
an X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) instrument. The results of the XRF screening activities
were used to determine sampling points for confirmatory laboratory analysis. A total of
153 soil samples were subsequently collected from locations throughout the former waste
disposal area at the Site and submitted to an EPA Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
laboratory for Target Compound List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) analysis.
2
500010
-------
Copper, lead, cadmium, nickel, and several other inorganics were detected at
concentrations above background.1 Organic compounds detected above background or the
Contract Required Detection Limit (CRDL) included pyrene, benzo(a)pyrene, fluoranthene,
phenanthrene, methoxychlor, and Aroclor 1254. "
Six sediment and five surface water samples were collected from locations along the Site's
drainage ditch and from upstream and downstream locations of the Rio Indio. The samples
were submitted to CLP laboratories for TCL and TAL analysis. Analytical results indicated
the presence of chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and several other inorganics in the
sediment samples. No organic compounds, however, were detected in the sediment
samples. In addition, no organic compounds or inorganic analytes were detected in the
surface water samples.
Groundwater samples were collected from two public supply wells, one upgradient of the
Site and one downgradient. No inorganic or organic chemicals were detected in either of
the supply wells.
Based on a review of the ESI soil analytical results, ATSDR determined that the Site could
be a public health hazard since long-term exposure to lead concentrations, detected in the
soil at many properties, could have harmful effects on children.
Limited Groundwater Study, April - June, 1998. From April to June 1998, EPA
START conducted a limited groundwater study at the Site. The study included the
installation of monitoring wells and sampling of the newly installed wells and neighboring
public supply wells.
START installed three water table wells (MW 01, MW 02, and MW 03) that ranged in
depth from 195 feet below ground surface (bgs) to 215 feet bgs. MW 01 and MW 02 were
installed downgradient of the Site, and MW 03 was installed upgradient. Public supply
wells that were sampled included the nearby United States Geological Survey (USGS)
observation well (Rosario 2), located 40 feet west of the Site, and three public supply wells:
the upgradient Villa Pinares well and the two downgradient Vega Baja 1 and Vega Baja 3
wells. The samples were submitted to an EPA CLP laboratory for TCL organic compound
and TAL inorganic analyte analyses.
Acetone and 1,1,1-trichloroethane were detected in the Rosario No. 2 well at levels up to
54 micrograms per liter (/xg/L) and 61 /xg/L, respectively. Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate was
detected in two of the public supply well samples but was also noted in associated quality
control blanks. Estimated concentrations of heptachlor and endrin aldehyde were detected
in both up and downgradient wells; the highest levels were detected in MW 01, at
concentrations up to 0.019/xg/L and 0.053/xg/L, respectively. No other TCL organic
compounds were detected in the groundwater samples.
Iron and manganese were detected in the samples collected from both up and downgradient
wells at concentrations above their respective CLP CRDLs; iron was detected at levels up
to 2,310 /xg/L and manganese was detected at levels up to 144 /xg/L. Several other
3
500011
-------
inorganics, including aluminum, arsenic, barium, copper, mercury, and selenium, were
detected at estimated concentrations in both up and downgradient wells.
Soil Sampling Event, April - December 1998. EPA conducted a soil sampling event at
the Site from April 1998 to December 1998. A total of 3,693 samples were collected and
analyzed, primarily for lead.
The sampling event was divided into three phases:
Phase I - The sampling was conducted from April 14 to June 8, 1998. The primary
contaminant of concern during this phase was lead. However, the samples were also
analyzed for the presence of other inorganic and organic compounds. The sampling
area consisted of the residential area south of Route 22 and east of Trio Vegabajeno
Avenue, terminating on Progreso Street to the east and included the undeveloped
wooded areas to the south. A total of 814 soil samples were collected and analyzed
for lead using XRF methodology. Soil samples were also taken from the bottom
and side walls of the drainage ditch.
Lead concentrations across the Site ranged up to 14,000 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg) or ppm. The highest lead concentration found in the residential area was
2,600 mg/kg at 0.5 foot (ft) depth. In the residential area, lead concentrations
generally decreased with depth (i.e., at 2 ft depth the lead concentrations were
below 400 mg/kg). The area where the highest lead levels were found extends from
the undeveloped area to the intersection of Trio Vegabajeno Avenue and Alturas
Street.
Soil samples collected from the drainage ditch bottom had very low lead levels (not
detectable to 42 mg/kg). However, samples collected from the sides of the ditch
had lead levels ranging from 220 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg. EPA concluded that lead
levels on the drainage ditch sides are similar to lead levels in the soil throughout the
Site and are expected to remain constant.
However, those on the drain bottom are expected to change continuously with
rainfall, soil erosion, and deposition. Ten percent of the soil samples were sent to
the Response Engineering and Analytical Contract (REAC) laboratory in Edison,
New Jersey for confirmation of XRF results or for further XRF analyses along with
analysis for other TAL metals excluding mercury, selenium, and thallium.
Unvalidated data revealed the following: lead concentrations up to 24,000 mg/kg;
copper concentrations up to 24,000 mg/kg; arsenic concentrations up to 190 mg/kg;
and chromium concentrations up to 390 mg/kg. Other metals detected included
antimony, cadmium, iron, manganese, nickel, and zinc.
The XRF confirmation samples were also analyzed for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), base/neutral acids (BNAs) and pesticides/polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs). Trace amounts of the following VOCs were found: toluene, xylenes,
ethylbenzene, styrene, trichlorofluoromethane, acetone, and butanone. Traces of
4
500012
-------
BNAs, including bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, butylbenzyl phthalate, di-n-
octylphthalate, di-n-butylphthalate, and diethylphthalate were also found in a
number of samples at concentrations up to 92,000 micrograms per kilogram
(fig/kg). However, a phthalate compound was also found in a laboratory blank.
A total of 72 soil samples were analyzed for pesticides and PCBs. Dieldrin was the
pesticide detected most frequently and with the highest concentrations. Dieldrin
was detected in 20 samples at concentrations ranging up to 2,900 Mg/kg. Other
pesticides detected included dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethene (DDT), chlordane, and
heptachlor epoxide. Of the PCBs, weathered Aroclor 1254 was detected in nine
samples at concentrations up to 360 jug/kg, Aroclor 1248 was detected in two
samples at a maximum concentration of 900 Mg/kg, and Aroclor 1260 was detected
in two samples at a maximum concentration of 600 Hg/kg. The pesticide/PCB
detections were found in the southern section of the Site and correlate with the
location of the trash mounds.
Phase II - The sampling was conducted from August 3 to December 3, 1998. The
majority of the sampling area consisted of the residential area south of Route 22 and
east of Trio Vegabajeno Avenue. The sampling area terminated on Progreso Street
to the east and the undeveloped wooded area to the south. No soil sampling was
done in the undeveloped wooded area south of the residences.
During this phase, each residential lot was sampled as a discrete unit, and analysis
focused on soil lead content. Two sampling protocols were followed. At properties
where elevated lead levels (400 mg/kg or greater) were found during previous
sampling activities, biased sampling locations were collected at ground surface, 1.0,
and 2.0 feet bgs. At properties where lead levels less than 400 mg/kg were found
during previous sampling activities, six surface soil samples were initially collected
on a regular grid where feasible. However, later in the sampling event, soil samples
were also collected at 1.0 foot bgs. Approximately 213 residential lots were
sampled and 2,823 soil samples were collected and analyzed. During this phase,
lead concentrations from XRF analytical methods at the residential area ranged
from non-detect to 7,100 ppm at one foot bgs. An extensive area in the residential
development with high lead concentrations was identified in the southwestern
section of the Site.
Other areas with pockets of elevated lead concentrations were found in the
northeast section of the Site. Sixty soil samples were sent to a CLP laboratory for
lead analysis via the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). These
samples were split from the XRF samples and were selected after XRF analysis to
represent a range of lead concentrations above 400 mg/kg. Lead TCLP
concentrations ranged from non-detect to 3.34 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
However, the 3.34 mg/L concentration appears to be an anomaly, since the next
highest TCLP result was 0.65 mg/L. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) threshold for the characteristic of toxicity for lead is 5.0 mg/L. None of
the samples analyzed exceeded the TCLP RCRA threshold limit.
5
500013
-------
Phase III - This phase was focused on sampling four trash mounds in the
residential area. The sampling was conducted from December 5 to December 16,
1998. The objective of this phase was to estimate the area of the mounds, the
thickness of the garbage, and the level of lead contamination within the mounds. A
total of 56 samples were collected and analyzed using XRF methodology. During
the sampling of the four trash mounds in the residential area, lead was detected at
concentrations up to 2,900 mg/kg. The highest concentrations were found in Trash
Mound 1 where the garbage was the thickest (over eight feet). Ten percent of the
XRF samples were also analyzed using the inductively coupled argon plasma
(ICAP) technique for confirmation of the XRF results.
Hazard Ranking System Evaluation, February 1999. Information gathered during the
EQB and EPA investigations was used to perform the Site's Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
Evaluation. The HRS score for the Site was based largely on the potential threat of a
release of hazardous substances to groundwater. The soil exposure pathway also
contributed to the HRS Site score since it evaluated the likelihood that residents and nearby
populations would be exposed to contaminated soil associated with sources at the Site. The
primary driver for the Vega Baja soil exposure pathway score was the detection of
inorganics, including lead and arsenic, at concentrations significantly above background or
health-based benchmarks, in residential surface soil samples.
NPL Listing. Based upon the results of the HRS, the Site was proposed for inclusion on
the National Priorities List (NPL) on April 22, 1999, and subsequently it was listed on the
NPL on July 22, 1999.
Removal Action, 1999. After evaluating the data from Phases I, II and III, the EPA
Removal Program decided to evaluate the areas where the higher lead levels were found in
residential lots. As a result of this evaluation, the EPA Removal Program recommended a
time-critical removal action at three properties: 5571 Alturas Street, 5569 Alturas Street
and 5460 Los Angeles Street (hereinafter, the Three Lots). On August 18, 1999, the
Director of the EPA Region 2 Emergency and Remedial Response Division signed an
action memorandum to conduct a CERCLA time-critical removal action at the Three Lots.
The removal action included, among other things, excavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated soil and the demolition and reconstruction of one residence which presented
an obstruction and construction hazard to excavation activities.
Dioxin Sampling Event, June 2001. Because the Site had historically been used to burn a
variety of garbage, in June 2001, an EPA contractor collected surface soil samples for
analysis of dioxin. This sampling event was conducted to determine if dioxin is present at
the Site in sufficient quantities to be considered a chemical of concern.
/-
A total of 121 soil samples were collected and analyzed. Only one sampling point, located
in the wooded area to the south, had dioxin concentrations above the recommended action
level of 1 part per billion. A report was finalized in February 2002 (REAC 2002). The
6
500014
-------
report concluded that the residential and undeveloped areas do not warrant any removal or
remedial action for dioxin and that dioxin is not considered a chemical of concern.
OU-1 Groundwater Investigation, 1999 to 2004. CDM Federal Programs initiated the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for Groundwater (OU-1) on behalf of
EPA in September 1999. The OU-1 RI included an ecological survey, the installation of
seven monitoring wells, and sampling of groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil, and
^ springs/seeps. Based on the results of the investigation, EPA issued a Record of Decision
on April 6, 2004 selecting no further action for groundwater.
Consent Order, 2003. In April 2003, EPA completed its negotiation with the identified
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and signed a consent order in which the PRPs
agreed to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study for OU2- Soils. EPA
identified the following entities as PRPs: Municipality of Vega Baja, PRHD PRLA,
Motorola Corporation, Pfizer Company, Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, and
Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico .
PRPs Removal Action, 2004. In March 2004, EPA advised the PRPs that an unauthorized
disturbance had occurred at the Site involving the removal of a portion of one of the trash
mounds on a residential property at 5782 Los Ortiz and a disturbance of soils on adjacent
properties. Materials that had been removed had been placed in the adjoining non-
residential portion of the Site. EPA and the PRPs conducted Site inspections, which
indicated that the remainder of the trash mound (located at 5565 Alturas Street) had been
left in a physically unstable condition. The PRPs also collected samples to assess lead
concentrations in the disturbed soil and to determine whether the waste involved was
characteristically hazardous. At EPA's request, the PRPs developed a plan to respond to
the unauthorized disturbance. Following EPA approval, the PRPs implemented the plan in
July 2004, including the removal of the unstable remaining portion of the trash mound at
5565 Alturas. Both areas were restored by placement of a geotextile barrier and one foot of
clean soil, which was revegetated. Removed materials were consolidated with those that
had been relocated as part of the unauthorized disturbance, and they were covered with a
geotextile barrier and one foot of clean soil and revegetated. Waste testing confirmed that
the materials involved were not hazardous waste regulated under RCRA.
HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA has maintained a close relationship with the community over the years. With regard
to the subject action, the Proposed Plan for the OU-2 - Soils response action was released
for public comment on July 29, 2010. These documents along with the Administrative
Record for OU-1 and OU-2 were made available to the public in the EPA Docket Room in
Region 2, New York, the Vega Baja City Hall, the Caribbean University Vega Baja
Campus, EQB's Superfund File Room, and EPA's Caribbean Environmental Protection
Division. A public notice announcing the availability of these documents and the date of
the public meeting was published in the El Vocero and Primera Hora newspapers on July
28, 2010. The 30-day public comment period closed on August 29, 2010.
7
500015
-------
During the public comment period, EPA held the public meeting to present the RI, the risk
assessments, the feasibility study and the Proposed Plan, to respond to questions regarding
these items, and to receive both oral and written comments. EPA held the public meeting
at the Catholic Chapel Rio Indio, located at Principal Street, Brisas del Rosario, Vega Baja,
Puerto Rico on August 3, 2010. At this meeting, EPA answered questions about the Site
and the Proposed Plan and received comments from interested persons. Comments and
responses to those comments received at the public meeting and during the public comment
period are included in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix V).
SCOPE AND ROLE OF RESPONSE ACTION
As with many Superfund sites, the remedial investigation at the Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal Site was divided into operable units:
• • Operable Unit 1: Contamination of the groundwater
• Operable Unit 2: Contamination of on-site soils
A groundwater investigation was conducted at the Site as part of the OU-1 .RI. This
investigation concluded that groundwater has not been impacted by Site-related
contaminants. A No Action Record of Decision for OU-1 was signed on April 6, 2004. ,
The information supporting that No Action decision is contained in the Administrative
Record for the OU1 remedy for the Site.
The second operable unit, the subject of this ROD, addresses the contamination of on-site
soils. Site-related risks from potential exposure to lead at the Site, based on modeling
results (e.g., Integrated Exposure Uptake and Biokinetic, or IEUBK), were identified as
having the potential to cause an increase in blood lead (i.e., greater than 5% of the
population exceeding 10 micrograms per deciliter of lead in the blood) to residents living
on the Site. Based on the potential for increased blood lead concentrations in such
residents, it was determined that a remedial action was warranted to reduce potential lead
exposures at the Site. In addition, risks to populations of ecological receptors, especially
avian species represented in the risk assessment by the Red-legged thrush and Northern
bobwhite, were determined to be associated with exposure to lead at the Site, therefore,
warranting remedial action.
This second operable unit presents the final response action for the Site and addresses soil
contaminants in both the residential (including trash mounds and the drainage ditch) and
undeveloped areas (also known as Non-Residential Areas).
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The following describes the regional and site-specific geography, geology, and
hydrogeology as presented in published reports and the RI field program. Site
characteristics are described more completely in the RI report, which was finalized in
July 2008. The purpose of the RI was to define the nature and extent of contamination in
on-site surface and subsurface soils. EPA's fieldwork for the RI began in 2004.
-------
The majority of the residential area of the Site is covered by densely spaced residences,
asphalt roadways and other paved areas. The Non-Residential Area of the Site
(southwestern portion) is highly vegetated and is undeveloped.
Topography
The Site is situated within the North Coast Limestone Province on a flat plain of
outcropping or very shallow Aymamon Limestone bedrock. East-west trending mogote
hills border the southern and northern edges of the Site's flat topography. Most of the Site
consists of closely spaced houses and large areas of concrete pavement. The Site slopes
gently from an elevation of about 60 meters above sea level (masl) on the western side of
the Site down to about 55 masl on its eastern flank. There are no surface water bodies or
significant depressions identified on the Site, with the exception of an intermittent storm
water drainage ditch that bisects the Site from west to east. To the east of the Site, beyond
Route 22 (a multi-lane highway) the land slopes down towards the edge of the Rio Indio
flood plain. Isolated small mogotes are found within this moderately sloping area between
the Site and the river flood plain. The flood plain, about one-half kilometer east of the Site,
is as much as 30 meters lower in elevation than the surrounding land. Its edge is marked by
a well-defined northeast-southwest-trending scarp slope. Small ephemeral stream valleys
punctuate the length of the scarp, one of which is fed by an on-site drainage channel.
The Site is located within the regional Rio Cibuco watershed system. Rio Indio, a tributary
of Rio Cibuco, flows from the Site approximately 1.5 miles northeast to its confluence with
the Rio Cibuco. The Rio Cibuco meanders northwards across the broad coastal plain for
approximately five miles to the coast where it empties into the Atlantic Ocean. The Rio
Cibuco at Vega Baja has a mean flow rate of 91 cubic feet per second (cfs). Similar flow
rate data are not readily available for the Rio Indio. As with most karst limestone terrain,
surface water flow in the region is largely confined to rivers (e.g., the Rio Indio and Rio
Cibuco to the east of the Site). Based on regional water table potentiometric surface
information, the Rio Indio is a gaining river, meaning that groundwater discharges to the
river, contributing to its baseflow. At its closest position, the Rio Indio is located about 0.2
mile to the east of the Site boundary.
Heavy rainfall, coupled with dense, clayey surface deposits, tend to favor storm water
surface runoff rather than downward percolation through surficial deposits or bedrock at
the Site. On-site storm waters are directed from impermeable surfaces such as buildings
and asphalt surfaces to the drainage channel which bisects the Site, directing surface water
flow through a culvert under the elevated highway (PR Route 22), toward its discharge into
the Rio Indio.
Geology
Puerto Rico is divided into three geologic provinces: an older Cretaceous-age central
volcanic-plutonic province trending east to west, and two younger Tertiary limestone
provinces along its northern and southern coastal margins. The Site lies within the
Northern Limestone Province. The bedrock formations of the Northern Limestone
Province are of late-middle Tertiary-age (early Miocene). These rocks consist of a
9
500017
-------
sequence of limestones and terrigenous sedimentary rocks of Oligocene to Pliocene age
that strike east-west and normally dip 2 to 5 degrees to the north. The limestone succession
unconformably overlies Cretaceous volcanic, volcaniclastic, and intrusive igneous
basement rocks. Within the area of the Manati topographic quadrangle, the sequence is
divided into five bedrock formations. In order of decreasing age, the formations are the San
Sebastian Formation, Mucarabones Sand, Cibao Formation, Aguada Limestone, and
Aymamon Limestone. These units are described briefly below:
San Sebastian Formation. The lowermost sedimentary unit is the San Sebastian
Formation that unconformably overlies the volcanic basement. The San Sebastian crops
out in two discontinuous bands of clayey, silty conglomerate and feldspathic sandstone
along the southwestern and southeastern edges of the North Coast Limestone aquifer
system. It extends into the subsurface where it is more laterally extensive but grades into
glauconitic mudstone and marl. The San Sebastian interfingers with the Mucarabones Sand
to the east but its exact relation with that unit is unknown. The San Sebastian ranges in
thickness from a featheredge where it crops out to about 1,000 feet in the deep subsurface.
It yields small quantities of water in outcrop areas but is poorly transmissive and functions
mostly as a confining unit, especially in downdip areas.
Mucarabones Sand. The Mucarabones Sand consists predominantly of cross-bedded, fine
to medium quartz sandstone that grades upward into sandy limestone near the top. The
sandstone is moderately to poorly sorted and a clay matrix in the lowermost part is replaced
by a calcite cement higher in the section. Local conglomerates in the formation contain
volcanic-rock cobbles up to 1.5 inches in diameter. The formation overlies, in part, the San
Sebastian Formation and, in part, volcanic rocks. The Mucarabones Sand ranges in
thickness from about 33 feet at its western extent (near Ciales) to about 400 feet near
Bayamon. The Mucarabones is a stratigraphic equivalent of both the Lares Limestone and
the Cibao Formation.
Cibao Formaition. The Cibao Formation is divided into a number of members that
represent a variety of depositional environments. The Cibao Formation is a heterogeneous
unit consisting of intergradational and interlensing beds of calcareous clay, limestone,
sandy clay, sand, sandstone, and gravel. The total thickness of the Cibao Formation is
approximately 490 feet (150 m in the study area).
Aguada Formation. The Aymamon Formation underlies the Aguada Formation. The
Aguada Limestone is characterized by massive white or pink fossiliferous limestone and
sandy limestone with extensive moldic secondary porosity and common clay interbeds. The
Aguada Formation is up to 350 feet thick and has an overall finer-grained texture than the
Aymamon Formation which is utop it. About 100 feet below the contact between the two
limestone formations, a 30-foot-thick sandy limestone can be traced across the Site, and it
dips gently towards the north, parallel to bedding. The sandy limestone may contain up to
50 percent sand and is also relatively more clay-rich than the rest of the formation.
Aymamon Formation. The uppermost bedrock unit comprises massive limestones of the
10
500018
-------
Aymamon Formation, which is up to 650 feet thick. The dolines or mogotes which
surround the Site are outcrops of the Aymamon Formation. Small on-site sinkholes have
developed in both the Aymamon and the underlying Aguada formations. The Aymamon
Formation is overlain by soils within topographic degressions, and it is exposed on the
crests of the steep-sided mogotes. Typically, the limestones are massive; pink, brown, or
white; fossiliferous,- occasionally sandy; and may contain cavities or fractures, with the
diegree of weathering noted to decrease gradually with depth. Clay-rich beds or clay-filled
solution cavities are likely present in the lower Aymamon Formation, immediately above
the contact with the underlying Aguada Formation. The Site is underlain by an
unconsolidated deposit that consists of clay and sandy clay that overlies the Aymamon
Limestone. With the exception of surrounding mogotes, the Aymamon Limestone outcrops
beneath the Site under a cover of Quaternary blanket deposits.
Hydrogeology
The North Coast Limestone aquifer system in Puerto Rico is one of the largest and most
productive sources of groundwater on the Island of Puerto Rico. The North Coast
Limestone aquifer system consists of a thick sequence of carbonate rocks of Miocene to
Oligocene age that formed as platform deposits on the south flank of a broad depositional
basin that extends from Puerto Rico about 100 miles northward to the southern slope of the
Puerto Rico Trench. The aquifer system consists mostly of limestone; however, not all
strata yield water. Maximum known onshore thickness of the limestones is about 5,600
feet, but their maximum estimated offshore thickness is 11,500 feet. These numerous
geologic units have been combined into an upper and a lower aquifer, separated by a
confining unit. The regional hydrogeology around Vega Baja is characterized by an upper
unconfined aquifer composed of the permeable parts of the Cibao Formation, the Aguada
Limestone, and the Aymamon Limestone. Vertical groundwater flow is limited by the
relatively impermeable part of the Cibao Formation, which forms the lower boundary of
the upper aquifer along the south of the study area. A lower artesian (confined) aquifer is
present below the top of the Cibao Formation. The lower aquifer of the North Coast
Limestone contains water under artesian pressure throughout the area where it is overlain
by the confining unit. The San Sebastian Formation, the Lares Limestone, the Montebello
Limestone, the Rio Indio Limestone, the Quebrada Arenas Members of the Cibao
Formation, and the Mucarabones Sand that compose the lower aquifer are unconfined in
their outcrop areas.
The Site is located in karst terrain where sinkholes are a common occurrence, and there are
very few flowing streams. It is located in a principal recharge area for the upper aquifer.
The rate of recharge to the water table aquifer at the Site is controlled partly by the
thickness of clay-rich soils that overlie the limestone, retarding direct infiltration of
precipitation. The path that storm water takes from the surface to the water table is often
complex.
According to the regional water table map for 1995, groundwater generally is encountered
at approximately 5 meters (15 feet) masl or approximately 200 feet bgs. Groundwater
moves both horizontally and vertically from areas of high head to areas of low head, along
flow lines whose trend is perpendicular to the contour lines of equipotential head that are
n
500019
-------
typically constructed to depict the water table elevation and groundwater flow direction.
The regional direction of groundwater flow at the Site generally is north-northeast towards
the regional discharge area along and beyond the Atlantic coastal plain. Cones of
depression resulting from groundwater supply well withdrawals have been identified in
Vega Baja and have caused local perturbations and reversals in the regional flow gradient.
Remedial Investigation
To determine if on-site soils contain contamination at levels of concern, the analytical data
were compared to applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), or other
relevant guidance. The results of these investigations are summarized below. The RI
report contains a more complete examination of the analytical results. This information is
available in the Administrative Record for this ROD (index attached as APPENDIX III).
Soil Investigations - OU-2 Sampling Program. The scope of the OU-2 RI Field
Investigation was defined in,the Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Addendum,
and the results were presented in the Final RI Report. The RI included the following
sampling programs:
• Residential sampling to determine the concentrations of lead in soil, indoor dust, and
tap water, and the concentrations of TAL metals, TCL pesticides, and PCB Aroclors
in soil, for baseline risk assessment purposes.
• Non-Residential Area sampling to delineate the extent of the lead-contaminated area
and to collect further data on the levels of PCBs and pesticides in the soil for baseline
risk assessment purposes.
• Trash Mound Area sampling to determine the concentrations of TAL metals, TCL
pesticides, and PCB Aroclors in soil, for baseline risk assessment purposes.
• Background sampling to determine background levels of TAL metals and TCL
pesticides.
Residential Lead
As described in the RI Report, lead sampling performed at the Site prior to the RI primarily
consisted of collection of data based on XRF field testing. The residential lead sampling
program in the RI included 55 areas spread, across 35 properties where concentrations of
lead in soil had been detected at levels greater than 400 mg/kg during previous sampling
events (Figure 3). Five-point composite samples were collected at three depth intervals (0-
1 inch, 1-12 inches, and from 12 inches to bedrock) in each of the areas (except at 5576
Alturas where bedrock was encountered at less than one foot). Access was not obtained at
two properties, therefore, only 33 properties and 49 areas within those 33 properties were
sampled. A total of 146 soil samples were collected for lead analysis. Of the 33 properties
where soil samples were collected, household dust was analyzed for lead in 31 and tap
water was analyzed for lead in 30.
12
500020
-------
Residential Blocks
Pre-RI soil sampling in the Residential Area (for compounds other than lead) included
collection of surface soil samples at 16 locations that were analyzed for TAL metals (28
samples), TCL pesticides (26 samples), and PCB Aroclors (26 samples). The RI included
the collection of 46 additional surface soil samples from the Residential Area for TAL
metals, TCL pesticides, and PCBs analyses (Figure 4). The goal of the RI sampling event
was to collect sufficient additional samples to calculate reliable 95% upper confidence
limits on the mean soil concentrations. During the RI, 46 samples were collected from the
0- to 1-foot depth range (or bedrock, whichever was shallower) and analyzed for TAL
metals and TCL pesticides. A total of 28 RI samples were also analyzed for PCB Aroclors.
Additionally, one confirmatory PCB sample was collected to determine whether a
previously detected "hot spot" of PCB contamination was actually present. This
confirmatory sample indicated that PCBs were not elevated above screening levels at that
location.
Non-Residential Area
Pre-RI sampling conducted in the wooded Non-Residential Area in the southern portion of
the Site included the collection of 25 samples (from 10 locations) that were analyzed for
TAL metals, and 16 samples (from 7 locations) that were analyzed for TCL pesticides and
PCBs. Previous investigations also included extensive lead analyses using field XRF and
showed lead contamination above screening levels across the majority of this area.
Additional sampling was conducted in the Non-Residential Area during the RI to delineate
the extent of elevated lead concentrations in soil (above 400 mg/kg) and to gather data for
the baseline risk assessment. Soil lead concentrations were field-screened using a portable
XRF. Screening samples were collected along transects extending outward from the
boundaries of previous sampling until either a concentration less than 400 mg/kg was
measured using the XRF instrument, or until the vertical rock face of the mogote physically
limited the potential waste disposal area. A total of 13 samples, taken where the XRF
instrument detected concentrations of lead below 400 mg/kg or a vertical rock outcrop was
encountered, were sent for laboratory confirmation analysis. Three samples collected in
the Non-Residential Area were also analyzed for TCL pesticides and PCB Aroclors.
Trash Mounds
Pre-RI sampling conducted in the trash mounds included the collection of 11 samples (from
four locations) that were analyzed for TAL metals, TCL pesticides and PCBs. One of the
trash mounds (Trash Mound #1) was subsequently removed, and six additional samples
were collected in the three remaining trash mounds during the RI to support the
development of the baseline risk assessment. Specifically, two RI samples were collected
from within each of the existing trash mounds at a depth of 0 to 2 feet bgs (Figure 5). The
samples were analyzed for TAL Metals, TCL pesticides, and PCB Aroclors.
Background
Ten off-site areas that were not affected by disposal activities were sampled during the RI
to assess background conditions. Two samples were collected in each background area and
analyzed for TAL metals, TCL pesticides, and PCB Aroclors. Samples were collected to a
depth of 2 feet or bedrock, whichever was shallower. Nine of the ten areas did not appear
13
500021
-------
to have been disturbed by anthropogenic activities. The other area was located within a
baseball field, and the soil samples were noticeably sandier, perhaps reflecting the import
of fill for grading/vegetation growth.
Results of the Soils Investigations. The following metals were detected in soil at the Site
at concentrations above EPA risk-based screening levels: lead, arsenic, chromium, copper
(in three samples which were collected from a trash mound and from the Non-Residential
Area), iron, manganese, thallium, and zinc (in one sample collected from a trash mound
during the pre-RI study). As presented in the Final RI report, statistical and graphic
comparisons of background arsenic, chromium, and manganese levels with Site
concentrations show that potential risks from these contaminants at the Site are not
significantly different than those presented by exposure to background concentrations. The
only organic compound detected at concentrations above screening levels was the pesticide
dieldrin (in four samples, two of which were in trash mounds). The reference dose
associated with thallium was recently withdrawn by the EP A because of uncertainty in the
development of the value; therefore, the non-cancer hazard that was associated with
thallium exposure was removed from the risk assessment. If new information becomes
available, the consideration of thallium as a COC could be re-evaluated either during the
Remedial Design or Five-Year Review to ensure that concentrations of thallium in the soil
are protective.
There were 16 surface soil samples above the 400 mg/kg lead screening level. All
properties with sample results higher than 400 mg/kg within the surface soil were also
above 400 mg/kg in the 1-inch to 12-inch samples. Additional properties had sample
results higher than 400 mg/kg in the 1 to 12-inch interval but were below the screening
value in the surface soil. There was one property where a sample deeper than one foot was
above the screening value, but all shallower samples on that property were below the
screening value. Overall, out of the 33 properties where RI soil samples were collected for
lead analysis, 19 had sample results higher than 400 mg/kg within at least one sampling
interval (Figures 6 through 8).
The extent of lead contamination above the screening level of 400 mg/kg in the Non-
Residential Area of the Site was delineated during the RI and is bounded by the near-
vertical rock face of the southern mogotes. Approximately 8.5 acres of the Non-
Residential Area are above the lead screening value of 400 mg/kg with multiple locations
where lead has been detected at concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg (Figure 9). Of the three
samples analyzed for pesticides and PCBs, detections occurred in only one sample; this
sample contained Aroclors 1248 and 1254 at 100 and 72 micrograms per kilogram (ug/kg),
respectively, and dieldrin at 6.5 ug/kg. Each of these detections is below screening levels.
Similarly, the nature and extent of contamination within the existing trash mounds at the
Site have been characterized. All six trash mound samples collected were above the
screening levels for lead, arsenic, thallium, and iron. The only PCB detected was Aroclor
1260, which was detected in four of six samples at concentrations ranging from 27 to 47
ug/kg. Arsenic and dieldrin were detected in all samples at concentrations ranging from 23
to 33.7 mg/kg, and from 4.7 to 270 ug/kg, respectively. Arsenic concentrations exceeded
14
500022
-------
the screening value in all samples and two dieldrin sample concentrations exceeded the
screening value. Lead concentrations in all samples exceeded the screening value with
concentrations ranging from 586 to 1520 mg/kg. Other detections above screening values
included copper (one of six samples), iron (six of six samples), and thallium (six of six
samples). No other compounds were detected in the trash mounds above the screening
values.
For this Site, there are two properties with elevated indoor dust concentrations of lead,
located at 5570 Alturas (824 mg/kg lead in dust) and 5376 Santa Maria (624 mg/kg lead in
dust). The average concentration was 122 mg/kg.
Thirty homes were tested for lead in both a "first draw" tap water sample and a 15-minute
purged tap water sample. The maximum detection (five of 30 samples were non-detect) in
a first draw sample was 8.6 ug/L and the average concentration was 1.74 ug/L (using half
the detection limit for non-detect samples). The maximum detection (five of 30 samples
were non-detect) in a purged sample was 1.8 ug/L and the average was 0.93 ug/L (using
half the detection limits for non-detect samples). The significantly lower concentrations
measured in purged samples may indicate that lead may be present as a result of plumbing
systems. All measured values are below EPA's Action Level of 15 ug/L.
During EPA's OU1 investigation, two rounds of soil samples were collected from seven
locations in the drainage ditch that runs through the Site parallel to Calle Alturas. Three of
the ditch sample locations are located on-site and lead was detected above the Ontario
Sediment Quality Criteria in these samples at concentrations up to 1,180 mg/kg (Figure
iO).
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL FUTURE SITE AND RESOURCE
USES
Land use at the Site is mostly residential. The 55-acre residential area, currently known as
"Brisas del Rosario," contains 213 dwellings. The 17-acre Non-Residential Area is an
undeveloped, uninhabited area. The continued residential use of property can be
reasonably assumed for the 55-acre area. Since contaminated soil will be consolidated and
covered at 8.5 of the 17 undeveloped acres, institutional controls will be established to
restrict future use of this area.
Surface water (i.e., Rio Indio) and groundwater are not affected by lead-contaminated soils
at the impacted residential area at the Site. Residential households located within the Site
receive their drinking water from the municipal water supply and are not served by
individual groundwater wells. ,
The majority of the surrounding land is residential with an estimated population within a
14-mile radius of the Site of 2,280 people and an estimated population within one mile of
6,871 people.
15
500023
-------
A Stage IA Cultural Resource Survey was conducted at the Site as part of OU-1 RI. The
study indicated that there is a high probability that the Site area contained prehistoric
remains at some time, and there is a possibility that cultural remains may be present in deep
caves within the mogotes. However, areas of the Site other than the mogotes have been the
subject of major disturbance associated with landfilling and subsequent clearing and
construction activities over the past 50 to 60 years, and so intact cultural resources are not
reasonably expected to remain in these areas.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
(
As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted a baseline risk assessment to estimate the current and
future effects of contaminants on human health and the environment. A baseline risk
assessment is an analysis of the potential adverse human health and ecological effects of
releases of hazardous substances from a site in the absence of any actions or controls to
mitigate such releases, under current and future land uses. The baseline risk assessment
includes a human health risk assessment and an ecological risk assessment. It provides the
basis for taking action and identifies the contaminants and exposure pathways that need to
be addressed by the remedial action. This section of the ROD summarizes the results of the
baseline risk assessment for the Site.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step process is utilized for assessing site-related human health risks for a reasonable
maximum exposure scenario: Hazard Identification - uses the analytical data collected to
identify the contaminants of potential concern at a site for each medium, with consideration
of a number of factors explained below; Exposure Assessment - estimates the magnitude of
actual and/or potential human exposures, the frequency and duration of these exposures,
and the pathways (e.g., incidental ingestion of soil) by which humans are potentially
exposed; Toxicity Assessment - determines the types of adverse health effects associated
with chemical exposures, and the relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response); and Risk Characterization - summarizes and
combines outputs of the exposure and toxicity assessments to provide a quantitative
assessment of site-related risks. The risk characterization also identifies contamination
with concentrations which exceed acceptable levels, defined by the National Contingency
Plan (NCP) as an excess lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 x 10"6 - 1 x 104, an excess of
lifetime cancer risk greater than 1 x 10"6 (i.e., point of departure) combined with site-
specific circumstances, or a Hazard Index greater than 1.0; contaminants at these
concentrations are considered chemicals of concern (COCs) and are typically those that ,
will require remediation at a site. Exposure to contaminated soil at residential properties,
trash mounds, the drainage ditch, and the Non-Residential Area were evaluated (Table 1)
for cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. There were no chemicals that were considered to
be COCs based on this process. The details associated with this determination can be
found in the Human Health Risk Assessment.
Lead was detected on the Vega Baja Site at elevated concentrations (Table 2). Lead is
evaluated using a different approach that was described above. The potential for exposure
16
500024
-------
to lead was evaluated using the IEUBK model as part of the human health risk assessment,
and lead was identified as a COC. The evaluation of lead exposure, as well as a discussion
of the uncertainties associated with the lead evaluation, is provided below.
The Human Health Risk Assessment was developed for the Site using site-specific
information collected during the Vega Baja RI, where available. Lead was identified in the
risk assessment as the primary contaminant of concern. The risk assessment for lead
focused on young children under the age of seven (0 to 84 months) who are Site residents.
Young children are most susceptible to lead exposure because they have higher contact
rates with soil or dust, absorb lead more readily than adults, and are more sensitive to the
adverse effects of lead than are older children and adults. The effect of greatest concern in
children is impairment of the nervous system, including learning deficits, lowered
intelligence, and adverse effects on behavior.
The IEUBK model for lead in children was used to evaluate the risks posed to young
children (0 to .84 months) as a result of the lead contamination at the Site. Because lead
does not have a nationally-approved reference dose (RfD), cancer slope factor, or other
accepted toxicological factor which can be used to assess risk, standard risk assessment
methods cannot be used to evaluate the health risks associated with lead contamination. .
The IEUBK model uses either site-specific inputs (if available) or default inputs to estimate
the probability that a child's blood-lead level might exceed a health-based standard of 10
micrograms per deciliter (jxg/dl), as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. EPA's health protection goal is that there should be no more than a 5 percent
chance of exceeding a blood lead level of 10 jxg/dl in a given child or group of similarly-
exposed children. If only default values are used as inputs to the IEUBK model, the model
predicts that a child would have less than a 5 percent probability of having a blood lead
level at or above 10 |ig/dl value if the soil in that child's environment does not exceed 400
ppm.
The IEUBK model was run using site-specific data (i.e., soil, indoor dust, and tap water) to
evaluate the potential for blood lead impacts at individual areas, such as specific properties,
trash mounds, the drainage ditch, and the Non-Residential Area. By using a range of soil-
to-dust lead correlation coefficients (based on a regression of site-specific soil lead and
indoor dust lead measurements collected during the RI), as well as site-specific tap water
values, EPA's IEUBK model predicts that occupants at 13 properties have the potential to
exceed the blood lead level of 10 |ig/dl. In addition to the residential properties, the model
predicted that exposure to the trash mounds, the drainage ditch, and Non-Residential Area
would also have the potential to result in exceeding the blood lead level of 10 jxg/dl. The
model was also used to predict a lead soil level that would be protective of children and
other residents. The model predicted that a young child residing at the Site will have more
than a 5 percent chance of having a blood lead concentration of 10 (xg/dl or greater if the
soil lead concentrations are above a range of 566 ppm to 613 ppm.
Final cleanup levels for lead in residential soil at Superfund sites generally are based on the
IEUBK model results and evaluation of the nine criteria analysis in accordance with the
NCP. EPA typically selects a residential soil cleanup level for lead around 400 ppm. As
17
500025
-------
described above, the IEUBK modeling results for the Site suggest a soil lead concentration
of about 550 ppm to achieve the Remedial Action Objective that a child has less than a 5
percent probability of having a blood lead level exceeding 10 |ig/dl. The IEUBK model
input parameter that significantly influenced this suggested cleanup level is the ratio of soil
lead concentrations to indoor dust lead concentrations. However, because of uncertainties
in some parameters used in the IEUBK modeling effort, as described in the HHRA, as well
as EPA's mission to protect area residents, a lead cleanup level of 450 ppm has been
established for residential soils at the Site. This cleanup level is near the 400 ppm
concentration generally considered protective for residential cleanups. Removal of soils at
or above 450 ppm is anticipated to meet the Remedial Action Objective of maintaining
blood lead concentrations below 10 |ig/dl and result in a protective remedy for the
community. The response action selected in this ROD is necessary to protect public health
or welfare or the environment from actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
into the environment.
Uncertainties
The procedures and inputs used to assess risks in this evaluation, as in all such assessments,
are subject to a wide variety of uncertainties. In general, the main sources of uncertainty
include:
• environmental chemistry sampling and analysis
environmental parameter measurement
fate and transport modeling
exposure parameter estimation
• toxicological data.
Although the use of site-specific data is recommended for the IEUBK model, there is
some uncertainty involving the methods used to derive the site-specific dust
correlations. According to EPA's 2008 "Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of
Lead in Indoor Residential Dust for Use in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
Model," the current recommended method for dust sample collection is to use high-
volume cyclonic vacuum samplers because they generally have greater precision and
collection efficiency than the low-flow method that was favored at the time of the RI.
However, EPA's research also indicated that although the precision and overall
collection efficiency of the high-volume methods is greater, 'The two low-flow
vacuums had lead concentrations 10% higher than the actual concentrations." The
reason for this is likely because low-flow samplers, such as the one used at the Site, are
"specifically designed to collect only dust that would most likely stick to a child's
hands, not total lead on a surface" (EPA 1995) and these smaller particles may be
where the highest lead concentrations are present. This suggests that the low-flow
method used for the Site was a conservative method for estimating the actual exposure
to lead in indoor dust. In addition, the preliminary remedial goal range calculated using
jL
site-specific data includes using both the mean and the 95 percentile soil-to-dust
correlation, which is a conservative approach (typically, IEUBK modeling is performed
using average concentrations). Although the methods used for the Site are
conservative, there is still some uncertainty regarding the precision and collection
18
500026
-------
efficiency of the dust samplers. More specific information concerning public health
risks, including a quantitative evaluation of the degree of risk associated with various
exposure pathways, is presented in the baseline human health risk assessment report.
Ecological Risk Assessment
A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was conducted to evaluate
potential risks to ecological receptors at the Site. The SLERA followed a two-step
approach consisting of a problem formulation and ecological effects evaluation step and an
exposure estimate and risk calculation step. The risk calculation consisted of calculating
hazard quotients (HQs) for each compound by comparing the detected concentrations in the
soil samples or by comparing modeled dietary intake of contaminants with appropriate
toxicity reference values (TRVs) for representative ecological receptors. Food web risk
was evaluated for Antillean fruit bat, Red-legged thrush, Northern bobwhite, and Red-
tailed hawk. The HQ approach for estimating risk is based on the ratio of a selected
exposure concentration to a selected ecological screening level (ESL) or effects
concentration.
A HQ greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists for adverse ecological effects to
occur as a result of Site-related exposures. Based on the first two steps, the SLERA
identified 11 contaminants that could be related to adverse ecological effects in plants,
invertebrates, mammals, or birds that inhabit the Site property. These contaminants include
aluminum, antimony, arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, thallium, vanadium, zinc,
and 4.4'-DDE Each of these compounds was associated with a HQ greater than 1.0.
The next step that was followed was to refine the selection of contaminants of potential
concern at the Site, which is documented in the addendum to the SLERA referenced above.
There were two basic modifications utilized:
• > Refinement of exposure point concentrations (i.e., concentration in media) through
the use 95% upper-confidence limits instead of maximum detected concentrations,
and
• Consideration of background concentrations of metals detected in the soil and
background samples.
Based on the results of the SLERA, there is a risk to populations of avian species
represented by the Red-legged thrush and the Northern bobwhite from exposure to lead.
Thus, protection of avian receptor populations from exposure to lead is identified as a
remedial action objective.
19
500027
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are specific goals identified to protect human health
and the environment. These objectives are based on available information and standards,
such as ARARs, to-be-considered guidance, and site-specific risk-based levels.
Consistent with agency policy established in the EPA Residential Sites Handbook, a single
Remedial Action Objective has been established for Operable Unit 2 at the Site. The RAO
is to reduce the risk of exposure of young children to lead such that an individual child, or
group of similarly exposed children, have no greater than a 5 percent chance of having a
blood-lead concentration exceeding 10 ng/dl. To achieve this RAO, a soil cleanup goal of
450 ppm will be utilized during this remedial action.
The following RAOs have been identified for lead contaminated soils at the Site:
• RAO-1: Prevent or minimize human exposure in the Residential Area (including
the drainage ditch) to soil lead concentrations greater than the cleanup goal.
• RAO-2: Eliminate potential exposure to the remaining trash mounds in the
residential area.
• RA.O-3: Mitigate human exposure to lead in the Non-Residential Area above the
cleanup goal.
• RAO-4: Protect populations of avian receptors from unacceptable exposure to lead
by using a cleanup value of450 mg/kg, which has been determined to be protective
of ecological receptors, including avian populations, at the Site.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Potential remedial technologies and process options were identified and screened using
effectiveness, implementability, and cost as the criteria, with the most emphasis on the
effectiveness of the remedial technology. Those technologies that passed this initial
screening were then assembled into four remedial alternatives for the soil contamination.
The time frames presented below for construction do not include the time for pre-design
investigations, remedial design, or contract procurements. Five-Year Reviews will be
performed after the initiation of the remedial action, to ensure the integrity and
effectiveness of the remedy.
Remedial Alternatives Common Elements
Each alternative, other than No Further Action, includes certain common elements that are
discussed below.
Institutional Controls
All of the remedial alternatives, with the exception of the No Further Action Alternative
(Alternative 1), would include institutional controls such as deed and land use restrictions
to minimize the public's potential exposure to contaminated soils. However, consistent
20
500028
-------
with expectations set out in Superfund regulations, none of the alternatives rely exclusively
on institutional controls to achieve protectiveness.
Institutional controls are a common element to each of the alternatives to address certain
uncharacterized areas beneath buildings and pavements. In addition, institutional controls
would be used to prevent the disturbance of soil covers (as well as/in conjunction with
appropriate engineering controls).
Institutional controls will apply as follows;
(a) to protect the integrity of the cover system in the Non-Residential Area where a
cover is used to contain contaminated materials;
(b) restricting contact with soils beneath structures on properties where soil removal
is undertaken;
(c) restricting contact with soils under paved areas and/or buildings immediately
adjoining an area where soil removal is undertaken;
(d) restricting contact with soils in areas where final post-excavation sampling
indicates lead concentrations remain above the cleanup goal and field conditions
would prevent removal of the contaminated media; and
(e) restricting contact with soils under roadways adjacent to properties where soil
removal is undertaken, i.e. utilizing the existing "Call Before You Dig" program.
The specific mechanisms for establishing institutional controls will be addressed as part of
the remedial design phase.
Pre-Design Investigation (PDI)
Additional investigation will be required prior to remedial design. The following activities
will be included in a Pre-Design Investigation:
• Detailed surveying of property features and topography.
• Seek to obtain access for soil sampling at two properties where access could not
be obtained during the OU-2 RI.
• Additional soil sampling at a minimum of eight properties where additional lead
concentration data are needed to support design.
• Additional drainage ditch soil sampling for lead for comparison to the cleanup
goal. Where bedrock is exposed at the base of the drainage ditch, no samples
need be collected.
• Delineation and surveying of the horizontal extent and top elevations of existing
Trash Mounds based on visual observations and the basemap survey.
Construction/Performance Monitoring
Each remedial alternative described below (except the No Further Action alternative) will
include certain construction and/or performance monitoring activities to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy. For example, during remedial actions that involve removal
(excavation) of soil, post-excavation sampling may be necessary to determine whether the
excavation meets the remedial goals. Post-excavation sampling will be performed when
21
500029
-------
soil remains in place after excavation (i.e., sampling will not be performed if the excavation
is advanced to bedrock). In addition, air monitoring will likely be required during
construction to ensure protection of workers and nearby residents. Performance monitoring
including cover inspections and maintenance will be required to confirm long-term
effectiveness.
Indoor Dust Monitoring and Management Program
The management of risks related to lead in indoor dust will be the same for all remedial
alternatives (other than No Further Action) and will consist of the following: .
• Engineering controls during remedial activities such that migration of lead in
fugitive dust into homes is minimized.
• Post-remediation confirmation sampling three months after completion of the
selected remedy at the two properties where elevated levels of indoor dust lead were
measured in the OU-2 RI.
• If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor dust lead concentrations are at or
below acceptable concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-remedial
surface soil concentrations), then no further action is necessary.
• If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor dust lead concentrations are above
acceptable concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-remedial surface
soil concentrations), indoor dust removal will be performed, unless a non-site-
related source of lead is identified as the cause.
Off-Site Disposal Option
Some materials (e.g., large/bulky debris, putrescent materials, etc.) in the trash mounds or
Non-Residential Area may prove to be unsuitable for on-Site treatment or consolidation, so
each alternative includes the possibility of disposal of some portion of the contaminated
materials off-site. It is anticipated that the trash mounds primarily contain large boulders,
soil, and small inert debris items (e.g., broken glass, small pieces of metal, etc.). These
materials can be consolidated and covered in the Non-Residential Area. Materials that are
unsuitable for consolidation will be disposed of or recycled at an off-site facility. While
not anticipated based on data collected at the Site, if soils are excavated which violate the
land disposal restrictions, they would be treated prior to consolidation or disposed of off-
site at a proper facility. Any materials to be sent off-site for disposal will be screened for
possible off-site recycling where appropriate; such materials to be recycled would be
decontaminated prior to recycling, as necessary. Materials sent off-site for disposal will be
classified, based on hazardous characteristics, prior to disposal. The approach for
implementing this option will be further detailed in the remedial design.
Surface Water Management and Erosion Control,
The remediation of the Site will result in surface earthwork construction since the active
alternatives involve soil disturbance. A surface water management plan will be developed
during remedial design to provide for the effective control of surface water runoff and to
minimize soil erosion from covered areas. The surface water management and erosion
control system will consist of the following compo.nents:
22
; 500030
-------
• A grading plan that maintains existing grades where feasible and integrates final
surface topography in the remediated areas with the surrounding areas.
• The use of slopes, berms, channels, and surface armoring using natural vegetation
and/or synthetic materials (e.g., silt fence) to convey surface water runoff in the
Non-Residential Area and to provide erosion protection.
Because the existing drainage ditch parallel to Alturas Street currently provides the primary
drainage pathway for surface water runoff at the Site, the surface water management plan is
likely to tie into the ditch; however, the specifics of the surface water management system
will be developed during detailed design and will comply with Puerto Rico soil erosion and
sedimentation control requirements.
Access Agreements ¦
Access agreements will be sought from private property owners where remedial activities
are planned. Access agreements may also be sought on properties located adjacent to areas
where remedial activities will be conducted. For example, access may be needed to
properties adjacent to trash mounds in the event that the disposal area is found to extend
onto those properties during removal.
Access to the drainage ditch will also be needed for the PDI sampling and possibly for the
implementation of the remedial action. Because the drainage ditch is associated with the
roadway right-of-way, formal access agreements may not be needed from the residences
that border the ditch. However, notification will be given to owners of properties along the
ditch in advance of sampling and remediation activities.
EPA Region 2 Clean and Green Policy
Consistent with EPA Region 2's "Clean and Green" Policy, the utilization of applicable
green remediation practices will be considered and, to the extent practical, will be
incorporated into the detailed design of the remedial alternatives (except the No Further
Action alternative). Some examples of operational practices that would be applicable are
those that reduce emissions of air pollutants, minimize fresh water consumption,
incorporate native vegetation into revegetation plans, and consider beneficial reuse and/or
recycling of materials, among others.
Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 1 — No Further Action
The No Further Action Alternative was retained, as required by the NCP, and provides a
baseline for comparison with other alternatives. No remedial actions would be
implemented as part of the No Further Action Alternative. Although no direct action
would be taken, there may be natural processes (e.g., erosion/dispersion, sequestration,
etc.) that would reduce the bioavailable concentrations of contaminants over time. At this
Site, the natural processes that would reduce bioavailable concentrations are not expected
to achieve acceptable levels within a reasonable timeframe (i.e., >30 years).
23
500031
-------
Total Capital Cost $0
Operation and Maintenance $0
Total Present Net Worth $0
Estimated Construction Time frame 0 years
Alternative No. 2 - Removal with On-Site Consolidation and Cover in the Non-Residential
Area
This alternative involves the excavation and removal of contaminated soils from
approximately 16 residential yards in the residential area, the drainage ditch, and the three
trash mounds, and consolidating and covering these contaminated soils in the Non-
Residential Area with a cover system, including clean top soil. Excavated/removed
materials would be consolidated in the Non-Residential Area prior to installation of the
cover system in that area. The final design of the cover system in the Non-Residential Area
will be determined during detailed design, but it is anticipated that it will include a non-
woven geotextile overlain by 12 inches of clean soil. The soil cover will be vegetated to
prevent erosion that would cause exposure to underlying materials. All residential yards
where excavation occurs would be backfilled and re-vegetated to restore pre-excavation
conditions.
Total Capital Cost $4,350,000 ;
Operation and Maintenance $20,000/yr
Total Present Net Worth $4,68Q,000
Estimated Construction Time frame < 1 year
Alternative No. 3 — Removal with Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 3 involves excavation and removal of contaminated soil from the Residential
Area, the drainage ditch, the three trash mounds, and the Non-Residential Area and.
disposing of the removed materials off-site in an appropriate manner (presumably in a non-
hazardous waste landfill). All excavated areas would be backfilled and revegetated to
existing grade with the exception of the trash mounds and any elevated mounds within the
Non-Residential Area, which will be restored to the grade of surrounding areas.
Total Capital Cost $23,440,000
Operation and Maintenance $0
Total Present Net Worth $24,780,000
Estimated Construction Time frame < 1 year
Alternative No. 4 - Removal with On-Site Ex-Situ Stabilization and Cover in the Non-
Residential Area
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it includes excavating contaminated soils
from approximately the Residential Area (followed by backfilling with clean soil), the trash
mounds, and the drainage ditch and relocating these in the Non-Residential Area.
However, unlike Alternative 2, Alternative 4 includes treatment of the excavated soils
using ex-situ Solidification/ Stabilization (S/S). Soils would be consolidated in the Non-
Residential Area, treatment additives would be mixed into the consolidated materials, and
then the mixture would be left to react. Following treatment, the stabilized materials would
24
500032
-------
resemble a weak concrete. Stabilized materials from the Residential Area, trash mounds,
and the drainage ditch will be combined with stabilized Non-Residential Area materials
and placed in the Non-Residential Area and covered using the same type of cover system
described for Alternative 2. Prior to implementation of this alternative, both bench-scale
(laboratory) studies and an on-Site pilot study would be required to confirm the
effectiveness of the treatment and to determine appropriate amendments for effective ex-
situ solidification and gather data to support the detailed design.
$25,420,000
$20,000/yr
$25,860,000
<1 year
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
In selecting a remedy, EPA considered the factors set out in Section 121 of CERCLA, 42
U.S.C. §9621 j by conducting a detailed analysis of the viable remedial alternatives
pursuant to the NCP, 40 C.F.R. § 300.430 (e) (9), and OSWER Directive 9355.3-01
(Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA: Interim Final, October 1988). The detailed analysis consisted 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 are the most important and must be satisfied by any
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 or relevant and appropriate requirements of other federal and state
environmental statutes and regulations or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Other federal or state advisories, criteria, or guidance are standards to be
considered. Such "to be considered" standards are not required to be adhered to
under the NCP, but the NCP recognizes that they may be very useful in determining
what is protective for a site or how to carry out certain actions or requirements.
The following "primary balancing" criteria are used to make comparisons and to identify
the major tradeoffs 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
Total Capital Cost
Operation and Maintenance
Total Present Net Worth
Estimated Construction Time frame
25
-------
the measures that may be required to manage the risk posed by treatment residuals
and/or untreated wastes.
4. Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment is the anticipated
performance of the treatment technologies with respect to these parameters that a
remedy may employ.
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 period.
6. Implementability is the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy,
including the availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular
option. ,
7. Cost includes estimated capital, O&M, and present worth costs.
The following "modifying" criteria are used in the final evaluation of the remedial
alternatives after the formal comment period, and may prompt modification of the preferred
remedy that was presented in the Proposed Plan:
8. State acceptance indicates whether, based on its review of the RI/FS report,
Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, and Proposed Plan, the State
concurs with, opposes, or has no comments on the selected remedy.
9. Community acceptance refers to the public's general response to the alternatives
described in the RI/FS report, Human Health and Ecological Risk. Assessment, and
Proposed Plan.
A comparative analysis of the four remedial alternatives based upon the evaluation criteria
noted above, follows.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Lead-contaminated soil is prevalent at the Site. Alternative 1 does not provide for
protection of human health and the environment since there are current and future risks that
would not be addressed by that alternative. Since Alternative 1 does not achieve this
threshold criterion, it will not be discussed further in the Comparative Evaluation.
The other three alternatives achieve protection of human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling direct contact risks posed by current or potential
pathways at the Site. Alternatives 2 and 3 provide for elimination of direct contact by
removing exposure to contaminated soil and trash mounds. In Alternative 2, removed
materials would be consolidated and a soil cover would be constructed in the Non-
Residential Area to eliminate direct contact, and the soil cover will require inspection and
maintenance activities to assure ongoing and overall protection. For Alternative 3,
removed materials would be disposed at an off-site facility, and overall protection would be
the responsibility of the operator at the off-site disposal location. Alternative 4 also
eliminates the exposure to contaminated Site materials by removing and/or covering them,
much like in Alternative 2, but this alternative also includes stabilizing the impacted
materials prior to capping.
26
500034
-------
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Section 121(d) of CERCLA and the NCP at §300.430(f)(l)(ii)(B) require that remedial
actions at CERCLA sites attain legally applicable or relevant and appropriate federal and
state requirements, standards, criteria, and limitations unless such ARARs are waived
under CERCLA §121 (d)(4). An evaluation of ARARs for each alternative is presented in
the feasibility study and in the Compliance of ARARs section of this ROD.
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 meet all identified federal and state ARARs. While there are no
chemical-specific ARARs for contaminated soil, a cleanup goal for lead of450 mg/kg was
established for the Site. Alternative 1 would not achieve the cleanup goal since no action
would be taken. ARARs for the Site are presented further in this document.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Since lead cannot be destroyed, the remedial alternatives are designed to mitigate risk by
minimizing potential exposure. Alternative 3 eliminates risk by permanently removing
accessible contaminants from the Site, and employs institutional and engineering controls
for materials not currently exposed. Alternative 4 eliminates risk by consolidating,
treating, and, then containing accessible contaminants, and it employs institutional and
engineering controls for materials not currently exposed and the containment area.
Alternative 2 eliminates risk solely by consolidating, capping, and containing accessible
contaminants at the Site, and employs institutional and engineering controls for materials
not currently exposed and for the containment area. For all alternatives, the institutional
and engineering controls to be employed for the currently inaccessible areas are expected to
be reliable in the long term, and five-year reviews will be performed. Alternative 3
achieves the highest level of long-term effectiveness and permanence since long-term
operations and maintenance would not be required at the Site to mitigate risk for currently
accessible soils. Although the inherent hazard of the lead remains under the cap for
Alternatives 2 and 4, the cap is expected to eliminate the exposure pathway, effectively
eliminating the associated risk. Since the potential for cap failure, however small, would
exist, the long-term effectiveness of Alternatives 2 and 4 would not be as reliable as
Alternative 3. Further, in the event of cap failure, Alternative 4 would pose less risk than
Alternative 2 until the cap was replaced/repaired, as the contaminants would be less
mobile.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Only Alternative 4 provides treatment of lead-contaminated soils and, therefore, was
ranked highest. S/S treatment of lead-contaminated materials will reduce the toxicity (by
reducing bioavailability) and mobility of lead.
Short-Term Effectiveness
The two primary components considered in the evaluation of short-term effectiveness are:
the remedial time frame (shorter time frame is considered higher short-term effectiveness)
27
500035
-------
and short-term adverse impacts (greater short-term impacts suggest lower short-term
effectiveness). Alternatives 2 and 4 are expected to achieve the remedial goals within a
similar remedial time frame (likely to be about one construction season, or less than one
year); however, Alternative 2 is expected to have the shortest timeframe to achieve
remedial goals because no materials will be treated prior to consolidation. Alternative 3
will have the longest timeframe and may extend into a second construction season.
Short-term adverse impacts associated with the retained Alternatives are caused primarily
by operation of construction equipment during excavation, transportation, treatment, and
other construction activities. Transportation of materials causes risk of exposure to Site
materials (from inadvertent fugitive dust emissions during transport), emissions (such as
particulates) from vehicular traffic, and general nuisance in neighboring communities.
Alternative 2 will have the lowest level of short-term adverse impacts because it involves
less transportation of contaminated materials compared to Alternative 3 and does not
involve the addition of additives and mixing that are required by Alternative 4. Although
Alternative 2 involves consolidating soil excavated from the Residential Area, trash
mounds, and drainage ditch in the Non-Residential Area prior to construction of the soil
cover, short-term impacts are not expected to be significant because it is a relatively short
process, and access to the area can be easily controlled to minimize exposure. Alternative
3 is expected to have the most significant short-term impacts since numerous truck loads of
contaminated soil will need to be transported through the neighboring community.
Implementability
In general, all three alternatives are implementable since the technologies and skills are
readily available. Alternative 2 is considered the easiest to implement since it does not
require additional pilot testing and is not anticipated to involve off-site transport of
materials. Off-site disposal would be required for any hazardous materials determined to
be inappropriate for consolidation at the Site, thus requiring disposal at a disposal facility
that could accept such materials (there are apparently none which could accept such waste
materials without pre-treatment to remove the hazardous characteristic). Treatment of such
materials may render them appropriate for consolidation at the Site.
Cost
Alternative 2 is expected to have the lowest implementation cost since it does not involve
off-site disposal or stabilization/solidification treatment. Alternative 3 will have a higher
cost than Alternative 2 because of the need for off-site transportation and disposal.
Alternative 4 is expected to have the highest cost because of the need for
stabilization/solidification treatment of all excavated materials, including the impacted soil
in the Non-Residential Area. Alternatives 2 and 4 include similar long-term O&M costs,
but Alternative 3 does not require a long-term O&M component.
28
500036
-------
Activity
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Common Elements
$0
$260,000
$260,000
$460,000
Residential Area Soil
$0
$890,000
$1,340,000
$890,000
Drainage Ditch
$0
$40,000
$100,000
$40,000
Trash Mounds
$0
$810,000
$2,210,000
$800,000
Non-Residential Soil
$0
$1,180,000
$12,610,000
$15,110,000
Subtotal:
$0
$3,180,000
$16,520,000
$17,300,000
Engineering Design/CQA
(25%)
$0
$720,000
$4,130,000
$4,250,000
Contingency (20%)
$0
$780,000
$4,130,000
$4,310,000
Total Net Present Worth Cost
$0
$4,680,000
$24,780,000
$25,860,000
Notes:
Values are rounded to the nearest $10,000
These estimates are based on conceptual plans and will be subject to change based upon actual detailed
engineering design and competitive bidding of construction services.
State/Support Agency'Acceptance
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agrees with the proposed remedy for the Site. A
letter of concurrence is attached (Appendix IV).
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the proposed remedy was assessed during the public comment
period. EPA believes that the community generally supports this approach. Specific
responses to public comments are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary (Appendix
v).
PRINCIPAL THREAT WASTES
Principal threat wastes are those source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly
mobile that generally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a significant risk to
human health or the environment should exposure occur. Lead-contaminated soils are
considered to be source material at the Site. Lead has been detected at concentrations
which exceed acceptable risk based levels by over one order of magnitude at very few
locations, and no average lead concentrations exceed 4,000 ppm in surface soils at any
property. Therefore, no principal threat is considered to exist at the Site. Further, lead is
not considered highly mobile.
SUMMARY OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
Alternative 2, Removal with On-Site Consolidation and Cover in the Non-Residential Area,
is the selected remedial alternative for soil contamination at this Site (Figure 11).
This alternative provides for the excavation and removal of lead-contaminated soils in
approximately 16 residential properties, the trash mound materials, and the drainage ditch
29
500037
-------
where lead concentrations are above the Site cleanup goal of450 mg/kg. Excavated
materials will be transported to the Non-Residential Area and consolidated. All residential
yards where excavation is conducted will be backfilled and re-vegetated to restore pre-
excavation conditions. These excavated materials will be consolidated in the
approximately 8.5 acres of the Non-Residential Area, where soil lead concentrations are
above the Site cleanup goal and/or trash mound materials are present. This area will then
be covered with a membrane and soil cover system. Confirmation sampling will be
conducted after removal of materials to confirm that the cleanup goal has been achieved at
the target depth. Air monitoring will be required during construction to ensure the
protection of workers and nearby residents.
Based on available data, it is not expected that the lead-contaminated soils to be removed
would be classified as a characteristic hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. However, as those soils are excavated, if sampling indicates that some
are hazardous waste, they will be treated prior to disposal in the Non-Residential Area or
transported off-site to an appropriate landfill disposal authorized to accept such wastes.
The final design of the cover system in the Non-Residential Area will be determined during
remedial design, but it is anticipated that it will include a non-woven geotextile overlain by
12 inches of clean soil consistent with the Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites
Handbook. The soil cover will be vegetated to prevent erosion that would result in
exposure to underlying materials. Although the future use of the Non-Residential Area has
not yet been determined, institutional controls will be established to preclude residential
use of the soil cover area to ensure the coyer will remain protective. A routine inspection
and maintenance program will specifically provide for identification of adverse impacts
from severe weather events. The monitoring program will be designed to include both
scheduled, routine inspections (e.g., annually), as well as periodic event-driven inspections
during the initial establishment of a vegetative cover (e.g., inspections immediately
following extreme rainfall events within the first yeiar after cover installation).
Performance monitoring will be performed to confirm long-term effectiveness.
• Institutional Controls
(a) to protect the integrity of the cover system in the Non-Residential Area where a
cover is used to contain contaminated materials;
(b) restricting contact with soils beneath structures on properties where soil removal
is undertaken;
(c) restricting contact with soils under paved areas and/or buildings immediately
adjoining an area where soil removal is undertaken;
(d) restricting contact with soils in areas where final post-excavation sampling
indicates lead concentrations remain above the cleanup goal and field conditions
would prevent removal of the contaminated media; and
(e) restricting contact with soils under roadways adjacent to properties where soil
removal is undertaken, i.e. utilizing the existing "Call Before You Dig" program.
30
500038
-------
The specific mechanisms for establishing institutional controls will be addressed as part of
the remedial design phase.
Pre-Design Investigation
Additional investigation will be required prior to remedial design. The following activities
will be included in a PDI:
• Detailed surveying of property features and topography.
• Soil sampling at two properties where access could not be obtained during the OU-2
RI.
• Additional soil sampling at a minimum of eight properties where additional lead
concentration data are needed to support design.
• Additional drainage ditch soil sampling for lead for comparison to the cleanup goal.
Where bedrock is exposed at the base of the drainage ditch, no samples need be
collected.
• Delineation and surveying of the horizontal extent and top elevations of existing
trash mounds based on visual observations and the basemap survey.
Construction/Performance Monitoring
Construction and/or performance monitoring activities will be established to ensure the
effectiveness of the remedy. For example, during remedial activities that involve removal
(excavation) of soil, post-excavation sampling may be necessary to determine whether the
excavation meets the remedial goals. Post-excavation sampling will be performed when
soil remains in place after excavation (i.e., sampling will not be performed if the excavation
is advanced to bedrock). In addition, air monitoring will likely be required during
construction to ensure protection of workers and nearby residents. Performance monitoring
including cover inspections and maintenance will be required to confirm long-term
effectiveness.
Indoor Dust Monitoring and Management Program
The management of risks related to lead in indoor dust will consist of the following:
• Engineering controls during remedial activities such that migration of lead in
fugitive dust into homes is minimized.
• Post-remediation confirmation sampling three months after completion of the
selected remedy at the two properties where elevated levels of indoor dust lead were
measured in the OU-2 RI.
• If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor dust lead concentrations are at or
below acceptable concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-remedial
surface soil concentrations), then no further action is necessary.
• If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor dust lead concentrations are above
acceptable concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-remedial surface
soil concentrations), indoor dust removal will be performed, unless a non-site-
related source of lead is identified as the cause.
31
500039
-------
Off-Site Disposal, if Necessary
Some materials (e.g., large/bulky debris, putrescent materials, soils exceeding land disposal
restriction levels, etc.) in the trash mounds or Non-Residential Area may prove to be
unsuitable for on-Site consolidation, so the remedy may require the disposal of some
portion of the contaminated materials off-site. It is anticipated that the trash mounds"
primarily contain large boulders, soil, and small inert debris items (e.g., broken glass, small
pieces of metal, etc.). These materials can be consolidated and covered in the Non-
Residential Area. Materials that are unsuitable for consolidation will be disposed of or
recycled at an off-site facility. While not anticipated based on data collected at the Site, if
soils are excavated which violate the land disposal restrictions, they would be treated prior
to consolidation or disposed of off-site at a proper facility. Any materials to be sent off-site
for disposal will be screened for possible off-site recycling where appropriate; such
materials to be recycled would be decontaminated prior to recycling, as necessary.
Materials sent off-site for disposal will be classified, based on hazardous characteristics,
prior to disposal. The approach for implementing this option will be further detailed in the
remedial design.
Surface Water Management and Erosion Control
The remediation of the Site will result in surface earthwork construction since the selected
alternative involves soil disturbance. A surface water management plan will be developed
during remedial design to provide for the effective control of surface water runoff and to
minimize soil erosion from covered areas. The surface water management and erosion
control system will consist of the following components:
• A grading plan that maintains existing grades where feasible and integrates final
surface topography in the remediated areas with the surrounding areas.
• The use of slopes, berms, channels, and surface armoring using natural vegetation
and/or synthetic materials (e.g., silt fence) to convey surface water runoff in the
Non-Residential Area and to provide erosion protection.
Because the existing drainage ditch parallel to Alturas Street currently provides the primary
drainage pathway for surface water runoff at the Site, the surface water management plan is
likely to tie into the ditch; however, the specifics of the surface water management system
will be developed during detailed design and will comply with Puerto Rico soil erosion and
sedimentation control requirements.
Access Agreements
Access agreements will be sought from private property owners where remedial activities
are planned so that the remedy can be implemented. Access agreements may also be sought
on properties located adjacent to areas where remedial activities will be conducted. For
example, access may be needed-to properties adjacent to trash mounds in the event that the
disposal area is found to extend onto those properties during removal.
Access to the drainage ditch will also be needed for the PDI sampling and possibly for the
implementation of the remedial action. Because the drainage ditch is associated with the
roadway right-of-way, formal access agreements may not be needed from the residences
32
500040
-------
that border the ditch. However, notification will be given to owners of properties along the
ditch in advance of sampling and remediation activities.
EPA Region 2 Clean and Green Policy
Consistent with EPA Region 2's "Clean and Green" Policy, the utilization of applicable
green remediation practices will be considered and, to the extent practical, will be
incorporated into the detailed design of the selected remedy. Some examples of
operational practices that would be applicable are those that reduce emissions of air
pollutants, minimize fresh water consumption, incorporate native vegetation into
revegetation plans, and consider beneficial reuse and/or recycling of materials, among
others.
As is EPA's policy, Five-Year Reviews will be conducted to ensure the integrity and
effectiveness of the selected remedy.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
Under Section 121 of CERCLA and theNCP, EPA's primary responsibility at Superfund
sites is to undertake remedial actions that are protective of human health and the
environment. Section 121 of CERCLA also establishes several other statutory
requirements and preferences. These specify that when complete, the selected remedial
action for this Site must comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate environmental
standards established under federal and state environmental laws unless a waiver from such
standards is justified. The selected remedy also must be cost-effective and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. Finally, the statute includes a preference
for remedies that employ treatment that permanently and significantly reduce the volume,
toxicity, or mobility of hazardous substances, as available. The following sections discuss
how the selected remedy meets these statutory requirements.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment because it will
eliminate human exposure to contaminated soil likely to be encountered based on
reasonably anticipated future land use. It also employs institutional controls and provides a
Site management plan to protect human health and the environment from contaminated
soils left in place.
Compliance with ARARs
The NCP (§§ 300.430 (f) (5) (ii) (B) and (C)) requires that the selected remedy attain
federal and state ARARs. There are currently no Federal or State-promulgated standards
for contaminant levels of lead in soils.
The selected remedy will achieve the lead cleanup goal of 450 mg/kg by removing soil
above this level in the affected residences in the residential area and consolidating the
excavated material in the Non-Residential Area under a cover system.
33
500041
-------
Although some soils exceeding the cleanup goal likely will be left in-place, the
contamination is not considered to be mobile and those soils are unlikely to be accessed
through reasonably anticipated future land use. A Site management plan will be employed
to ensure proper handling, treatment, and disposal, if necessary, of soils should excavations
be required under structures or paved areas in the residential area.
The selected remedy will comply with the following ARARs identified for the Site and will
be demonstrated through monitoring, as appropriate. ARARs in italics are applicable to
off-site disposal requirements, should it be necessary.
Federal Action-Specific ARARs
• Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA)
• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes 40 CFR 261
• Hazardous Material Transportation Regulations 49 CFR 107, 171-177
• National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQC) (40 CFR 50) .
• RCRA Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Land Ban
Requirements for Landfilling (40 CFR 261)
• Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) 40 CFR 268
• RCRA Manifesting, Transport and Recordkeeping Requirements (40 CFR 262)
• Off-Site Transport of Hazardous Waste (EPA OSWER Directive 9834.11)
• National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) (40 CFR
61)
• Occupational Safety and Health Standards for Hazardous Responses and General
Construction Activities (29 CFR 1904,1910, 1926)
• Federal Noise Control Act (42 USC 4901 et seq.)
• Proposed Requirements for Hybrid Closures (combined waste-in-place and clean
closures) (52 Federal Register 8711) .
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Advisories
• RCRA Excavation and Fugitive Dust Requirements (40 CFR 264.251 and 264.254)
• Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Section 1008,
Section 4001, etseq., 42 U.S.C. §6941, et seq., State or Regional Solid Waste Plans
and implementing federal and state regulations.
• Subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. Section 6901, et seq., 40 C.F.R. Part 260, et seq. and
implementing federal and state regulations for contaminated soils that exhibit the
characteristic of toxicity and are considered RCRA hazardous waste.
Puerto Rico Action-Specific ARARs
• Environmental Quality Board Regulation for the Control of Atmospheric Pollution
• PR 3418 Environmental Quality Board Regulation for the Control of Noise
Pollution
• PR 5754 1200-1299: Erosion and Sediment Control
• Environmental Quality Board Regulation for the Control of Hazardous Solid Waste,
dated September 1998
• Environmental Quality Board Regulation No. 5 717, Regulation for the Management
of Non-Hazardous Solid Waste, dated November 14, 1997
34
500042
-------
Federal Location-Specific ARARs
• Federal Clean Water Act Section 404
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC 661 -666c)
• Executive Orders on Floodplain Management and Wetlands Protection (CERCLA
Floodplain and Wetlands Assessments)
• National Historic Preservation Act
• Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531)
• RCRA Location Requirements for 100-year Floodplains (40 CFR 264.18(b))
Puerto Rico Location-Specific ARARs
• Act August 21, 1999, No. 292, Act for the Protection and Preservation of Puerto
Rico's Karst Region
Cost-Effectiveness
A cost-effective remedy is one whose costs are proportional to its overall effectiveness
(NCP §§300.430(f)(l)(i)(B)). Overall effectiveness is based on the evaluations of: long-
term effectiveness and permanence; reduction in toxicity, mobility, and volume through
treatment; and short-term effectiveness. Based on the comparison of overall effectiveness
to cost, the selected remedy meets the statutory requirement that Superfund remedies be
cost-effective (NCP §§ 300.430(f)(l)(ii)(D)). f
The selected remedy has undergone a detailed cost analysis. In that analysis, capital costs
and O&M costs have been estimated and used to develop present-worth costs. In the
present-worth cost analysis, annual costs were calculated for 30 years using a seven percent
discount rate (consistent with the FS and Proposed Plan). For a detailed breakdown of
costs associated with the selected remedy, see Tables 3 and 4.
Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the
Maximum Extent Practicable
The selected remedy represents the most appropriate solution at the Site because it provides
the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives with respect to the evaluation criteria.
The selected remedy utilizes a well-demonstrated approach to remediation of contaminated
soils that will provide a permanent remedy for contaminated soils. Removal of
contaminated soils in the residential area (including from the trash mounds and the
drainage ditch) and back filling with clean fill permanently removes Site contaminants
from the residential areas as a potential source of exposure.
EPA has concluded that the selected remedy is protective, compliant with ARARs, cost-
effective, and provides the best balance of trade-offs for utilizing permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies to the extent practicable for the Site.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment as a principal element is not
satisfied through the implementation of the selected remedy. However, the reduction of
35
500043
-------
exposure to lead-contaminated soil accomplishes the required end result of protection of
human health and the environment.
Five-Year Review Requirements
Because the selected remedy results in contaminants remaining on-site above levels that
would allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, a review of Site conditions will
be conducted no less often than every five years after completion of the construction of the
remedy. The Site reviews will include an evaluation of the remedy components to ensure
that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Proposed Plan for the Vega Baja Solid Waste Site was released for public comment on
July 29, 2010, and the public comment period ran from that date through August 29, 2010.
The Proposed Plan identified the selected remedy as the Preferred Alternative.
All written and verbal comments submitted during the public comment period were
reviewed by EPA. Upon review of these comments, EPA has determined that no
significant changes to the remedy, as it was originally identified in the Proposed Plan, were
necessary.
36
500044
-------
APPENDIX I- FIGURES
500045
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2: SITE LAYOUT
FIGURE 3: RI RESIDENTIAL LEAD SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4: RI RESIDENTIAL BLOCK SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 5: RI TRASH MOUND SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6: RI LEADS IN SOIL RESULTS 0 - 0.1 FT
FIGURE 7: RI LEAD IN SOIL RESULTS 0.1 - 1 FT
FIGURE 8: RI LEADS IN SOIL RESULTS >1FT
FIGURE 9: RI NON-RESIDENTIAL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FIGURE 10: SEDIEMENT EXCEEDANCES MAP
FIGURE 11: PRELIMINARY EXTENTS OF REMEDIATION AND PDI
500046
-------
,
8
JLI
mi
i
S
*
;
>
*
¦
CuFitULir Interval * 5 rm?U?r? Scote: 3 Ihcthw - 5,000
laei^:«^ Tram U5S5 iWa-ratf, PJ=3. 1;30|0QC Ouadrangfoi latt rnvr.ari
REFERENCE
¦ = GbHETAKEN -=?CM RI'FS OPERABLE UN'" 2 - SOILS
INVESTiSATiQN FINA. VJOHK =LAN ST CDM FEDERAL
PROGRAMS (2E02]
r AS SHOWN
SITE LOCATION MAP
2'26'2D1C
APJ
AM
03362D©aa01
CMCCI
15JWF j
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE SUPERFUND SfTE 1
:ir.jccr He. 033S2QB D
,fVW P3F
500047
-------
y/?
RESIDENTIAL^AREA1
.TRASH MOUNDS,
INON-RESfDENTlAl-1
LEGEND
DRAINAGE DiTCH
RESIDENTIAL AREA
PREVIOUS REMOVAL ACTION
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
HOUSE
NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA.
TRASH MOUND
REFERENCE
* PRIMARY GtS COVERAGES PROVIDED BYEPAASD MODIFIED
BY GOLDER TO REPRESENT SiTE OONEHTTONS A" "HE TIME OF
THE OL-2 F'ELD • INVESTIGATION (DECEMBER 2DD4;.
SITE LAYOUT
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE SUPERFUND SiTE
r'JaI AS SHOWK
2'26'20t0
3rSlC" APJ
AM
c"t':K APJ
500048
-------
LEGEND
4b
fWtWFV
fcaw-wrssxvrttt -Mtr *,
MCuM
CWWB *BEA
TPuanasuMG
P*VKKlB REtCr^aCTCw*
ccftroirti sat ajaifLt **ia to* L£*ti
—•' M1 iff1 'i11 \ g--*—
—
' r.*> r-> EfiA. A ? Pft?. OT 9rgp« «*£ WXtf '31 #f*
ro KiHHL^tm Silt CCWClTw;*a *» I Hi f M. tf 1-€ OU 5
FH0 R|vm4T)ftflH0BR »»«¦
:• WhPfcS kCCATlrt.a ARF jM** JtfAT? wp A'FK* UWfJAU*
l^fiAMW ais
> a^E ^c*kwj»m8ho*»^ re*AT8K£*&e
r -i I—__— . M
IbSBffljrFEn 1
): am
sr*t>Ma
A3 SHCAh
R1 RESIDENTIAL LEAD
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
500049
-------
MK1
LEGEND
-0
WICWT* flOUWUff
R£»»tui h<©«l
¦ HOWUJWfTHi <***1
t*CUM
i CQWIW
J HCnulDM *
t 1M.J. M- U IXflD AfcC hUVM M
nr>VUim«L actio*
• nracthTA. blce» u-w. t location
o pc? carwwrait iauf j iocatiqm
HOTES _
1 WER*3ES P«X«eD iV f«k A*O¥O0*»HV
'jCLDt* TO kmommi Sift KMDtfioMi *1 fpjc. Of i-« ou-3
rf ix« * v E *r tm, m: &m5 fi X . r LpcAHQbs «r Appftguuwf aad «m UAfwAi i*
UAh W *•£ F €lI& fiUID C* ftlfE FEAT, ft£j» 4*Q IHEfb
TOUGflfcMEa td 03
¦M g -+ A* |
ar^ici
apj
fVJ
¦ «
•••• ~ 1
Rl RESIDENTIAL BLOCK
SOIL SAMPLE LOCATIONS
¦i
-------
4
i
(A
o
£2
> -t
3 2
¦o >
r~ «
m X
r s
O o
S P
O
z
V*
II
III
5
s.r?i
I| ji
11
r!«
Hi !!
-------
3 3 4
¦NISI
1!
LEGEND
|HH V3N«L3*tVi*L*nt*
~~ ] Houai
[ i e^ww»«€*
] fe.<>CKFlU.rC AW *
nwiiMi
"Wr IDLAMEUDVAL AC HG*
lXAO CCMCChlRATO-fe uP TD1K) UPHQ
HAt> CONCJEhTiMJt.-^ <1 TO
iJ A3 COMCXK.'mi.TiQh 601 TO «K IftM^
HAS CCMCIM*Ja«Q*i r*ATH INJAi 9K V>VK 1
| MfcUARV Ofl COV PUOf ft PWGVdtE ¦* f* AM? WKTOrsED **
OClDtP fORnXKilT WTt CCWmOM «l "l« FM1 QT TMI OiJ «
?iFs>A!>i.> .GKfliBiK
lU 4t I
cttnfci
91
¦lit r
I»tt
S««-
4>*f
M»F Sb-h Us- a
IB* l«aw M*r-»
W I U«-»
taf (n Uar i
W1 «Ap# ll'JMi <
r.ra Us ¦
13'3 3>« Urn
1 rp M— tUr*
111 Ira U> ¦
1i'« (m Un
IlllixiUii
HUM •
M '«J I
HHKSt
W'lfc?"
¦ 3'3B9 I
I
1
HMM i
li^il i
UMMi
«•»"
fei'uti
fc»C*» <
«w*»#»
Ift^R
tSH»
HPI*
«'3*
¦i'- »¦
«N A
*?5«*
Wrfc*
rr*i ->«,
efm c-*»
twifrw
rV9«
MIMW •
(.£;»«<
liS4*2 «
tccea l
I
PB«a'
tu«: i
BSICMI
»v»i«
Ml«u •
nwi»
m*
m*
*t-.
•»• M
J4*r
'¦~.I
l»ff
XI? I
Mr j
U»<
to- i
MXJ
Ji
riaar
0*3 WM
AM
m
SL9
Rl LEAD IN SOIL
RESULTS
0 - 0.1 FT
•V-Ui.v'u-:.
500052
-------
LEGEND
1 ]
tCRJIt
OTfcfWaj***
mrtuiwi
MlLfr4W£LftC
**£v out fcSMO, at «£T<}*
uaz) conci vraino* ?d«3 »>*o
jL*a coneest* to amyqp.3
%f*G C&£tftmurc*f i^i Tg toyiur.
%£*3 Ci3*Wimirsai C»ft* 4Tr ft TKttl IfrsJQ 1MX * -H
UKU>
t»7U.
'f- iL
WIM
l»tm"
WW
writ
1*1 u
TBIU
!*• 'A
!».**•
?*<**
WlM'
it-,1-*-
»?«*«
HEX
**^
i#:2*
whal
!•*»*«
113*'
•r.-:r-
HW
ill
NOTES
1 IWHrt «| OKWIWI PBCWC1TO »* f«. MSWtT, 0-1
OC4.HH lo KrtraUrt xff ccsonoiia *> rii t« cr iwt a,i
IHCMW ZX».
r*n
* •
Hijtpi
.
Ml
m
Ml
s i a
Rl LEAD IN SOIL
RESULTS
0.1 - 1 FT
«mcnaMirny«titW6»i |
500053
-------
J :cmwiw»
DAC-F Li r: ARE A
mMM UguiCi
muoui «»* iCTC*
I i£MCONCIVn«iDl4U*a1q4BGhKM(Q
LEAS C'SNCT vmVOH «' TO
l£*S WHCttUM©* u&*»
lf*D CQMBBfRtf M« CrfgATSfl THM» *» «»* 0
'pi C- ii
fiftl Mil Ji
1
»r
t'V. I
l«4*
nil
¦ti«|
in •>
Bw*H
4"» Vo f*fae«ffV
i >41
LH
I3M
OT2
tgh
ii'1
HI
!!' I
M "¦:
MfcC^V
msx*
ni j
show ?
«**: :
»i.'»S t
vuu
»MU**
wne
w»w
«*»**; ?
i
:«'»*;¦
lifl
uy
w: t»:
«nlM
IftSMB >
S
IfU) M
L4CTAT
iniCr*
ifftcxad
»*iao^
•t :•*.
luci
Rl LEAD IN SOIL
RESULTS
>1 FT
NOTES
IWftWIf « cwwai PfK^-nDBT II* WO WOCWTKD Wf\
5 .KB WP6ra«€S€Wr &TI AT Tt-€ i*C "* T* ivl
ftilP :^t£MK*>X4l
,« ¦**'* WW WS
Iras* Mfyw^aranl
500054
-------
1
1
a
a
3
I
|
3
9
S
i-
3
s
I
I
I
5
i
t
I
'J
1
!
I
5
y
3
I
ii
> K
Ii
it
IS
SS111NRD:3:
n
SS112NR0.3
SS114NR1
r~n \ (A
'SS113NR0 3'
C
SS99NR0 3
SS90NRC.3
SS91NR0.3
; !\IU\
SS93NR0 3
SSS7NR0.4
SS92NR0.3
SS115NRC.3
SS116NRG.9
SS93NR0 3
SS94NR0.2
SS96NR0 1
SSS5NR0.2
51
3
1003 rag.'Hg
LABORATORY' LEAD SAWF-E 403 TO 939 UG.XG
LABORATORY LEAD SA\iF_E* DTO 599 WC-.KG
PREV OUS LEAD SAMPLE: >"OjG MG.'KE
FRE'.'IQUS LEAC SAMP-E: 4C0T0999 UGKG
FRE',' OUS LEAD GAMP -E: D TO 3M W&'KG
PEST.'PSB SAMPLE
XR= _EAD ANALYSES LOCATION
NOTES
1. PREVIOUS SAMPLING LOCATIONS TAKEN FSCM COUMCTDiSK
SUPPLED BY US EPA. 15S3
2. TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAPTAKEN FRCM CADD FILE PREPARED
BY COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORPORATION, T1UED -23C3-F1KAL2'
DATED Q7'1ttH 2
3. SAMPl ING LOCATIONS ARE AF PROXIMATE AND WERE DETERMINED
LDiNGABACKPACX GPS DEVICE AND 3Y MAPSORMWi CURING BELD
WORK
Sfkj
Rl NON-RESIDENTIAL
SAMPLE LOCATIONS
VEGA3AMSOL9«»5TESUFERFADS£rE
mmm.»uesrsiri<> repstt
500055
-------
I Bfth.'vU'iH UM ami mi >¦'* '7 |JC*»U
Chpminnl
?Jimplr->
Rpniif
1 In HP
rur
mr. Ufliujs
Tim
Arodi*- 12M
SD-3-R2
11a
UUi?^
DSOQ
50
I«
.Vsoric
8D-M©
M
mtyKg
osoa
6
14
'lACflmiUITI
SChH-92
1.1
rniVKg
oscs
a.r:-
l.'J
Oinan«jr»i
«.6
mc/'Ca
C&CK5
26
1.5
Gnppflr
SDH
4l7
mgKi,
osoa
1S
2.9
'.kiuper
SD-J-*3
H9
ingfrvj
osoo
16
9.3
OfiWriri
SLV3-W.1
9.3
ng.Kg
osa<;
?
5 CI
trnn
3D-'J-R2
?7WI
OSQO
2OEB0
1 .«'j
LmiiI
SD-3JQ
ISO
OM a
31
43
rrtanganosu
35d
m5%3
'i-Ki'j
+gi;'
u
'JidtH
KD-3
V.V
tlnVKj
osirja
ie
11
Mti.Rl
SD-3-R2
10. <5
ntq>VCq
OSCiG
!«
Zb
Z*K
SD-3-W?
«?
fna«a
06QG
T20
+ n
.LU-Wt
SD-2|
Gcqj=<
Imm
fcurt
Nk***
imc
Scvnplo
so-2
so-z-wa
SO-2
SO-2-R2
SD-2
B&3
Resufl
558
45/
24600
IK 3D
iaa
iea
Units
fr^k'h-g
"V1 n
in^-Ka
mpf&B
"V*;j
TBC
OSQG
~SOQ
OSQO
0SQ6
~SQG
~HQR
i BC 'v'ake
£X]ti2E£tiEl2/r
2cooa
1,-11
' ".I"'-
Highway
Drainages
I'p
•:
!\f.; | .BrJ5 «fa." -a
a I & HlS>ks*is' 'J '
9 St?
r? la i = c.'t -J
® ®B%, •?. H ,, !¥¦?
pei^-e-
iBtRT
%
A*®*
,* it® £ *
SD-el
Chornicn!
i-snmple
Rsairtl
IJfTlQ
TBC
TBC Value
*EQ
t>romiw
iSO-7
mj:Ka
0900
16
ClmnMim'
5G-M12
to.l
np>'Kg
OK-5
26
ie
Cew»i
SO-7
51.5
na'Ka
OSQG
1«
a2
Coppsr
SD-7-R2
65.0
inj'Hsj
OS&G
1«
36
rm
i/UUC
retv'Kfl
OSQO
2000D
136
iron
SO-7-R^
2Bnnc
l«U^X|
0 &GO
2DW)D
1 43
(HIS
ITUi?^l
uu;g
«0
1i
UnnqcrM"
3D.?-HS
?43
hx:«»:g
oscia
4&J
1.6
SD7
tn.s
trfiKQ
rtsao
2.5
Niw'tl
SO '-Hi
U2
moiVo
psaa is
5.C
,%•
C'lorr* ual
y^»mpi»i
UWnll
Ullltfc
TRC
TBC V^jIuo
•EQ
ChroiMiin
30-8^2
3I3J8
inp'Hg
CI3D3
26
1 a
Cuft«ar
5D-g
ias
inu'Kg
OSQr.
16
1.2
Copper
SD-B-R2
2D.4
tiiu'Ka
OLjCKi
1&
1.3
f«i
Bf>a
;i; .'-'jci
IODiKQ
DStXi
200CIII
1 Q'J5
3D-0
ai
mqi'Kq
OSOS
16
13
MfctoP
S|>R-ft2
31.7
mgi^
O50&
15
20
SD-6
£?«.»*
"S IB » fe ¦
g, fc f<<*i *
1 ^ * * €1
Chemical
Sample
R69lft
LNlB
TBC
TBC Vfttir
'EQ
*!ssnc
SCJ-6
92
OSQG
¦
1^
SD*K2
93
mpKa
OSQG
B
1£
Chmi »_p>
3CB
W0
•"»«?!
OSQO
at
»
Chijrjjm
SUAH2
a.u
m&K{i
OSQQ
34
1.S
Qjpwr
IDJi
W IS
rr^jKa
'DSQG
11
2JJ
tne^
QiiCiQ
It
i.2
Ir®
iD-G
£-2113
|T»aK3
OaOG
•lilrJL
1.11
hm
G«j»R2
13303
rnc.Kq
OSQG
iUt>K
MS
5UB
/XI
ir^na
4OT
l.H
Mai qa rose
S0-&-R2
63i'
OSQG
0503
osr>-
OSQO
osog
osao
D&QG
0300
osog
D-yQQ
SO I -
16
2Q0CNI
2DOOO
. "i
3CM-H2
V' i
; MM •
3D 1 Hi
SD 4 - 2
SD-9II
Chemlcal
Sample
Result
Units
TBC
TBC Value
*ELQ
Cttnrnlnm
a>9
43.6
n-O'Kfl
05I.7G
'Jd
t.7
ClTornluin
SD-9-Dlu
'16.3
i*
OSQG
25
Lfi
GlVnntknri
3D-9-R2
U7.B
irr>'Kg
a SQG
26
1,4
Copper
ia>-9-Duci
4C..4
irs'Kg
OSO(s
10
29
Compel
SO-9
*14.3
n sfKg
OSQG
16
2B
Copper
3D-B.R2
42.7
irqi'Kg
OSQG
16
27
Iron
SO 3
24AIW
n-&'Ko
O&QG
213000
124
Iron
5D-9-tXip
261(30
iro'Kg
OSQG
79D00
IJDS
l-
lr&-R2-Gur
1.9
inuiKj
CXjOu
06
J.2
CtTnmkm
SQ-5
91.3
osoa
M
1.5
Crttrnkm
SC-5-R2
117
Ml ,lK|
CCQG
ae
U>
< .'hrirnsfii
?ES-S4K2-CH^
133
rngiK^
DSGG
20
1.9
uopttr
SO-b
UWJ-b
ib
3.tt
Copper
4R 4
UBEKl
IB
a
Ccppa
SC-WH!
41.0
iikvKj
OSQG
16
i,8
linn
EO-5
44* Oil
rjeoG
20IBU
2305
nan
SC-5-R2
45OD0
it -. 11¦-1
'JSQG
2000D
125
I ton
9C^5-R2-OliC
4D600
H-rJjKj
DSQG
20000
<43
La*J
$~-5
735
n-iiKj
Q5QG
31
2.5
USKl
SI>,VR?
388
ri'^Vvj
i>sar,
31
1,3
L«ari
SCKJU»43ii(:
4*
¦1 •_
OKQG
31
IjO
Manpanuni:
£D-a
1040
mg/Wj
P5QG
4450
;.3
H"! "» -
SB-5-R3
1230
rraiKy
OSO'3
«S6
2.7
K1jii!W"U!jl
3D-5fl2-Duc
1340
OSQG
m
2.9
fAa'Uiif
eo-s
o?a
mg-Kj
OSQG
0,2
u
C4&CUIV
SQ-S-R2-DU0
0.26
OSQG
02
1.3
f4e-cuiy
ti 28
mo»K5
QSQQ
0,2
1.4
Nfckn!
SD-5
3/-8
nrvKj
OSQG
18
u
Ni:fcn;
sD.&fia
171
stlQ/Kl
QflOG
16
1.1
Ni.kiji
SO-5«2-Dut
ldJi
rPp/K^
OSQG
18
IJ:
Zinc
ED'S
311
rntuKj
QSGG
tflB
LEGEND
© Sediment Sample
iZZi Buildings - OU1
I Buildings
Garbage Wounds
Paved Roads
,v
Bridge
Unpaved Roads
Surface Water
A
I ' rrm I
'ZQ -
TBC'
ExraxluiKW QuulwiU
¦ To Be Ccnakicffid Seamen? OuaBly Cnr&ln
N
500
GFgunttMter Raw
L>rw4on
1000 Feel
Figure 10
Sedimonl ExcoeaancEs Map
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study
Vega Baja Solid Waste Dsposal Site, Puerto Rico
500056
-------
I dJjjW
I I @1 nSfn
Ify fiffi 7L, /V r-i 1 >-,
-g t-fe §5"; M/
5 S£LT H " - -i 7n^ -^ %3. jL
>? T^»===i-^_ 11 7f - /Sin' > / ^-S. s=ce li— .1
|SS3lVg=§
r-., ssiq, *
,;l
*n
&23,'2QtD
*»u»
APJ
¦"
am
APJ
LEGEND
l_ _i ACCESS AGREEMENT REGJIRED '>C REMEDIATION FLAW4ED1
~ PROPOSED PCM SAMPLE -OCA~ON
¦ APPR OX (MATE EXTENT OF NON-RESIDENT*! AREA COVER OR R EWOVAL
I I BUILDSSiG
ZD PROP"C3EO RE3 OEN~ A_ YARQ REMOVAL ARE1
~ COVERED AREA
E3 PREVI CXI 8 REMOVAL ACTION
I I PROPERTY BOUNDARY
I 1 BAOKF;!_i£D AREA
TRASH MDJNC
WSTmiTlONAS. CONTROLS required
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
ROAD
NOTES
1 ALL PROPERTIES THAT REQL'RE POi SAMPLIHG OR REMOVAL
• TRASH WOUNDS AND RESIDENT! YARDS! WILL ALSO NEED
ACCESS A GREEMENTS
2 UNDER ALTERNATIVES 2. i. AND 5 THE NON-RESIDENTIALAREA
SHOWN WOULD ALSO REC J RE INST[TJTOSA. CONTROLS.
REFERENCES
PRi WART GIS COVERAGES PROVIDED BYEPA.AN3 MODIFIED
BY GC-DER TO REPRESENT SITE CONDITIONS AT THE "WE Oc
THEOU-2 FIELD WVEST1GAT10N ( DECEMBER 20D4)
2D0
3 Feet
PRELIMINARY EXTENTS OF
REMEDIATION AND PDI
VESA B A„ A SOL D WASTE SLPERFUND SITE
11
500057
-------
APPENDIX II - TABLES
500058
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: SELECTION OF EXPOSURE PATHWAYS
TABLE2: SUMMARY OF CHEMICALS OF CONCERN AND MEDIUM - SPECIFIC EXPOSURE
POINT CONCENTRATIONS
TABLE 3: PROPERTIES THAT REQUIRE ACCESS AGREEMENTS AND/OR INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS FOR INVESTIGATION/REMEDIATION
TABLE 4: RESIDENTIAL, TRASH MOUND, AND DRAINAGE DITCH SOIL LEAD
CONCENTRATION COMPARED TO 450 MG/KG
TABLE 5: COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY - ALTERNATIVE 2
TABLE 6: COST ESTIMATE DETAILS FOR ALTERNATIVE 2
500059
-------
Table 1
Selection of Exposure Pathways
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
On-Site/
Off-Site
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Current
Surface soil
Surface soil
Residential
surface soil
Residents
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Known current use of residential area.
Child
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Known current use of residential area.
Non-
residential and
trash mound
surface soil
Intermittent
visitor
Adolescent
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Suspected use of non-residential area and trash mound
areas.
Drainage ditch
Resident
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of drainage ditch.
Child
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of drainage ditch.
Airborne dust
Airborne dust
from
residential soil
Resident
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Known current use of residential area.
Child
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Known current use of residential area.
Airborne dust
from drainage
ditch
Resident
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of drainage ditch.
Child
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of drainage ditch.
Airborne dust
from non-
residential and
trash mound
Intermittent
visitor
Adolescent
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Suspected use of non-residential area and trash mound
areas.
Aboveground
exposed
vegetables
Vegetables
grown in soil
Resident
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
Aboveground
protected
vegetables
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
Belowground
root
vegetables
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Suspected current use of residential area.
500060
-------
Scenario
Timeframe
Medium
Exposure
Medium
Exposure
Point
Receptor
Population
Receptor
Age
Exposure
Route
On-Site/
Off-Site
Type of
Analysis
Rationale for Selection or Exclusion
of Exposure Pathway
Resident
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Residential,
Child
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
non-
residential,
Intermittent
visitor
Adolescent
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Same as current use scenario, but includes residential
area.
Surface soil
and trash
mound surface
Construction
Worker
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Hypothetical future use scenario.
soil
Industrial
Worker
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Hypothetical future use scenario.
Drainage ditch
Resident
Adult
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
surface soil
Child
Ingestion/Dermal
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Airborne dust
wind erosion
Construction
Worker
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Qual
Expected to be minimal compared to inhalation of dust
associated with vehicular traffic and other construction
activities, so not calculated.
of residential,
non-
Industrial
Worker
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Hypothetical future use scenario.
residential,
Resident
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use
Future
Surface soil
and trash
Child
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use
Airborne dust
mounds
Intermittent
visitor
Adolescent
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Same as current use scenario, but includes residential
area.
Airborne dust
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
from drainage
ditch
Resident
Child
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Fugitive dust
from vehicles
Construction
Worker
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Hypothetical future use scenario.
Airborne dust
from
construction
activities
Construction
Worker
Adult
Inhalation
On-site
Quant
Hypothetical future use scenario.
Aboveground
Vegetables
grown in soil
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
exposed
vegetables
Resident
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Aboveground
Vegetables
grown in soil
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
protected
vegetables
Resident
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Belowground
Vegetables
grown in soil
Adult
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
root
vegetables
Resident
Child
Ingestion
On-site
Quant
Entire site zoned for residential use.
Quant = Quantitative risk analysis performed.
Summary of Selection of Exposure Pathways
The table describes the exposure pathways associated with the surface soil that were evaluated for the risk assessment, and the rationale for the inclusion of each pathway. Exposure media, exposure points,
and characteristics of receptor populations are included.
500061
-------
Table 2
Summary of Chemicals of Concern and
Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Scenario Timeframe: Current/Future
Medium: Surface soil
Exposure Medium: Surface soil
Exposure Point
Chemical of
Concern
Concentration
Detected
Concentration
Units
Frequency of
Detection
Exposure Point
Concentration
(EPC)
EPC
Units
Statistical
Measure
Min
Max
Surface soil -
Residential Yards
Lead
6.9
1800
mg/kg
74/74
Property specific -
range from 20.6 to
1400 (see Table 8.1
in HHRA)
mg/kg
Average
Surface Soil - Non-
residential Area
and Trash Mounds
Lead
17.6
24000
mg/kg
66/66
24000
mg/kg
Max
Surface Soil -
Drainage Ditch
Lead
7.4
1180
mg/kg
9/9
1180
mg/kg
Max
Min. - Minimum Detected Concentration
Max. - Maximum Detected Concentration
Summary of Chemicals of Concern and Medium-Specific Exposure Point Concentrations
This table presents the chemicals of concern (COCs) and exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for each of the COCs detected surface soil (i.e., the
concentration that will be used to estimate the exposure and risk from each COC). The table includes the range of concentrations detected for each COC, as
well as the frequency of detection (i.e., the number of times the chemical was detected in the samples collected at the site), the EPC and how it was derived.
500062
-------
Table 3
Properties that Require Access Agreements and/or Institutional Controls for Investigation/Remediation
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Propert'es Requiring Remediation, hstttutior-a; Centre's,
a-~d Access Agreements
Adoitional Properties Requ.ring Access Agreements
Additional Properties
Expected to Rea Jre
institut onal Conrols
Resiceitial Yar>J Exceeds
Trash "vfotna 3otentia>ly
Properties Proposer, for
Propertres Adjacent to
Cleanup Goal
Present
Potential FDI Sa.npLnq
Trash Motrds
18 Flamboyan
18 FiaT boyan
426 Tno Vegaba/eoo
5339 Santa Maria
5155 Prnc-pat
426 Trio Vegaba.eno
5355 Flan boyan
5357 Zcma Afo.'ij*
534 i Sa'-ta Maria
535 T'io Vegaba
-------
Table 4
Residential, Trash Mound, and Drainage Ditch Soil Lead Concentrations Compared to 450 mg/kg
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
11 Sample Resists
fnitial Removal Volume EsSirrates for FS Cost
Estimating
Su^ace Soi (0 - S"J Lead
* - 12 Sail
\ 2 ' ».o Setusjs Soil
Proposed Initial
tin pasted P\ti3
Volum*
(oy)
Address
Yard Area
Coocemrat'ors
Iwg'^si
Lead Gc^centratiosi
_*asf Concentration
ImgAg;-
Excavation Depth
mi
Estimate
<»q ft'I
18 Flanibc-yan
A
B
:-j i
:r
3: •
-f.a
-«
Q
2
>v'A
¦J.S7E
U-'A
?'31
c ': =>-ic.wi
A
307
<£ 12
4S>.2
0
N.'A
c ':5 --ir-ii::,
A
328
""1 -CK
220
\'"A
N,A
SI55 Pr ncipsS interior
ft
B
560
¦¦*z
'37.?
-5--
3.5
•£ 315
¦ :
23C
+-37
A
24"
j-¦
3S.4
* C, 13 1
37!
51i?1 f nneina*
B
1
134
D
r:-*A
tl'A
C
ai.s
-*.3
0
N.'a
-¦¦5 '••'egata.e-*
A
2^4
174
* S.r
0
NW
r,/A
426 TiVe{|ab3;W3
B
7 5-i
1-T
105
1
e15
i:
S.50D Ssnts Wans
A
179
§a§
0
'•(-A
I..A
: i- f 7 :- ~V"_i :<
A
0 5 "J
30?
7.8
N 'A
tl,A
53:
5371 &jrw Wai 1.3
A
B
- 7_i
¦ r.:
1040
2
:.5M
f ,5~8
117
^ *: ^
A
• "
17.:
B
W A
B
; ; ¦
¦;-i
:¦
a
1>-A
I..'A
5375 S3r Wans
A
-47
t
34
fiTC '.-'J-J
A
^ I!
I 7.4
c
I. i
5i76 Ssmi N'aria
A
- ¦? r
¦i-rl
-_s 3
1,4 7
236
f : ~c :" \' 3 ¦ 3
A
:=4
¦ T?
D
\
D
N'A
r,.-A
5382 Los Angeies
A
7 :.i
2
\5£>e
11c
c-->:e
A
:_i
*
¦ 1
a
,
N.'A
A
j':r
i ^
: 7 -i
t
L.i2\
3 *
f 55S Aitttos
B
*->¦
•w
f -v;
r ¦ r
" i
j:t
: 1
1
1
*
25
93
55§1 Aituras
A
B
1:
3V
- : .
24.0
28.7
0
0
N> A
'¦«*A
U.'A
K-"A
5S83 Aituras
A
: - .
*7.<<
0
r.'A
f.(A
5564 Aituras
A
135
- - ^
~4
D
u'A
A
500064
-------
Table 4
Residential, Trash Mound, and Drainage Ditch Soil Lead Concentrations Compared to 450 mg/kg
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Rl Sample Results
Irtrtial Removal Volune Es'.ir-ates for FS Cost
Estimating
Surface Soi. (0 - '**> Lead
1-12" Soii
12" to Refusal Soii
Proposed Initial
Imp acted Area
Volume
toy I
Address
Yard Area
Concentration
¦/¦na'H'i
Lead Concentration
f i |.-| ,S. rj
Lead Concentration
fnui.-Ka:
Excavation Depth
(ft)
Estimate
isq ft)
5570 Abu ras
A
B
45 J
4:a
:2:
4?-1
1
2
» ge-
63
100
A
iM5
= 44
-i; ¦
1
3,027
112
£572 Aluifas
B
C-
D
"o;
"l —
r • r
It
c*4r
:: -i
- i
!
0
t
1.319
!vA
1,032
38
N/A
38
5574 A tturas
.rt.
B
o •
437
287
127
128
0
0
WA
WA
N.'A
N/A
5c"? i'tjras
A
347
277
I.'A
0
WA
N/A
5t"i L t.ir.is
A
343
365
'" 1
0
M'A
t.VA
5530 Afcuras
A
:i;
387
:U7
2.3
2,023
:: _ -i
A
^ 1 :
348
88.5
0
WA
H«£
c-iz
A
: i~
:-i:
*: t
B
K'A
n,a
5775 Ortiz
A
17SC-
.26200
2
4,483
33t
5730 Ortiz
A
¦] ¦"
¦
t
1,191
44
A
i1:. -
4fi;
2
924
88
O-tz
B
7ui
¦ 12:
liSO
2.3
5,106
UNAUTH'
;i:
!¦ ^
1
8.408
RESIDENTIAL AREA"
OTAL
86.617
4.108
Trash 'Jloi-nd =2
N/A
15'
to
15,407
5 7Dc
Trash Maund *3
N/A
¦:i4
¦: :-.4
10
11,023
4.C33
T'tt s h Mci r.d =4
NIA
1310
to
8.176
3 C2-
TRASH MOUNDS TOTAL
34,»S
12.817
Oi?;r.arie Ditch | N/A
HE J
¦ IE
N/A
1
14,000
-¦ -:
Notes:
N/A indicates Not Applicable
Bold and highlighted cells indicate an exceedance of 450 mg/kg.
For individual trash mounds, the soil concentration used is the average (mean) concentration, consistent with use of IEUBK model to assess residential risk
(duplicate samples were averaged and for each pre-RI sampling location the samples from various depths were combined into a single depth-weighted average at
each location). For the Drainage Ditch, because there were fewer than 10 drainage ditch samples, the maximum detection is shown.
Specific Footnotes:
1. UNAUTH indicates that this sample was collected in March, 2004 as part of the response to the Unauthorized Disturbance. The data were reported to USEPA
in a letter dated April 9, 2004.
500065
-------
Table 5
Cost Estimate Summary - Alternative 2
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
ACTIVITY
Initial Cost
PW of O&M
Alternative 2
Common Esements
$2eo.ooc
$0
Residential A'ea Soil
$j?&ci.cog
so
Drainage Ditch
$40,COO
$0
Trash Mound?
$610,GDC
so
Non-Residential Area Soil
$850 OClL
8330,000
Subtotal
$2,850,000
$330,000
INITIAL COST TOTAL
ENGINEERiNG/CQA1 (25%)
TOTAL PW OF O&M COST
$2,850,000
$720,000
$330,000
SUBTOTAL
CONTINGENCY (20%)
$3,900,000
$780,000
TOTAL NET PRESENT WORTH COST
54.680,000
Notes:
Values are rounded to the nearest $10,000
These estimates are based on conceptual plans and will be subject to change based upon actual detailed
engineering design and competitive bidding of construction services.
1.) Engineering costs refer to preparation of detailed design documents, coordination of the contractor
bidding process, and preparation of construction completion reports, as needed. CQA refers to on-Site
oversight and compliance testing throughout construction activities.
500066
-------
Table 6
Cost Estimate Details for Alternative 2
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Common elements
Activity
Unit Costs
Units
Quantity
Estimated- Cost
'e-C*s:cr lr vsst-cat o i
,'ipr
^ . JL L
_'..ndu v
1
i'20u.C3 J
Secure Access Ag-eemert? :Lsqa j
s^c.occ
.tniD -
1
S'V'.CjH
COMMON ELEMENTS TOTAL INITIAL COST
Remedial Action Components to Address Residential Area Soils
Initial Cost - Soil Removal
Clearing fgrand preparation)
SO. 30
sf
86,61?
125,850;
Non-woven geotexlile (assume 25% of removed area needs geotexfile)
S3.00
sy
2,406
57,218
Excavation and loading, of soil
121.00
cy
4,108
586,281
Backfill (common earth) - purchase, haul, place, and compact
121.00
cy
3,038
163,805
Topsoit (4")
$70.00
cy
1,063
174,854
Revegetate yards with sod
$3.00
sf
88,617
$259,850
Restore properly to pre-excavation condions (replace tees, etc..}
53,000
Property
16
143,000
Replace fencing/cinder Hock waits
12.4
If
1,600
S38,400;
Haul Soil to Non-^esidenti a Ar*a to* Cor.sc-cat or and
£-':.50
Cy
4,.108
126,700
(kmttudkmGc>sts Uvtoi-u
Mobilization 1 Demobilization (10% of Construction Costs)
10%
f.
630,337
163,0S4
Surveying and Field Engineering (8% of Construction Costs)
6%
s
830,337
137,056
Liability insurance, Payment and Performance Bonds (5% of Construction Costs)
5%
$
630,937
531,547
On-Site E&S Controls (4% of Constacion Costs)
4%
1
630,937
525,237
Health and Safety (4% of Construction Costs)
4%
1
630',937
125,237
XRF 'Confirmation Sampling
SI. 500
P-3Y
45
567,500
20% Laboratory Confirmation Analysis of XRF Sanuves
$200
Sam;:; e
25
55,000
500067
-------
890009
1 SO:l Ttfl 1 INI "IV fOI SdNnOW HS¥M 1
-I." ¦:¦:
b *¦
MlLieC
003G
- •'.i..'; -3, y: jo s s4|?uv ' i..io-j 'Jon;jix:c"| %j~
ootfoes
QZ
Aeq
om'm
SuiidLues u«|auj§uoo -MX
netzs
wm'im
s
%t
(spoo uapnusuoo p %p> taps pus ifflBSH
MStZS
858*165
s
%p
(sjsoo UGpmjsuoo jo %p) sjojjijoo s'S3 9«S-«0
eee'izi
8S8"i6S
S
%s
(sjsgq uopmpuoo jo %g) spuog asyeimQjJEy pue psujAey 'aauejnsu| J%f.qBr|
{sjsoo uopruisuooiQ %g) Buuaatn&g pjay pue§uife«rig
UtfSES
8S8'*16S
S
%9
%oi
Mi'SSS
8S8;'i65
S
(sjsoq uojpnjisuoo |o %ot) ucpjzgqoitieQ / uo§ez|Ptjow
MS MS$
IIG'EBI
iwti
h
OS'S!
sacy pue uoppgosuoQ jajeajv psjusppsy-uoN oj |«s pue i|sejj_ pe§-j
OOO'ftS
000'1
II
KS
sfsm spojq japura/Suisuaj. aseidey
DOQ'EEi
u
Apaday
floats
{-3|a *S33J|. 33B|dsj) suogipuoa uoipAeaxa-aid Oi gadoid gjoissy
metou
9D9'fr£
is
OCXS
pos mm spjeA ajepSsAsy
906'6S
IZf
fa
ooozs
C.V) ifosdo-l
09B'm
m'z
As
OQ'IZS
(paaejdaj aq oj spasu ieijsieuj paAotuaj jo %{jj aiunsse) (tjpea uotitima} lipaeg
mmn
imti
fa
oo'iei
ps pue i|SE4 JQ Suipetsj pue uopmeaxg
pw'm
196
&
Q0"ES
(ajpspeB spami eaie jmoum jo %gj siunsse) agpratoeS ua«wHJON
JZB'SS
3IX}*t€
P
0E OS
(uotjejedaid punojB) Suueaio
|B4oiii3j| punoffl qsiu± - isoQ pfipf
jsoj p&ieiupsg
AjimcitQ
sijun
S1SO j IjUfl
Ai|vri
COif
ODS'ZS
I.®
198*
910' IS
ZSI-'Ct
t
S
SlS'lE
6ia*!.f
81-S'lS
61S'IC
6IS'1.£
64 S
6t-S
ajiliUEg
fed
S
s
s
s
s
'ACS
009*«
%fr
%t
%S
%9
w
sa|dujeg -jyx 1° sisAieuv w>iiBun§wj3 Amiejoqe-j
fiuijdLUBg UOIIBUUPOQ J'UX
{sjsoo uoptuisuoo |G %p) Ajajes pue tJpaiH
(sisoQ uofprujsuoo P %1?) spiiuoo st3 3»S"«0
(^.sog uotpnjpuGQ p%g) spuog aoueujJOjMed pue lusmfed 'Bauemsui
(sjsoo uoipruisuoo |Q %g) BuuaauiSug p]ay pue Biijfe/uiis
(sisoo uopnissuog p %q},) uopz^qotiiaG f uoi|Bzi|c|op|
firtet
Diets
Bfrl'iiS
fe
mm
00'SES
33BH pue yo|Epipsuoo jo| B3JV PiJuapsay-ifc^M oi go!iuei»o
SJIUfi
sjso3 ljun
ipiKi aBuufBin 9i|| ssajppv oi siuauodiiio.i uoipv ppaiuan
oorjj ojjanj 'Ef«a «§3y\ 'ajig piny.lacing ajSKy^V P!I°S KfK8 ®§3A
Z 3AijKuj3Jiy joj SJIKJ3Q ajEuipsg JSOJ
9 aiq^x
-------
Table 6
Cost Estimate Details for Alternative 2
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Remedial Action Components to Address Non-Residential' Area
Activity
Unit Costs
Units
Ouantity
Estimated Cost
Initial Cost - Soil Cover
Clearing and Grubbing
Ba.se Preparation/Grading
Non-woven g eotextsle
Borrow material (common earth) for soil rover
Hydroseeding (grass)
Fencing around covered area
Gmls-- :StMotai. .
Mobilization f Demobilization (10% of Construction Costs)
Surveying and Field; Engineering (6% of Construction Costs)
Liability Insurance, Payment and Performance Bonds (5% of Construction Costs)
Gn-Site E&S Controls (4% of Construction Costs)
Health and: Safety (4% of Construction Costs)
Surface Water Msracems'-i: • : ,T-¦ o" Const'jc* or Cer.si
18,500
SQ.88
$3.00
12100
14,500
S35
10%
8%
5%
4%
4%
10%
acre
sy
sy
cy
acre
If
1
s
$
$
i
s
8.5
41,140
41,140
13,713
3
2,000
611,103
611.103
611,103
611,103
611,103
611103
o5S.25;i
536,203
SI 23,420
5257,980
S 36,250
So' ' ;l'5
561,1 !0
S36.656
530,555
524,444
S24.444
SGI.I j
MON-RESJOfcN I LAL ARtA ! OJ AL !Nf 11AL COS1
Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
Site Inspection?- and Ma nsncnce
Reporting
§§¦
CD O:
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
1
1
110,000
S'H.CCO
NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA TOTAL ANNUAL 0*M COST
T.it'.'JM'l
Years of O&M, 5% Discount Rate
Discount Rate
iij
Years
%
NON-RESIDENTIAL AREA PRESENT WORTH OF ANNUAL O&M COST
;¦ VllM!
. JN-RESIDENTSAL AREA TO! AL PRESENI WORTH
'?i \i 'l
500069
-------
Table 6
Cost Estimate Details for Alternative 2
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Notes:
These estimates are based on conceptual plans and will be subject to change based upon actual detailed engineering design and competitive
bidding of construction services.
Unit Cost Sources:
Costs presented as a percentage of construction costs (e.g., mobilization/demobilization, etc.), PDI costs, Access Agreement costs, and O&M costs
are based on professional experience.
Unit costs for clearing/grubbing, excavation, geotextile, backfill/topsoil, transportation, base preparation/grading, disposal, revegetation,
consolidation, soil cover, and fencing/walls provided by a local (in Puerto Rico) contractor.
Unit costs for XRF and laboratory sampling based on previous experience at the Site.
Assumptions:
Volumes to be removed are from the above Table. See Figures for the approximate area within the Non-Residential Area that requires a cover.
25% of the residential excavation area will require geotextile (i.e., 75% will be excavated to clean soil).
Excavations in residential areas will be backfilled with common earth with 4" of topsoil placed at the surface and the areas will be revegetated
with sod.
The Non-Residential Area soil cover will be constructed of common earth and will be hydroseeded.
The Residential Area excavations will require 45 days, the Drainage Ditch 5 days, and the Trash Mounds 20 days to complete and an XRF will be
used throughout for confirmation sampling. Post-excavation confirmation sampling (laboratory analysis) will consist of one 5-point composite
sample per Residential yard area removed, six 5-point composites per trash mound, and four 5-point composites for the Drainage Ditch.
Each residential property will require $3,000 to replace landscaping.
Each residential property will require 100 linear feet of either fencing or cinder block wall to be removed and replaced after remediation.
500070
-------
APPENDIX III - ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD INDEX
Operable Unit 2
Operable Unit 1
500071
-------
109645
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.3 Work Plans
P.
300001
300131
DOC ID #108446
Report: Quality Assurance Project Plan Addendum,
Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site, Operable
Unit 2: Soils, Revision #1, prepared by Golder
Associates Inc., prepared for Vega Baja
Cooperating PRP Group, August 2004.
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 300132
300250
DOC ID #108447
Report: Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 2: Soils, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico,
Technical Memorandum: Data Evaluation Report,
prepared by Golder Associates Inc., prepared for
Vega Baja Cooperating PRP Group, March 2005.
P. 300251
300300
DOC ID #108448
Report: Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 2, Pathway Analysis Report,
prepared by Golder Associates Inc., prepared for
Vega Baja Cooperating PRP Group, May 2005.
P. 300301
300592
DOC ID #108449
Report: Remedial Investigation Report, Operable
Unit 2: Soils, Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund
Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, Revision 1, prepared
by Golder Associates Inc., prepared for Vega Baja
Cooperating PRP Group, July 2008.
P. 300593
301282
DOC ID #108450
- Report: Final Baseline Human Health Risk
Assessment, Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site,
Operable Unit
Inc., prepared
Group, July 2 00 9
2_, prepared by
for Vega Baja
Golder Associates
Cooperating PRP
500072
-------
P. 301283 - Report: Final Screening Level Ecological Risk
301461 Assessment, Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site,
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, prepared by Golder
DOC ID #108451 Associates Inc., prepared for Vega Baja
Cooperating PRP Group, December 2009.
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400001 - Report: Remedial Alternatives Screening
400039 Memorandum, Vega Baja Solid Waste Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 2, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, prepared
DOC ID #108452 by Golder Associates Inc., prepared for Vega Baja
Cooperating PRP Group, December 2009.
4.6 Correspondence
P. 400040 - Letter to Ms. Nancy Rodriguez, P.E., Remedial
400040 Project Manager, Chief, Enforcement & Superfund
Branch, Caribbean Environmental Protection
DOC ID #108453 Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, from Mr. Andrew P. Joslyn, EIT, Project
Environmental Engineer, and Mr. P. Stephen Finn,
C. Eng., Principal and Project Coordinator, Golder
Associates Inc., re: Remedial Alternatives
Screening Memorandum - Operable Unit 2, Vega Baja
Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site,
December 15, 2009.
Memorandum to Ms. Nancy Rodriguez, from Mr. Steve
Finn, Golder Associates, re: Meeting Minutes
January 14, 2010 Technical Meeting, Vega Baja
Disposal Superfund Site, Project No.: 033-6208,
February 23, 2010.
P. 400041 -
400045
DOC ID #108454
Note: The Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal OU1 Administrative
Record is incorporated into the OU2 Administrative
Record by reference.
2
500073
-------
mil 111111 inn ii
109645
DRAFT 07-26-10
VEGA RAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
4.0 FEASIBILITY STUDY
4.3 Feasibility Study Reports
P. 400046 - Report: Final Feasibility Study, Vega Baja
400147 Solid Waste Superfund Site, Operable Unit 2,
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, prepared by Golder
DOC ID # 108457 Associates Inc., prepared for Vega Baja
Cooperating PRP Group, July 2010.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 100001 - Letter to Eng. Nancy Rodriguez, P.E.,
100001 Remedial Project Manager, Enforcement &
Superfund Branch, Caribbean Environmental
DOC ID # 108458 Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 2, from Mr. Genaro
Torres Leon, Acting Director, Emergency
Response Program, Government of Puerto Rico,
Office of the Governor, Environmental Quality
Board, re: Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal
Site Proposed Plan Concurrence Letter, July 14,
2010 .
500074
-------
109645
VEGA RAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
OPERABLE UNIT TWO
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE #2
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 1000002 - Report: Superfund Program Proposed Plan, Vega
1000017 Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site,
Operable Unit 2: Soils, prepared by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2,
July 2010.
500075
-------
SDMS Document
101248
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
1.0 SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Background - RCRA and Other Information
P. 100001 - Aerial Photographic Analysis, Vega Baja Solid
' 100031 Waste Disposal Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico,
Report 1 - Solid Waste Disposal Site
Characterization, prepared by D.R. Williams,
Environmental Services Division, Lockheed
' Environmental Systems & Technologies Co., prepared
for U.S., EPA, July 1998.
1.4 . Site Investigation Reports
P. 100032 - Report: Final Report. Assessment of Soil Dioxin
100183 Contamination, Vega Baia Solid Waste Disposal
Site. prepared by Lockheed Mattin/REAC, prepared
for U.S. EPA/ERTC, February 2 0 02.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
Assessment of Soil Lead Contamination
P. 100184 - Report: Final Report, Assessment of Soil Lead
100240 Contamination. Vega Baia Landfill Site. Vega Baia,
Puerto Rico, prepared by Lockheed Martin/REAC,
prepared for U.S. EPA/ERTC, January 2 000.
P. ¦ 100241 - Report: Final Report. Assessment of Soil Lead
100784 Contamination. Vega Baia Landfill Site. Vega Baia.
Puerto Rico. Appendix 1A. Phase I XRF and .
Confirmation Results, prepared by Lockheed
Martin/REAC, prepared for U.S^ EPA/ERTC,' January
2000.
100785 Report: Final Report. Assessment of Soil Lead
101384- Contamination, Vega Baia Landfill Site, Vega Baia.
Puerto Rico, Appendix 2A. Phase II XRF and
Confirmation Results, prepared by Lockheed
Martin/REAC, prepared for U.S. EPA/ERTC, January
2000.
v
500076
-------
V
P. 1013 85 Report: Final Report. Assessment of Soil Lead
101531 Contamination, Vega Baia Landfill Site. Vega Ban a.
Puerto Rico, Appendix 4. Individual Property Maps
of 43 Homes Identified for Removal Action,
prepared by Lockheed Martin/REAC, prepared for
U.S. EPA/ERTC, January 2 000.
1.4 Site Investigation Reports
Sampling Trip Reports
P. 101532 - Report: Sampling Trip Report, Vega Baia Landfill,
101559 prepared by Mr. John Szalkowski, START PM, Roy F.
Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, February 12,
1998.
P. • 101560 - Report: Sampling Trip Report, Vega Baia Landfill,
101579 prepared by Mr. Hector M. Santana, Region II START
Sampler and Mr. Miguel A. Maldonado, Region.II
START Site Project Manager (Alternate) & Sampler,
Roy F. Weston, Inc. prepared for U.S. EPA, April
27, 1999, (cover letter attached.)
P. 101580 - Report: Sampling Trip Report, Vega Baia Landfill,
¦ 101604 prepared by Mr. Hector M. Santana, Region II START
Sampler and Mr. Miguel A. Maldonado, Region II
START Site Project Manager (Alternate) & Sampler,
Roy F. Weston, Inc. prepared for U.S. EPA, July 2,
1999, (cover letter attached.)
P. 101605 - Report: Sampling Trip Report, Vega Baia Landfill.
101621 prepared by Mr. Doel A. Miranda, Region II START
Site Project Manager & Sample Collection, Roy F.
Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, December 9,
1999, (cover letter attached.)
101622 - Report: Sampling Trip Report, Vega Baia Landfill.
101700 prepared by Mr. Doel A. Miranda, Site Project
Manager, Roy F. Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S.
EPA, December 28, 1999, (cover letter and
transmittal memorandum attached.)
v
500077
-------
V
2.0 REMOVAL RESPONSE
2.1 Sampling and Analysis Plans
P. 200001 - Report: Vega Baia Site. Disposal Alternatives
2 00311 Study. Vega Baia. Puerto Rico, prepared by Roy F.
Weston, Inc., prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 2,
November 1998.
P. 200312 - Report: Health and Safety Plan for Vega Baia
200491 Solid Waste Disposal Site Removal Actions
Activities. prepared by Roy F.. We.ston, Inc.. and
Sarriera & Associates, prepared for U.S. EPA,
Region 2, October 1999.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
P. 2 004 92 - Report: Monitoring Well Installation and
200888 Groundwater Sampling Report Vega Baia Solid Waste
Disposal. Rio Abaio Ward, Vega Baia. Puerto Rico,
prepared by Region II Superfurid Technical
Assessment and Response Team, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 2, October 1998.
P. 200889 - Memorandum to Mr. Terrence Johnson, REAC Task
201067 Leader, through Mr. Vinod Kansal, REAC Analytical
Section Leader, Roy F. Weston, Inc., from Mr. Jay
Patel, REAC Inorganic Group Leader, Roy F. Weston,
Inc. re: FPXRF Analyses, Vega Baja Landfill Site,
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, Work Assignment #3-356 -
Phase II FPXRF Activities Report, December 4,
1998.
P. 201068 - Report: Data Package for Total Metals, Part I.
201290 prepared by Chemtech, prepared for Roy F. Weston,
Inc., July 15, 1999. v
P. 201291 - Report: Data Package for TCLP Metals, Part II.
201467 prepared by Chemtech, prepared for Roy F. Weston,
Inc., July 15, 1999.
P. 201468 - Letter to Weston from CompuChem re: attached
202452 Report of Data, Account Number 705026 Order# 34667
December 8, 1999. v
500078
-------
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
Data Validation Assessments
P. 2 02453 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
202488 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, Data Reviewer,
START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega
Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment, July 16,
1999.
P. 202489 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
202545 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, Data Reviewer,
START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega
Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment, August
4, 1999. V
P. 2 02 54 6 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
202598 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, Data Reviewer,
START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega
Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment, August
4, 1999.
\
P. 202599 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Tom Budroe,
202689 OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 2,
from Ms. Adly A. Michael, Data Reviewer, and Mr.
Doel Miranda, PM, START Region II, Roy F. Weston,
Inc., re: Vega Baja Landfill Data Validation
Assessment, October 27, 1999.
P. 202690 - Memorandum (with attachments)^to Mr. Angel
202784 Rodriguez, U.S. EPA, Region 2, from Mr. Doel
Miranda, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega Baja
Landfill Data Validation Assessment, October 29,
1999.
202785 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Tom Budroe,
202877 OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 2,
from Ms. Adly A. Michael, Dat& Reviewer,' and Mr.
Doel Miranda, PM, START Region II, Roy F. Weston,
Inc., re: Vega Baja Landfill Data Validation
Assessment, November 12, 1999.
500079
-------
P. 202878 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
202933 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, Data Reviewer,
START Region II,'Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega
Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment, January
14, 2000.
P. 202934 - Memorandum (with attachments) .to Mr. Angel
202998 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region 2, from Mr. David Rosenberg, Data Reviewer,
START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc., re: Vega
Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment, January
20, 2000.
P. 202999 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
203223 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbaly, Inorganic Data
Reviewer, START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
re: Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site Data
Validation Assessment, January 24, 2000.
P. 2 03224 - Memorandum (with attachments) to Mr. Angel
2 03281 Rodriguez, OSC, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region 2, from Ms. Smita Sumbcily, Inorganic Data
Reviewer, START Region II, Roy F. Weston, Inc.,
re: Vega Baja Landfill Data Validation Assessment,
March 29, 2000.
2.2 Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
DataChem Analytical Results
P. 203282 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203398 99C-0155-01. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston,' July 28, 1999.
203399 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203521 99C-0155-02. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston, July 28, 1999.
2 03 522 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203638 99C-0155-03. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston, August 2, 1999.
500080
-------
P. 2 03 63 9 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203754 99C-0155-04. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston, August 2, 1999.
P. 2 03 755 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203873 99C-0155-05. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston, August 2, 1999.
P. 203874 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
203983 99C-0155-07. prepared by Mr. Michael J.
Schwendiman, DataChem Laboratories, prepared for
Roy F. Weston, August 2, 1999.
P. 2 03 984 - Report: DataChem Analytical Results DCL Set ID No.
2 04008 99C-0309-03. prepared by Young W. Han, DataChem
Laboratories, prepared for Roy F. Weston, December
12, 1999.
2.3 EE/CA Approval Memorandum (for non-time-critical removals)
P. 204009 - Memorandum to Mr. Richard L. Caspe, Director,
204019 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Through
Mr. Richard C. Salkie, Chief, Removal Action
Branch, from Mr. Thomas Budroe, On-Scene
Coordinator, Removal Action Branch, U.S. EPA,
Region 2, re: Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
Approval Memorandum, June 28, 1999.
2.5 Action Memorandum v
P. 2 04020 - Memorandum to Mr. Richard L. Caspe, Director,
204041 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Through
Mr. Richard C. Salkie, Chief, Removal Action
Branch, from Mr. Thomas Budroe, On-Scene
Coordinator, Removal Action Branch, and Mr. Angel
Rodriguez, On-Scene Coordinator, Enforcement and
Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 2, re.: Request
for a Removal Action at the Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal Site, Rio Abajo Ward, Vega Baja, Puerto
Rico, August 18, 1999.
v
500081
-------
V
Correspondence
204042 - Memorandum to File from Mr. Thomas Budroe, On-
204062 Scene Coordinator, Enforcement Management Team,
U.S. EPA, Region 2, re: Removal Site Evaluation
for the Vega Baja Solid Waste "Disposal Site, Rio
Abajo Ward, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, June 25, 1999.
204063 - Letter to Mr. Hector Russe, Chairman, Puerto Rico
204084 Environmental Quality Board, from Mr. Richard
Caspe, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 2, re: the attached
Removal Site Evaluation for the Vega Baja Solid
Waste Disposal Site, Rio Abajo Ward, Vega Baja,
Puerto Rico, July 6, 1999.
204085 - Letter to Mrs. Norma Santana, Librarian, Municipal
204085 Public Library (City Hall), from Mr. Angel C.
Rodriguez, On-Scene Coordinator, Enforcement and
Superfund Branch, U.S. EPA, Region 2, re:
transmittal of record files for the Brisas del
Rosario Site to the Vega Baja Municipal Public
Library, the designated administrative record
facility, November 4, 1999.
Correspondence
Pollution Reports (POLREPs)
204086 - U.S. EPA Initial Pollution Report, POLREP No. 1,
204092 Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site, October 19,
1999.
204093 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report,
204095 Solid Waste Disposal Site,
POLREP No. 2, Vega Baja
November 5, 1999.
204096 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report,
204097 Solid Waste Disposal Site,
POI^REP No. 3, Vega Baja
November 8, 1999.
204098 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report,
204101 Solid Waste Disposal Site,
POLREP No. 4, Vega Baja
November 26, 1999.
204102 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report,
204105 Solid Waste Disposal Site,
204106 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report,
204109 Solid Waste Disposal Site,
POLREP No. 5, Vega Baja
December 6, 1999'.
v
POLREP No. 6, Vega Baja
December 11, 1999.
v
500082
-------
204110 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 7, Vega Baja
204113 Solid Waste Disposal Site, December 21, 1999.
204114 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 8, Vega Baja
204117 Solid Waste Disposal Site, January 17, 2000.
204118 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 9, Vega Baja
204122 Solid Waste Disposal Site, January 22, 2000.
204123 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 10, Vega
204127 Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site, January 29, 2000.
204128 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 11, Vega
204131 Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site, February 7, 2000.
204132 - U.S. EPA Pollution Report, POLREP No. 12, Vega
204135 Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site, February 14, 2000.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Work Plans
300001 - Report: Final Work Plan. Volume I, Vega Baia
300143 Solid Waste Disposal Site. Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Vega Baia, Puerto
Rico, prepared by CDM Federal Programs.
Corporation, prepared for U.SV. EPA, Regipn 2,
October 27, 2000.
300144 - Report: Final Quality Assurance Project Plan,
300641 Vega Baia Solid Waste Disposal Site Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Vega Baia, Puerto
Rico, prepared by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 2, June
11, 2001. v
300642 - Report: Final Work Plan, Volume I, Vega Baia
300744 Solid Waste Disposal Site Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. Operable Unit 2 -
Soils Investigation. Vega Baia, Puerto Rico,
prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 2, June 28, 2002.
v
8
V
500083
-------
V
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 3 00745 - Report: Drilling Incident Report, Vega Baia Solid
300846 Waste Disposal Site Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study. Vega Baia. Puerto Rico,
prepared by CDM Federal Programs Corporation,
prepared for U.S. EPA, Region 2, February 22,
2002. (NOTE: This document is CONFIDENTIAL. It
.is located at the U.S. EPA, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, N.Y., N.Y.
10007-1866.)
7.0 ENFORCEMENT
7.3 Administrative Orders
P. 700001 - Administrative Order In the Matter of the Vega
700026 Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site, Puerto
Rico Land Authority; Puerto Rico Housing'
Department; Municipality of Vega Baja; Motorola
Electronica de Puerto Rico, Inc., Respondents,
Proceeding Under Section 106(a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42
U.S.C. §9606(a), September 16, 1999.
7.7 Notice Letters and Responses - 104e's ^
P. 700027 - Letter to Mr. Richard I. Caspe, Director,
700027 Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region 2, from Mr. Patricio Martinez-Lorenzo,
re: Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund
Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, Notice of Potential
for Information Pursuant to tl^e Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and' Liability
Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et. sea.. June 21, 1999.
Letter to Mr. Richard I. Caspe, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region 2, from Alberto L. Ramos, Esq., re:
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site -
Vega Baja PR, Request of Additional Time to Submit
Information Requested, June 21, 1999.
Letter to Ms. Liliana Villatora, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional
9
P. 700028
' 700029
P. 700030
700030
500084
-------
\
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region 2, from Patricio
Martinez-Lorenzo, Esq., by Ms. Amanda I. Figueroa-
Torres, Legal Assistant, re: Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal Superfund Site, Vega.Baja, Puerto Rico,
July 13, 1999.
Letter to Ms. Liliana Villatora, New York/
Caribbean Superfund Branch, Office of Regional
Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region 2, from Mr. Alberto L.
Ramos, re: Request of Extension of Time, Vega Baja
Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site, Vega Baja,
Puerto Rico, Notice of Potential Liability
Pursuant to CERCLA, July 22, 1999.
Letter to Liliana Villatora, Esq., Assistant
Regional Counsel, U.S. EPA, Region 2, re: Vega
Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site, Vega
Baja, Puerto Rico, Notice of Potential Liability
and.Request for Information Pursuant to the'
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et. seq., from
Mr. Patricio Martinez-Lorenzo, July 23, 1999.
7.8 Correspondence
P. 700034. -
700038
P. 700039 -
700043
P. 700031
700031
P. 700032
700033
Letter to Mr. Fernando Machado, Executive
Director, Puerto Rico Land Authority; Puerto Rico
Housing Department, c/o Patricio Martinez-Lorenzo,
Esq.; Motorola Semimetales, Inc., c/o Carlos
Humberto Dobal, Esq.; Mayor Luis E. Melendez-Cano,
Municipality of Vega Baja; Motorola Electronica de
Puerto Rico, Inc., c/o Carlos Humberto Dobal,
Esq.; and Motorala de Puerto Rico, Inc., c/o
Carlos Humberto Dobal, Esq., re: Vega Baja Solid
Waste Disposal Superfund Site, Vega Baja, Puerto
Rico, Notice of Potential Liability Pursuant to
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601
et. seq.. from Mr. Richard Caspe, Director,
Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
EPA, Region 2, July 6, 1999.
Letter to Attached List of Addressees, re: Special
Notice Concerning Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study for Soil at the Vega Baja Solid
Waste Disposal Superfund Site, Vega Baja, Puerto .
Rico, from Mr. George Pavlou, Director, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA, Region
2, June 26, 2002.
10 x 500085
-------
V
8.0 HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1 ATSDR Health Assessments
P. 800001 - Report: Public Health Assessment for Vega Baia
800075 Solid Waste Disposal. Rio Abaio Ward/La Trocha.
Vega Baia County, Puerto Rico, prepared by
Superfund Site Assessment Branch, Division of
Health Assessment and Consultation, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, November
30, 1998.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.4, Public Meeting Transcripts
P. 10.00001 -Public Availability Session Sign In SheetsPublic
10.00003 Availability Session, November 9, 1999.
NOTE: The following volumes of the Vega Baja Administrative
Record for the Removal Program are incorporated into
this Remedial Administrative Record by reference:
Volume 1, May 1999 v
Volume 2, May 1999
Volume 3, May 1999
Volume 4, September 1999'
Volume 5, November 19 9 9
V
11 v 500086
-------
101249
V
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.2 Community Relations Plans
P. 10.0004 - Plan: Community Involvement Plan. Vega Baia.Solid
10.0044 Waste Disposal Site. Vega Baia. Puerto Rico. Work
Assignment No.: 131-RICO-Q2HJ. prepared by CDM
Federal Programs Corporation, prepared for U.S.
EPA, Region II, October 31, 2003.
v
1
V
500087
-------
SDMS Document
101250
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE #2
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
3.0 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
3.4 Remedial Investigation Reports
P. 3 00847 - Report: Final Human Health Risk Assessment for
300942 Groundwater, Vega Baia Solid Waste Disposal Site.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, Vega
Baia, Puerto Rico, prepared by CDM Federal
Programs Corporation, prepared for U. S. EPA
Region 2, July 16, 2003.
P. 3 00 943 - Report: Final Remedial Investigation Report,
301449 Vega Baia Solid Waste Disposal Site, Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, Vega Baia, Puerto
Rico, prepared by CDM Federal Programs
Corporation, prepared for U. S. EPA Region 2, July
18, 2003.
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.9 Proposed Plan
P. 10.00045- Superfund Proposed Plan, Vega Baia Solid Waste
10.00052 Disposal, Vega Baia Solid Waste Disposal Superfund
Site, Operable Unit One: Groundwater, Vega Baia,
Puerto Rico, prepared by U. S. EPA Region 2,
November 2003.
P. 10.00053- Hoi a Informativa. Lugar de Superfondo de Vega
10.00061 Baia. Unidad Qperacional Uno: Agua Subterranea.
Hoi a Informativa, Vega Baia. Puerto Rico, prepared
by U. S. EPA Region 2, Noviembre 2003.
500088
-------
SDMS Document
101251
VEGA RAJA. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE #3
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
P. 10.00062- Transcripcion Ad Verbatim de Vista Publica,
.10.00108 Celebrada El Dia 4 De Diciembre De 2003 A Las 7:30
De La Noche En La Capilla Del Sector Alturas
Brisas del Rosario, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico,
prepared by CDM Federal Programs.
P. 10.00109- [Translation] Ad Verbatim Transcription of Public
10.00150 Hearing Held On December 4, 2003, At 7:30 P.M. In
the Chapel Of Alturas Brisas Del Rosario Sector,
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, prepared by CDM Federal
Programs.
500089
-------
SDMS Document
101252
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE UPDATE #4
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
5.0 RECORD OF DECISION
!>. 1 Record of Decision
P. 500001 - Record of Decision, Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal
500059 Site, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, Operable Unit 1 -
Groundwater, prepared by U. S. EPA, Region 2,
April 6, 2004.
c
v
500090
-------
APPENDIX IV - STATE LETTER OF
CONCURRENCE
500091
-------
Environmental Emergencies Response Area
GOVERNMENT OF PUERTO RICO
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
PUERTO RICO
VERDE
July 14, 2010
Eng. Nancy Rodriguez, P.E., Remedial Project Manager
Enforcement & Superfund Branch
Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
US Environmental Protection Agency
Centro Europa Building, Suite 417
San Juan, PR 00907-4127
RE: Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site Proposed Plan Concurrence Letter
Dear Ms. Rodriguez:
The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB) has completed its review of
the aforementioned document Basically, the Proposed Plan (PP) presents the
USEPA preferred remedial alternative to address lead contamination at the site and
also includes summaries of all the cleanup alternatives evaluated throughout the
Feasibility Study (FS) process. After reviewing the PP and considering all the issues
and concerns addressed during the Final Feasibility Study production, the PREQB
concurs with the USEPA selection of Alternative 2 (On-Site Consolidation and Cover
in the Non-Residential Area with Institutional Controls) as the preferred alternative
presented in the PP.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Mrs. Enid Y. Vilegas-Henrfquez,
Remedial Project and Support Chief or Mr. Pascual E. Velazquez, Environmental
Compliance and Inspection Officer, at (787) 767-8181 extensions 3209 or 3213,
respectively, or by e-mail to enidvillegas@i'ca.gobiemo.pr or
pascualvelazquez @i ca.gobierno .pr.
Emergency Response Program
PV/EYVH
Edifieio Agendas Ambientales Cruz A. Matos
Ave. Ponce de Leon 1375, San Juan, PR 00926-2604
Apartado 11488, Santurce, PR 00910
Tel. 787-767-8181 Fax 787-756-5906
500092
-------
APPENDIX V - RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
500093
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Record of Decision
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site
Operable Unit 2
INTRODUCTION
A responsiveness summary is required by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) promulgated under the Superfimd statute. It provides a summary of
citizens' comments and concerns received during the public comment period, as well as the
response of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to those comments and
concerns. All comments summarized in this document have been considered by EPA in making
its decision as embodied in the Record of Decision for the Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site
(the Site).
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES
The Community Involvement Plan (CIP) was prepared for the Site in October 2003. The CIP
included a community profile and contact list, and has also been used by EPA for its community
outreach efforts at the Site. The complete Administrative Record (AR) has been made available
for public review at the following information repositories:
Caribbean University Vega Baja Campus
Carr 661, Sector El Criollo,
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico 00964
Vega Baja City Hall (OU2 AR only)
No, 1 Francisco Nater Street
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
US EPA Caribbean Environmental Protection
Division
Centra Europa Building
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Emergency Response and Superfund Program
Edificio de Agendas Ambientales Cruz A.
Matos
Urbanization San Jose Industrial Park
1375 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00926-2604
U.S. EPA Records Center, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
The Proposed Plan was prepared by EPA, in consultation with the Puerto Rico Environmental
Quality Board (PREQB), and released to the public in July 2010. A notice of the Proposed Plan
and public comment period was placed in the Primera Hora and El Vocero newspapers on July
28, 2010 consistent with the requirements of the NCP. Flyers were also distributed to residents
of Brisas del Rosario, and left at various commercial stores to announce the date and location of
the public meeting. The Proposed Plan was made available for review at the information
repositories for the Site. The public comment period was scheduled from July 29, 2010 to
August 29, 2010. EPA hosted a public meeting on August 3, 2010 to discuss the Proposed Plan.
At this meeting, representatives from EPA and PREQB answered questions about the
contamination at the Site and the remedial alternatives.
l
500094
-------
OVERVIEW
Alternative 2, Removal with On-Site Consolidation and Cover in the Non-Residential Area,
provides for removal of lead-contaminated soils in the Residential Area yards and the Drainage
Ditch where lead concentrations are above the cleanup goal of 450 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), and removal of Trash Mound materials. Removed materials will be transported to the
Non-Residential Area and consolidated. Approximately 8.5 acres of the Non-Residential Area
where soil lead concentrations are above the Site cleanup goal and/or trash mound materials are
present would then be covered with a soil cover system. Institutional controls will be established
to address uncharacterized areas beneath buildings and pavements and to prevent the disturbance
of soil covers.
A summary of comments and EPA's responses involving the remedial investigation and
feasibility study (RI/FS), Proposed Plan, and Superfund process with respect to the Vega Baja
Solid Waste Disposal Site (OU 2) are provided below. Comments received and responses
provided during the public meeting held on August 3, 2010 appear in Section I. Written
comments received by EPA during the public comments period, and EPA's responses, appear in
Section II.
Attached to this Responsiveness Summary are the following Appendices:
Attachment A - Proposed Plan
Attachment B - Public Notice, Flyer, Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
Attachment C - Letters Submitted During the Public Comment Period
Attachment D - Transcript of the August 3, 2010 Public-Meeting, English Translation of the
Public Meeting Transcript
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND EPA'S RESPONSES
I. ORAL COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC MEETING
Risk Assessment
Establishment of Cleanup Criteria
Comment # 1: During the presentation, it was mentioned that work was going to be carried out
in areas with 450 ppm (parts per million) or more of lead contamination. If the maximum level
of exposure recommended is 400 ppm, what is going to happen in areas that have 401 to 449
ppm?
Response # 1: The 400 ppm lead level represents a default value when using the IEUBK model
to develop health risk-based cleanup levels. The model does allow for the use of site-specific
data to develop cleanup levels. In the case of the Vega Alta Site, data was collected involving
lead concentrations in household dust and tap water and this data was used in the model to
calculate acceptable lead levels in Site soil. This exercise resulted in a potentially acceptable
range for lead of 566 to 605 ppm. However, because of other factors including IEUBK model
uncertainties (e.g., household dust data collection),.community concerns, and technical issues
2
500095
-------
(e.g., potential ecological risks), EPA adopted a more conservative cleanup level of450 ppm.
EPA believes that removing lead-contaminated soil above this concentration will result in a
remedy that protects both human health and the environment. Consequently, no action is
anticipated on properties with lead levels below 450 ppm.
Long-Term Risk
Comment # 2: What does long-term risk mean to people who live here? How many years is
considered long term?
Response # 2: An imminent risk to the public health is considered immediate. That is why in
the Brisas del Rosario neighborhood, EPA removed contaminated soil at concentrations that
were sufficiently high to represent an immediate risk. When considering long-term risk, the time
period is 30 years. It is the risk that could potentially exist if a person is exposed to a certain
concentration of lead over a 30-year period. The concentration of lead derived from the risk
assessment is believed to be conservative enough to ensure that no adverse effect on human
health or the environment will occur from lead exposure at the Site.
The cleanup process is not expected to take 30 years. The remedial design and actual cleanup
action will begin after the federal court has entered a Consent Decree, negotiated between the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) acting on behalf of EPA, and the responsible parties, which
provides for implementation of the selected remedy or in the case that the parties are not able to
negotiate an agreement, EPA issues a Unilateral Order to the parties to perform the cleanup
and/or provides the funding for it.
Comment # 3: Contaminated properties are going to be cleaned up as presented on the map.
What is the impact on the people who have been living on these properties, some of them for as
long as 50 years? ' '
Response # 3: Conservative hypothetical scenarios are used in the risk assessment process to
assess long-term exposure. Risk assessments tend to assume the worst, most conservative
exposure situations for all residents and then make cleanup decisions to ensure that human health
is protected. Also, as indicated in a later response to a comment in this document, EPA can refer
this health impact issue to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
Protection of Human Health
Comment #4:1 live in Villa Pinares and am concerned that the alternative chosen be the one
that is most beneficial to the residents' health. I have observed in my neighborhood that when it
rains, water percolates down into the subsoil. If the chosen alternative is to leave the
contamination in place, will there be cement or other material to cover the contaminated soil so
water won't percolate down into the subsoil and possibly contaminate a well in my
neighborhood? I wanted to state that the alternative chosen be the one that will be most
beneficial to the health of the residents here.
3
500096
-------
Response # 4: There are nine criteria that alternatives are screened against. The first criterion is
that the alternative provides for the protection of human health and the environment. EPA would
not choose an alternative based only on cost that would put the residents' health at risk. Also, it
is a collaborative effort. EPA seeks input from the public and other stakeholders and considers
community preferences before selecting a remedial alternative for a site. It is only after the
comment period that a final decision is made as to the chosen alternative. The preferred
remedial action includes the removal of lead-contaminated soil from residential properties and
consolidation of that material in a non-residential area. A soil cover will be placed over the
consolidated material to prevent direct human contact. An impermeable cover is not planned
since the lead has not been found to leach from the contaminated soil to the groundwater.
Excavated soil will be tested and any material determined to be not suitable for consolidation
will be either treated prior to placement or transported to an appropriate disposal facility.
Comment # 5: My neighbor brought a machine and then started to gather up the waste kid it
affected my lot. Then, half of my lot was cleaned up. I was told they would return to clean the
rest of my lot but they never returned.
Response #5: If possible, it is recommended that you stay after the meeting to identify your
property on the map and discuss your particular situation.
Schedule
¦¦¦ ¦ ' ' ' \
Comment # 6: How long will it take, from the start of the process until its conclusion, for the
Site to be cleaned up since this will affect my ability to obtain title to my property from the
Puerto Rico Housing Authority?
Response # 6: Once the public comment period concludes and the Record of Decision (ROD) is
issued, negotiations will be held between DO J (on behalf of EPA) and the responsible parties to
negotiate the terms of a Consent Decree that must be entered in federal court under which the
responsible parties agree to perform the selected remedial design and remedial construction. If
no Consent Decree is entered, EPA will have to make the decision to either issue a UAO to the
parties requiring them to implement the remedy or provide the federal fundind for it. At this
point, the actual preparation for remediation can begin. EPA will keep the public apprised on the
status of this effort and provide the public with schedules for the design and construction
activities once they become available.
Comment # 7: When are you going to start the cleanup and how long will it take? What
happens with the houses that do not have all of their land contaminated with lead but still have
patches contaminated with lead?
Response # 7: As indicated above, once detailed schedules become available in connection with
the design and subsequent cleanup work, EPA will provide that information to the public and
particularly to the affected residents. This information is expected to identify the areas to be
excavated, truck entry and exit routes, etc. EPA will inform the community in advance of the
work by handing out flyers, contacting the community leaders, and conducting another public
meeting. In regard to the question about sections or patches of properties with contaminated soil
above the 450 ppm cleanup goal, that material will be removed.
4
500097
-------
Groundwater Issues
Comment # 8: A concerned citizen brought up the importance of protecting the karst areas of
the North Coast of Puerto Rico especially related to aquifer recharge.
Response # 8: Comment was noted. A groundwater remedial investigation was conducted at
the Vega Baja Site under OU1. The documents generated during the investigation are included
in the administrative record for the Site.
II. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD (JULY 29, 2010 - AUGUST 29, 2010)
Comment from Brisas del Rosario Residents
Site Characterization
Residential Soil Screening
Comment # 1: After analyzing what EPA tells us, I don't understand how is it possible that my
property is not contaminated when a test performed showed lead. In addition, the property on
the east will be cleaned up, the property on the south, on the west and the drainage ditch to the
north are all on the list for being cleaned up.
Response # 1: X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis, a screening tool, was initially used to choose
properties for further investigation in the OU2 RI. Those properties identified for further
investigation were then sampled for lead using the method outlined in EPA's Lead Guidance.
Based on these results, a property was included in the feasibility study if a property sector
composite sample was above the 450 ppm screening criteria. The results of your property were
below the screening criteria at all sample depths. Two areas of your property that were
backfilled were not sampled during the OU2 RI but will be included in the pre-design
investigation to determine if lead contamination is present.
Comment # 2: I'm not in agreement with the results since the more I dig, the more landfill soil
comes out. In the last test, they took soil from an area that I backfilled.
Response #2: As indicated above, the lead concentrations at your property were below
screening criteria. Properties included in the feasibility study had contamination above risk
levels (screening criteria). The existence of landfill materials on a property without lead
contamination above screening criteria would not warrant cleanup at that property under
CERCLA as per EPA's Lead Guidance.
Risk Assessment
Establishment of Cleanup Criteria
Comment # 3: Another thing is that Mr. Ramon Torres said that the standard was 400 mg/kg.
Now, it is 450 mg/kg. Was this done to avoid cleaning up some properties?
5
500098
-------
Response # 3: The difference in the two cleanup values you reference is due to the data that
was used to calculate a soil lead concentration that is protective of human health. The value of
400 mg/kg was calculated using default values for tap water and indoor dust that were
obtained from a nationwide database. Additional data was collected from homes within Vega
Baja to obtain more specific information for tap water and indoor dust lead concentrations in
the community. The results of the data collected at Vega Baja show that there is less lead in the
tap water and indoor dust compared to other areas of the United States. By using this localized
data in the IEUBK model, a higher lead concentration in soil was determined to be protective of
human health.
Comment # 4: I'm concerned about the long term since some of us have been here for a long
time. And I would say that time is up.
Response # 4: In performing the risk assessments, EPA evaluated 30 years of exposure which is
standard time period, and the risks and hazards were within acceptable values. Our analysis
indicated that lead was the chemical of greatest concern, and we will be remediating the Site for
lead which will eliminate or reduce exposure to lead in the future.
Comment # 5: There has not been any importance given to health here. There are many people
with conditions involving their skin, kidneys, and even cancer. I know that happens everywhere
but when there is a cause like here. Many people stay quiet because they are afraid they will be
forced to leave since they have no titles, and to many, the titles are more valuable than health.
Response # 5: EPA followed standard procedures for evaluating the nature and extent of
contamination in the Vega Baja area and identified sources of lead that require remediation.
Although there were other compounds detected in the soil samples, their concentrations were
not elevated above human health values. EPA is concerned about the health of the residents.
We do not have the authority or expertise to undertake health studies. However, we will refer
your concern to the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, which is a federal
government agency that works closely with EPA to evaluate health concerns in communities, so
that they can determine if a health study should be undertaken.
Evaluation of Remedial Alternatives
Cost
Comment # 6: Supposedly, over $3 million were spent on three properties. With $4 million,
will the rest be cleaned up?
Response # 6: Yes, the cost estimate presented in the feasibility study was developed using
appropriate RI/FS guidelines. The amount is expected to be sufficient to implement the
preferred remedy and is designed to meet the remedial action objectives.
Comment Letter from the PRP Group
Comment # 1: The Group supports EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) as the most
appropriate alternative based on the criteria established in the National Contingency Plan (NCP).
6
500099
-------
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the Alternative 2 approach has already been demonstrated at
the Site by the Group. In 2004, some trash mound materials in the residential area were the
subject of an unauthorized disturbance, creating a physical hazard. At EPA's request, the Group
responded by removing the rest of the materials, consolidating them in the Non-Residential Area,
and covering them consistent with Alternative 2. This action has been effective in protecting
human health and the environment. EPA's Preferred Alternative adopts the same approach for
impacted soils and remaining trash mounds in the Residential Area, as well as the Drainage
Ditch. The associated engineered barrier cover in the Non-Residential Area will be subject to
regular inspection and maintenance to ensure its proper performance into the future.
Response # 1: Comment noted.
Comment # 2: Page 12 of the Proposed Plan (as well as EPA's presentation at the August 3,
2010 public meeting) indicates that a different alternative (Alternative 3) would have higher
long-term effectiveness and permanence than the Preferred Alternative. However, it should be
noted that under Alternative 3, impacted materials would simply be moved to another location
where they would need to be managed in the same way as under Alternative 2 to maintain long-
term effectiveness and permanence. In addition, given the large volume of materials
(approximately 90,000 cubic yards) that would be transported through the Site under Alternative
3, the impacts to the community would be much greater than for Alternative 2. Transportation of
contaminated materials over substantial distances would be necessary to reach a suitable disposal
site, increasing the risk involved in implementing the remedy (both to the wider community and
to remediation workers). Alternative 3 would also involve a much higher level of resource
consumption (primarily fuel) and air emissions compared to EPA's preferred alternative
(Alternative 2).
Response # 2: Comment noted.
Comment # 3: As indicated in the Proposed Plan (page 12), Alternative 2 is the most
implementable alternative; however, EPA's presentation during the public meeting on August 3,
2010 did not indicate that this alternative was ranked highest for implementability. It should be
noted that Alternative 3, in particular, has significant implementation challenges. As discussed
in the Feasibility Study, in a February 18, 2010 presentation entitled "Solid Waste Management
in Puerto Rico: Realities, Facts and Figures," the Puerto Rico Solid Waste Authority stated that
"Puerto Rico's situation regarding waste management is critical" and it indicated that by the year
2014, ten of the existing 24 landfills in Puerto Rico will likely be closed, and by 2020, only four
landfills will still be in operation at the current rate of waste disposal. This suggests that finding
an appropriate disposal facility able to accept nearly 90,000 cubic yards (about 135,000 tons) of
lead-contaminated soil will be difficult and the soils may need to be transported a significant
distance to an appropriate and available landfill. Indeed, in connection with the removal action
performed at this Site several years ago when landfill space was more readily available, EPA
stated that 'The number of landfills on Puerto Rico capable of accepting the contaminated soils
generated at the Site is very limited."
Response #3: Comment noted.
Comment # 4: The cleanup goal of450 mg/kg for lead that is presented in the approved
Feasibility Study and in the proposed plan was selected by EPA, despite scientific evidence that
7
500100
-------
a higher value would be appropriate. For example, blood lead testing of child residents at the
Site conducted in 1998 by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) did
not exceed the health-based criterion established by the Centers for Disease Control.
Furthermore, EPA's IEUBK model was used by the Group to develop a site-specific preliminary
remedial goal range of 566 to 613 mg/kg. The Group recommended a cleanup level of 550
mg/kg based on the IEUBK-calculated range. This cleanup level would also be protective of
populations of ecological receptors. EPA stated on page 8 of the Proposed Plan that "Final
cleanup level selection for Superfund sites generally is based on the IEUBK model results and
the nine criteria analysis per the National Contingency Plan (NCP), which includes an analysis of
ARARs." However, EPA's selection of the cleanup level in this case does not appear to have
been based on this approach - rather, it is a more conservative value close to EPA's generic
residential screening level of400 mg/kg. The Group maintains that a cleanup level of 550 mg/kg
would be consistent with EPA's practice and would be equally protective at the Site.
Response # 4: The PRP Group should recognize that the IEUBK model is not the only factor
considered by EPA in establishing appropriate cleanup levels for Superfund sites. As indicated,
the nine criteria analysis under the NCP, which includes community preferences and acceptance,
also is an important consideration.
The Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites Handbook (EPA 2003) states "Final
cleanup level selection for Superfund sites generally is based on the IEUBK model results and
the nine criteria analysis per the National Contingency Plan (NCP), which includes an analysis of
ARARs." There are a variety of lead screening levels and cleanup goals that have been
referenced, used, or calculated for the Vega Baja Site. These are briefly outlined below.
For the protection of human health, EPA's Regional Screening Levels for Chemical
Contaminants at Superfund Sites (December 2009 version) identifies the generic screening level
for lead in residential soil as 400 mg/kg, a value that has been used by EPA for many years. This
generic screening level was developed utilizing the default assumptions in the IEUBK model and
setting the soil concentration to a level that achieves less than a 5% likelihood that blood lead
levels would exceed 10 ug/dL in children exposed to lead at home. The actual soil concentration
determined in this way using the IEUBK model is 418 mg/kg, which EPA rounded down to 400
mg/kg. EPA used 400 mg/kg as the cleanup level for an earlier action on residential properties at
the Site under its Removal Program.
The initial calculation of a site-specific Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) or lead cleanup
goal using the IEUBK model and site-specific parameters resulted in a soil concentration range
of466 to 505 mg/kg. Based on this range of values, EPA recommended a lead cleanup level of
450 mg/kg for the Site. It was later discovered that the IEUBK model software had been
updated. The updated version of the model (IEUBKwin Version 1.1, Build 11) produced a site-
specific PRG range of 566 to 613 mg/kg when utilizing tap water lead data and a range of soil-
to-dust lead correlation coefficients (based on a regression of soil lead and indoor dust lead
measurements collected during the RI).
The protection of ecological receptors was considered through the Screening Level Ecological
Risk Assessment ("SLERA") process. Based on the results of the SLERA, avian receptors
(represented by the Red-legged thrush and the Northern bobwhite) were found to have the
potential for unacceptable risk, with the thrush being the most sensitive receptor. Using the
8
500101
-------
SLERA results, EPA recommended an ecological-based PRG of 174 mg/kg for lead to protect
individuals within the avian community, while recognizing that the goal of ecological risk
management is to protect ecological populations (as distinct from individuals). A population-
level evaluation was undertaken using the initial human health PRG of450 mg/kg. It indicated
that a cleanup based on 450 mg/kg would be protective of ecological populations.
This information is summarized in the table below as presented in the Feasibility Study.
PRG Description
Value (mg/kg)
Comment
Generic EPA Regional
Screening Level for
Superfund
400
Used as the default screening and
cleanup goal within the agency.
Developed using default parameters in
the IEUBK model with rounding
applied to the result. Cleanup level
used for three properties at Vega Baja
cleaned up under EPA Removal
Program.
Site-specific IEUBK
cleanup value using site-
specific tap water and
indoor dust data
566-613
This range of cleanup values was
determined using the current version
of the IEUBK model and a range of
soil-to-dust lead correlation
coefficients based on site-specific
sampling data and using the average
(mean) tap water lead concentrations
measured during the Remedial
Investigation.
Ecological protective value
using "Rule of Five"
174
Site-specific concentration
that is protective of
ecological populations
>450
An evaluation performed for the Site
indicated that a human health-based
cleanup level of450 mg/kg would also
be protective of ecological
populations; higher concentrations
were hot evaluated.
In addition to the above information, EPA considered other factors in establishing a
cleanup goal for lead at the Site. These include:
¦ EPA's 2008 "Guidance for the Sampling and Analysis of Lead in Indoor
Residential Dust for Use in the Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic.
9
500102
-------
(IEUBK) Model" recommends the use of high-volume cyclonic vacuum
samplers for dust sample collection because they generally have greater
precision and collection efficiency than the low-flow method used at the
time of the RI.
¦ EPA determined that a lead concentration of 174 mg/kg would achieve
acceptable risk levels for ecological receptors when evaluated on the basis
of individuals (as opposed to populations). The protection goal for
ecological receptors is focused on protecting populations instead of
individuals. Although a higher cleanup goal (i.e., 450 mg/kg) was also
found to be protective of ecological receptors, a comprehensive evaluation
to determine the maximum lead concentration (i.e., greater than 450
mg/kg) that is still protective of ecological populations has not been
conducted.
¦ There are very few areas of the Site where lead concentrations are within
the range of potential cleanup values (i.e., most of the measured lead
concentrations are either less than 450 mg/kg or greater than 550 mg/kg).
Thus, the total cleanup cost may not vary significantly within the range of
cleanup values. EPA believes that the additional protectiveness associated
with lead remediation based on a more conservative cleanup level (i.e.,
lower than the values calculated from EPA's current IEUBK model using
site-specific data) is sufficient to warrant the additional cost.
¦ EPA also is concerned that the use of significantly different cleanup levels
at the Site may create confusion on the part of the community. EPA's
previous time-critical removal action employed a cleanup level of 400
mg/kg. Comments from the public have questioned the use of 450 mg/kg
_ for the upcoming remedial action.
Based on the above considerations, a cleanup level of450 mg/kg has been established for the
Site (residential area, trash mounds, drainage ditch and undeveloped area). EPA believes a
cleanup to this level is entirely appropriate and consistent with its mission to protect human
health and the environment
Comment # 5: Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that arsenic and manganese concentrations are
"similar to background;" however, the analyses performed as part of the Remedial Investigation
indicate no statistical difference between concentrations of these compounds in background and
on the Site.
Response #5: As part of the Remedial Investigation, samples were collected from on-site areas
and from off-site areas (i.e., background locations). Samples were analyzed for inorganic
compounds that were found in both on-site and off-site areas, with arsenic and manganese being
included in the analyses. There are two possible outcomes from this type of statistical analyses -
concentrations detected in both areas are found to be statistically different or concentrations are
found to have ho statistical difference;. Concentrations that are found to be statistically different
indicate that the detected concentrations are different (i.e., on-site concentrations are
significantly higher or lower than the backgound concentrations) and concentrations that are
found to have no statistical difference indicate that on-site and off-site concentrations are not
10
500103
-------
different, or said another way, similar to each other. Therefore, since the statistical analyses
reported in the Remedial Investigation for arsenic and manganese found no statistical
differences, the conclusion that the on-site concentrations are similar to background is accurate.
Comment # 6: Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that risks associated with thallium could be re-
evaluated during the Remedial Design. However, the NCP requires that the cleanup approach be
unambiguously determined in EPA's Record of Decision. Re-evaluation of remedies thereafter
may occur only via EPA's Five-Year Review process.
Response # 6: If new information becomes available indicating a concern about the presence of
a contaminant, EPA has the authority under CERCLA to address that contaminant at anytime
during the process. Waiting for a five-year review to do so would be irresponsible and
inconsistent with EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment.
I ~ '
Comment # 7: Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that the results of IEUBK and ALM modeling
indicated a potential to cause "an increase in blood lead" defined as "greater than 5% of the
population exceeding 10 ug/dL of lead in the blood." This description of the results of IEUBK
and ALM modeling is not accurate. These models predict whether lead concentrations in soil are
likely to result in a 5% probability that any single individual's blood lead level will exceed 10
ug/dL. Furthermore, blood sampling performed on all pre-school aged children at the Site in
1998 indicated no detections of lead in blood at concentrations greater than 10 ug/dL.
Response # 7: EPA acknowledges that the general description of the IEUBK and ALM model is
not presented clearly. As noted above, the IEUBK does predict the probability of an individual
(in the population experiencing the modeled exposures) exceeding the level of concern (10
(ig/dL). This is different than 5% of the population exceeding the level of concern. Determining
whether the population is above or below the predicted probability would require knowing the
actual exposures for the population and having a blood lead study (not a survey) of a statistical
sample of the children that is representative for the exposures. The second point regarding
blood lead monitoring results is immaterial to the discussion of risk, and for the exact reason
stated above. For any exposure scenario, one would expect the population of children exposed to
the same concentrations in the contaminated media to have a variety of lead concentrations
(which vary depending on inter-individual variability in media intakes [e.g., daily average
intakes of soil-derived dust, drinking water, or food], absorption, and biokinetics). The model
simulates the combined impact of these sources of variability as a lognormal distribution of
blood lead concentration (for children exposed to the same media lead concentrations). This
lognormal distribution of lead concentrations is used to predict the probability of exceeding the
level of concern within a population of similarly exposed children.
Comment # 8: Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that "A cleanup value of450 mg/kg was
determined to be protective of avian populations that use the Site." It should be noted that,
because avian receptors are the most sensitive to lead, protection of avian populations ensures
protection of all ecological receptors evaluated for the Site. In addition, 450 mg/kg was
evaluated because it was selected by EPA as the cleanup level for protection of human health;
however, higher concentrations of lead are also protective of ecological receptor populations.
11
500104
-------
Response # 8: As indicated above, cleanup levels above 450 mg/kg were not evaluated for
protection to ecological receptors. Therefore, no conclusions about higher concentrations can be
reasonably drawn.
Comment # 9: Page 12: The short-term effectiveness criterion also includes consideration of the
time to achieve remedial goals. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is expected to achieve
remedial goals in a shorter time frame than Alternatives 3 and 4.
Response # 9: The comment is noted.
12
500105
<
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appendix A -Proposed Plan
500106
-------
Superfund Program
Proposed Plan
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site
Operable Unit 2: Soils
July 2010
£
S
za
\
A
*L PRO^"
%
LU
CD
EPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED PLAN
This Proposed Plan identifies the Preferred Alternative
to address soil contamination at the Vega Baja Solid
Waste Disposal Superfund Site in Vega Baja, Puerto
Rico, and provides the rationale for this preference.
Alternatives have been developed to address
contaminated soils.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Preferred Alternative to address soil contamination is
Alternative 2, Removal with On-Site Consolidation and
Cover in the Non-Residential Area. This remedy will
also include Institutional Controls to address certain
uncharacterized areas beneath buildings and pavements
and to prevent the disturbance of soil covers. A
groundwater investigation was conducted at the site as
part of the Operable Unit 1 (OU-1) Remedial
Investigation (RI). This investigation concluded that
groundwater has not been impacted by site-related
contaminants. A No Action Record of Decision (ROD)
for OU-1 was signed in April 2004.
This Proposed Plan includes summaries of all the
cleanup alternatives evaluated for the site. This
document is issued by EPA, the lead agency for site
activities, and the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality
Board (PREQB), the support agency. EPA, in
consultation with PREQB, will select the final remedy
for lead-contaminated soils after reviewing and
considering all information submitted during a 30-day
public comment period. EPA, in consultation with
PREQB, may modify the preferred alternative or select
another response action presented in this Proposed Plan
based on new information or public comments.
Therefore, the public is encouraged to review and
comment on all the alternatives presented in this
document.
MARK YOUR CALENDAR
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
July 29, 2010 - August 29, 2010
EPA will accept written comments on the Proposed Plan
during the public comment period.
Written comments should be addressed to:
Nancy Rodriguez, PE,
Remedial Project Manager
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue - Suite 417
San Juan, PR 00908
Telephone: (787) 977-5887
Fax: (787)289-7104
Internet: rodriguez.nancy@epa.gov
PUBLIC MEETING: August 3, 2010 at 6:00 pm
EPA will hold a public meeting to explain the Proposed
Plan and all of the alternatives presented in the Feasibility
Study. Oral and written comments will also be accepted at
the meeting. The meeting will be held at the Catholic
Chapel located at Principal Street, Brisas del Rosario
Community, Rio Abajo Ward, Vega Baja, PR.
EPA is issuing this Proposed Plan as part of its
community relations program under Section 117(a) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly
known as Superfund). This Proposed Plan summarizes
information that can be found in greater detail in the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
reports and other documents contained in the
Administrative Record (AR) for the site.
500107
-------
The administrative record file, which
contains the information upon which the selection of
the response action will be based, is available at the
following locations:
Caribbean University Vega Baja Campus
Carr 661, Sector El Criollo,
Vega Baja , PR 00964
Attn: Lydia Ponce
(787)858-3668 Ext. 3315
Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm
Vega Baja City Hall
No, 1 Francisco Nater Street
Vega Baja, PR
(787) 855-2500
Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am to 3:00 pm
* Note: AR for OU-1 not available at this location
US EPA Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
Centra Europa Building
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
(787) 977-5865
Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am to 5:00pm
By Appointment
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Emergency Response and Superfund Program
Edificio de Agendas Ambientales Cruz A. Matos
Urbanization San Jose Industrial Park
1375 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, PR 00926-2604
(787)767-8181 ext 3207
Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am to 3:00 pm
By appointment
U.S. EPA Records Center, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th Floor.
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212)637-4308
Hours: Monday-Friday - 9 am to 5 pm
By appointment.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The 72-acre Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site is
located in the Rio Abajo Ward of Vega Baja, Puerto
Rico. The site includes a 55-acre residential area known
as Comunidad Brisas del Rosario, containing 213
dwellings and a 17-acre undeveloped, uninhabited area.
The Vega Baja Site is situated on relatively flat terrain
and is surrounded by residential areas to the north, east
and west. To the south, the site is bordered by conical
limestone hills known as mogotes. Four "trash mounds,"
believed to contain trash associated with the former solid
waste disposal operations as well as native soils, rocks
and boulders, were present within the residential area of
the site and were up to 10 feet in height.
SITE HISTORY
From 1948 to 1979, the municipality of Vega Baja offered
and used the site as an unlined solid waste disposal and
open burning facility for commercial, industrial and
domestic wastes. An estimated 1.1 million cubic yards of
waste were either disposed of or burned at the facility. In
the late 1970s, local residents began constructing homes
on sections of the uncapped waste disposal area. Two
hundred and thirteen houses were built on top of the
landfill and soil contaminated with lead, arsenic and
pesticides.
Based upon historical aerial photographs, disposal
activities were largely concentrated in the southwestern
portion of the now developed area, and in the northern
portion of the undeveloped area of the site. During the
period of disposal, the site was owned by the Puerto Rico
Land Authority. In 1984, the Puerto Rico Land Authority
attempted to transfer approximately 55 acres of the
property to the Puerto Rico Housing Department. The
Puerto Rico Housing Department has subsequently
attempted to give deeds to several residents; however, it is
not clear in the records which residents hold deeds to their
properties, if any. The other portions of the site remain
under the ownership of the Puerto Rico Housing
Department or the Puerto Rico Land Authority.
Previous Environmental Investigations
Various environmental investigations and removal actions
have been conducted at the site since 1994 under the
direction of the EPA and the PREQB. These activities are
summarized below.
1994 - Site Inspection
The EQB conducted a Site Inspection in May 1994 that
consisted of the collection of five surface soil samples
from five residential properties, one background soil
sample, five sediment samples from the site drainage ditch
and the Rio Indio, and two groundwater samples from
upgradient and downgradient municipal wells.
1996 - Expanded Site Inspection
The EQB and EPA's Superfund Technical Assistance and
Response Team (START) conducted an expanded Site
Inspection between June and August 1996 that consisted
of the collection of surface soil, sediment, surface water
and groundwater samples. Surface soil samples were
collected from residences and analyzed for lead using on-
site X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) and confirmatory
laboratory analysis of 153 samples for Target Compound
List (TCL) and Target Analyte List (TAL) parameters. A
total of six sediment and five surface water samples were
collected from the drainage ditch and the Rio Indio and
500108
-------
analyzed for TCL and TAL parameters. Groundwater
samples were collected from upgradient and
downgradient water supply wells.
1998 - Limited Groundwater Study
START conducted a groundwater investigation between
April and June 1998 that included the installation and
sampling of three groundwater monitoring wells (depths
ranged from 195 to 215 feet below ground surface) and
seven water supply wells. Samples were analyzed for
TCL and TAL parameters.
1998 - Phase I, II and III Soil Sampling
The EPA conducted three phases of soil sampling
activities between April and December 1998 that
included the collection of 3,693 surface soil samples.
Phase I samples were collected throughout the
residential area, the undeveloped area in the southern
area of the site and along the drainage ditch. A total of
814 samples were analyzed for lead using XRF, and ten
percent of the samples were sent to a laboratory for
confirmatory analysis. The confirmatory samples were
also analyzed for volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
base-neutral acids (BNAs), pesticides and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Phase II included the
collection of 2,823 soil samples from 213 residences,
which were analyzed for lead using XRF. A total of 283
samples were sent to a laboratory for confirmatory lead
analysis. At residences where lead concentrations were
equal to or greater than 400 milligrams per kilogram
(mg/kg), biased sampling was conducted based on
previous sampling results, and samples were taken at the
ground surface, and 1- and 2-foot depths. At residences
where previous lead concentrations were found to be
below 400 mg/kg, either surface soil samples were taken
on a regular grid or samples were taken at 1-foot depths.
Phase III consisted of the collection of 56 soil samples
from the trash mounds, which were analyzed for lead
using XRF techniques. Ten percent of these samples
were also sent to a laboratory for confirmatory analysis.
1998 ATSDR Blood Lead Testing
The Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and Puerto Rico Department of Health
conducted a blood lead study of children who lived at
the site. None of the blood lead levels in the children
(blood was analyzed from all preschool-aged children at
the site) exceeded the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention action level of 10 micrograms per deciliter
(ug/dL - the maximum measured concentration was 8.4
ug/dL).
1999 - NPL Listing
The site was included on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in July 1999 based on a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) Evaluation conducted in February 1999. The
main contaminants identified were lead and arsenic in
residential surface soil samples.
2001 - Dioxin Sampling
EPA's Response Engineering and Analytical Contract
(REAC) Team collected 10 surface soil samples for dioxin
analysis. Based on the results, it was concluded by EPA
that dioxins were not a contaminant of concern.
1999 to 2001 - EPA Removal Action
EPA conducted removal actions at two residential
properties, 5569 Alturas Street and 5460 Los Angeles
Street, and at 5571 Alturas Street where a church building
is located. Lead-contaminated soils and trash were
removed and disposed off-site between October 1999 and
September 2001.
1999 to 2004 - OU-1 Groundwater Investigation
CDM Federal Programs initiated the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) for
Groundwater (OU-1) on behalf of EPA in September
1999. The OU-1 RI included an ecological survey, the
installation of seven monitoring wells, and sampling of
groundwater, surface water, sediment, soil, and
springs/seeps. Based on the results of the investigation,
EPA issued a Record of Decision in April 2004 selecting
no further action for groundwater.
2003 Consent Order
In April 2003, EPA completed its negotiation with the
identified Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and
signed a Consent Order in which the PRP agreed to
conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
for Operable Unit 2 (OU2) Soils. EPA identified as PRPs
the following entities: Municipality of Vega Baja
(operator), Puerto Rico Housing Department (owner),
Puerto Rico Land Authority (owner), Motorola
(generator), Pfizer (generator), Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority (generator), and Browning-Ferris Industries of
Puerto Rico (transporter).
2004 PRPs Removal Action
In March 2004, EPA advised the PRPs that an
unauthorized disturbance had occurred at the site
involving the removal of a portion of one of the Trash
Mounds on a residential property at 5782 Los Ortiz and
disturbance of soils on adjacent properties. Materials that
had been removed had been placed in the adjoining non-
residential portion of the site. EPA and the PRPs
conducted site inspections, which indicated that the
remainder of the Trash Mound (located at 5565 Alturas
Street) had been left in a physically unstable condition.
The PRPs also collected samples to assess lead
concentrations in the disturbed soil and to determine
whether the waste involved was characteristically
hazardous. At EPA's request, the PRPs developed a plan
500109
-------
to respond to the unauthorized disturbance. Following
EPA approval, the PRPs implemented the plan in July
2004, including the removal of the unstable remaining
portion of the Trash Mound at 5565 Alturas. Both areas
were restored by placement of a geotextile barrier and
one foot of clean soil, which was revegetated. Removed
materials were consolidated with those that had been
relocated as part of the unauthorized disturbance, and
also covered with a geotextile barrier and one foot of
clean soil and revegetated. Waste testing confirmed that
the materials involved were non-hazardous.
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The majority of the residential area of the site is covered
by densely spaced residences, asphalt roadways and
other paved areas. The non-residential area of the site
(southwestern portion) is highly vegetated and is
undeveloped. The southern boundary of the site is
characterized by the presence of limestone mogotes that
reach elevations of approximately 120 feet and feature
near-vertical rock faces and caves. A multi-lane
highway, Route 22, is located to the north.
There are no surface water features on the site other than
a drainage ditch that runs west-east through the site
parallel to Alturas Street and discharges to the Rio Indio
located approximately two-thirds of a mile to the east.
Based on field observations, the ditch is dry except
during storm events or when manmade discharges occur
(such as a sewer overflow experienced during the OU-2
field investigation). The Rio Indio flows into the Rio
Cibuco which flows north to the coast of the island
eventually draining into the Atlantic Ocean.
The unconsolidated materials at the site represent only a
thin layer (generally two to four feet thick) which is
underlain by Aymamon Limestone bedrock. The soils
include mostly dark grayish-brown clay or silt and
reddish- and yellowish-brown clay. Soils in historic
disposal areas sometimes contain waste such as broken
glass and rusted metal. The mogotes located in the
southern portion of the site are outcroppings of the
Aymamon formation; the Aymamon formation is
approximately 200 feet thick below the site.
Groundwater is not encountered until 200 feet below the
ground surface.
The majority of the surrounding land is residential with
an estimated population within a %-mile radius of the
site of 2,280 people and an estimated population within
one mile of 6,871 people. The U.S. Census 2000 website
reported an average persons per household of 3.07 for
Vega Baja. If applicable to households at the site, this
average would result in an estimated population of 657
people living in homes on the site. Some of the residents
grow small quantities of edible food crops such as
avocados, coconuts, lemons, oranges, and plantains.
Soil Investigations- OU2 Sampling Program
The scope of the OU-2 RI Field Investigation was defined
in the Final Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP)
Addendum and the results were presented in the Final RI
Report. The RI included the following sampling
programs:
Residential sampling: to determine the
concentrations of lead in soil, indoor dust, and tap water,
and the concentrations of target analyte list (TAL) metals,
target compound list (TCL) pesticides, and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclors in soil, for
baseline risk assessment purposes.
Non-Residential Area sampling: to delineate the
extent of the lead-contaminated area and to collect further
data on the levels of PCBs and pesticides in the soil for
baseline risk assessment purposes.
Trash Mound Area sampling: to determine the
concentrations of TAL metals, TCL pesticides, and PCB
Aroclors in soil, for baseline risk assessment purposes.
Background sampling: to determine background
levels of TAL metals and TCL pesticides.
Residential Lead
As described in the RI Report, lead sampling performed at
the site prior to the RI primarily consisted of collection of
data based on XRF field testing. The residential lead
sampling program in the RI included 55 areas spread
across 35 properties where concentrations of lead in soil
greater than 400 mg/kg had been detected during previous
sampling events. Five-point composite samples were
collected at three depth intervals (0-1 inch, 1-12 inches,
and from 12 inches to bedrock) in each of the areas
(except at 5576 Alturas where bedrock was encountered at
less than one foot). Access was not obtained at two
properties, therefore, only 33 properties and 49 areas were
sampled. A total of 146 soil samples were collected for
lead analysis and submitted, under chain-of-custody, to
the laboratory for analysis. Of the 33 properties sampled
for lead in soil, 31 were also sampled for household dust
and 30 for tap water.
Residential Blocks
Pre-RI soil sampling in the Residential Area (for
compounds other than lead) included collection of surface
soil samples at 16 locations that were analyzed for TAL
metals (28 samples), TCL pesticides (26 samples), and
4
500110
-------
PCB Aroclors (26 samples). The RI included the
collection of 46 additional surface soil samples from the
Residential Area for TAL metals, TCL pesticides, and
PCBs analyses. The goal of the RI sampling event was
to collect sufficient additional samples to calculate
reliable 95% upper confidence limits on the mean soil
concentrations. During the RI, 46 samples were collected
from the 0- to 1-foot depth range (or bedrock, whichever
was shallower) and analyzed for TAL metals and TCL
pesticides. A total of 28 RI samples were also analyzed
for PCB Aroclors. Additionally, one confirmatory PCB
sample was collected to determine whether a previously
detected "hot spot" of PCB contamination was actually
present. This confirmatory sample indicated that PCBs
were not elevated above screening levels at that location.
Non-Residential Area
Pre-RI sampling conducted in the Non-Residential,
wooded area in the southern portion of the site included
the collection of 25 samples (from 10 locations) that
were analyzed for TAL metals, and 16 samples (from 7
locations) that were analyzed for TCL pesticides and
PCBs. Previous investigations also included extensive
lead analyses using field XRF and showed lead
contamination above screening levels across the majority
of this area. Additional sampling was conducted in the
Non-Residential Area during the RI to delineate the
extent of elevated lead concentrations in soil (above 400
mg/kg) and to gather data for the baseline risk
assessment. Soil lead concentrations were field screened
using a portable XRF. Screening samples were collected
along transects extending outward from the boundaries
of previous sampling until either a concentration less
than 400 mg/kg was measured using the XRF
instrument, or until the vertical rock face of the mogote
physically limited the potential waste disposal area. A
total of 13 samples, taken where the XRF instrument
detected concentrations of lead below 400 mg/kg or a
vertical rock outcrop was encountered, were sent for
laboratory confirmation analysis. Three samples
collected in the Non-Residential Area were also
analyzed for TCL pesticides and PCB Aroclors.
Trash Mounds
Pre-RI sampling conducted in the Trash Mounds
included the collection of 11 samples (from four
locations) that were analyzed for TAL metals, TCL
pesticides and PCBs. One of the Trash Mounds (Trash
Mound #1) was subsequently removed and six additional
samples were collected in the three remaining Trash
Mounds during the RI to support the development of the
baseline risk assessment. Specifically, two RI samples
were collected from within each of the existing Trash
Mounds at a depth of 0 to 2 feet below ground surface
(bgs). The samples were analyzed for TAL Metals, TCL
pesticides, and PCB Aroclors.
Background
Ten off-site areas that were not affected by site disposal
activities were sampled during the RI to assess
background conditions. Two samples were collected in
each background area and analyzed for TAL metals, TCL
pesticides and PCB Aroclors. Samples were collected to a
depth of 2 feet or bedrock, whichever was shallower.
Nine of the ten areas did not appear to have been disturbed
by anthropogenic activities. The other area was located
within a baseball field, and the soil samples were
noticeably sandier, perhaps reflecting the import of fill for
grading/vegetation growth.
WHAT IS A "PRINCIPAL THREAT"?
The NCP establishes an expectation that EPA will use
treatment to address the principal threats posed by a site
wherever practicable (NCP Section 300.430(a)(l)(iii)(A)). The
"principal threat" concept is applied to the characterization of
"source materials" at a Superfund site. A source material is
material that includes or contains hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants that act as a reservoir for migration
of contamination to ground water, surface water or air, or acts
as a source for direct exposure. Contaminated ground water
generally is not considered to be a source material; however,
Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids (NAPLs) in ground water may be
viewed as source material. Principal threat wastes are those
source materials considered to be highly toxic or highly mobile
that generally cannot be reliably contained, or would present a
significant risk to human health or the environment should
exposure occur. The decision to treat these wastes is made on a
site-specific basis through a detailed analysis of the alternatives
using the nine remedy selection criteria This analysis provides
a basis for making a statutory finding that the remedy employs
treatment as a principal element.
Results of the Soils Investigations
The following metals were detected in soil at the site at
concentrations above EPA risk-based screening levels:
lead, arsenic, chromium, copper (in three samples which
were collected from a Trash Mound and from the Non-
Residential Area), iron, manganese, thallium, and zinc (in
one sample collected from a Trash Mound during the pre-
RI study). As presented in the Final RI report, statistical
and graphical comparisons of background arsenic,
chromium, and manganese levels with site concentrations
show that potential risks from these contaminants at the
site are not significantly different than those presented by
exposure to background concentrations. The only organic
compound detected at concentrations above screening
levels was the pesticide dieldrin (in four samples, two of
which were in Trash Mounds).
There were 16 surface soil samples above the 400 mg/kg
lead screening level, representing 10 separate properties.
All 10 properties with sample results higher than 400
5
500111
-------
mg/kg within the surface soil were also above 400 mg/kg
in the 1-inch to 12-inch samples. An additional 8
properties had sample results higher than 400 mg/kg in
the 1 to 12- inch interval but were below the screening
value in the surface soil. There was one property where
a sample deeper than one foot was above the screening
value, but all shallower samples on that property were
below the screening value. Overall, out of the 33
properties where RI soil samples were collected for lead
analysis, 19 had sample results higher than 400 mg/kg
within at least one sampling interval.
The extent of lead contamination above the screening
level of 400 mg/kg in the Non-Residential Area of the
site was delineated during the RI and is bounded by the
near-vertical rock face of the southern mogotes.
Approximately 8.5 acres of the Non-Residential Area are
above the lead screening value of 400 mg/kg with
multiple locations where lead has been detected at
concentrations above 1,000 mg/kg. Similarly, the nature
and extent of contamination within the existing Trash
Mounds at the site have been characterized. All six
Trash Mound samples collected were above the
screening levels for lead, arsenic, thallium, and iron.
For this site, there are two properties with elevated
indoor dust concentrations of lead: 5570 Alturas (824
mg/kg lead in dust) and 5376 Santa Maria (624 mg/kg
lead in dust). Potential remedial technologies were
evaluated to address indoor dust.
During EPA's OU-1 investigation, two rounds of soil
samples were collected from seven locations in the
drainage ditch that runs through the Site parallel to Calle
Alturas. Three of the ditch sample locations are located
on-site and lead was detected in these samples at
concentrations up to 1,180 mg/kg.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE ACTION
EPA is addressing the cleanup of this site by
implementing remedial actions to address soil
contamination. The cleanup of the site, which is the
subject of this Proposed Plan, will provide for
implementation of a remedy to address soil contaminants
in both the residential (including trash mounds and the
drainage ditch) and undeveloped (also known as non-
residential) areas.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
RISK SUMMARY
The purpose of the risk assessment is to identify
potential cancer risks and non-cancer health hazards at
the site assuming that no further remedial action is taken.
This Proposed Plan presents the results of the baseline
human health risk assessment and screening-level
ecological risk assessment for exposure to soil.
As part of the RI/FS, EPA conducted a baseline risk
assessment to estimate the current and future effects of
contaminants on human health and the environment. A
baseline risk assessment is an analysis of the potential
adverse human health and ecological effects of releases of
hazardous substances from a site in the absence of any
actions or controls to mitigate such releases, under current
and future land uses. The baseline risk assessment
includes a human health risk assessment (HHRA) and an
ecological risk assessment. These reports can be found in
the Administrative Record.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A four-step human health risk assessment process was
used for assessing site-related cancer risks and noncancer
health hazards. The four-step process is comprised of:
Hazard Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
(COPCs), Exposure Assessment, Toxicity Assessment,
and Risk Characterization (see adjoining box "What is
Risk and How is it Calculated").
The baseline risk assessment began by selecting COPCs in
the soil which could potentially cause adverse health
effects in exposure populations. These populations
included current and future residents and intermittent
adolescent visitors to the site who may be exposed to
contaminants through incidental ingestion of soil, dermal
contact with soil and inhalation of airborne dust for
current residents of the site. In addition, potential current
exposures to contaminants of potential concern (COPCs)
from the ingestion of homegrown vegetables were also
considered for current residents at the site. Future
exposure scenarios expanded the scope to include
incidental ingestion of soil, dermal contact with soil, and
inhalation of airborne dust by future construction and
industrial workers at the site. Standard EPA exposure
modeling and risk calculation procedures were used to
estimate potential risk from exposure to all analytes other
than lead. For lead, the EPA's Integrated Exposure
Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in Children (IEUBK)
and Adult Lead Model (ALM) were used to evaluate the
potential risk from exposure to lead.
Potential risks were estimated for the various areas of the
site (Residential, Non-Residential, Trash Mounds, and
Drainage Ditch) based on the analytical data collected
during both RI and pre-RI studies. Site-specific
parameters were utilized in the assessment where available
(e.g., site-specific dust and tap water sampling results
were used in the IEUBK model) to reduce the uncertainty
that results from using generic, default assumptions.
6
500112
-------
Based on current reasonable maximum exposure (RME)
assumptions, the excess lifetime cancer risk estimated
for adult residents is 4.4 x 10-5 and for child residents is
7.5 x 10-5. For future RME assumptions, the
comparable estimated risks for adult and child residents
are 5.2 x 10-5 and 9.5 x 10-5, respectively. Non-cancer
hazard indices exceeding EPA's threshold value of 1.0
were also calculated for child residents under current and
future RME and central tendency (CT) exposure
assumptions, due primarily to arsenic and thallium. In
addition, the non-cancer hazard index was above EPA's
non-cancer threshold of 1.0 for future construction
worker exposure via inhalation of dust contaminated
with manganese. Two of the three metals that were
identified as posing potential increases in cancer risk or
non-cancer hazards, arsenic and manganese, were
identified as being at concentrations that are similar to
background concentrations (Golder, 2008 and 2009a).
Based upon the determination of concentrations being
similar to background, these compounds do not warrant
a remedial action. The reference dose associated with
thallium was recently withdrawn by the EPA due to
uncertainty in the development of the value; therefore,
the non-cancer hazard that was associated with thallium
exposure was removed from the risk assessment. If new
information becomes available, the consideration of
thallium as a COC could be re-evaluated either during
the Remedial Design or Five-Year Review to ensure that
concentrations of thallium in the soil are protective.
Site-related risks from potential exposure to lead at the
site were also estimated in the HHRA. Based on
modeling results (IEUBK and ALM), several residential
properties, the Drainage Ditch, the Trash Mounds, and
the Non-Residential Area were identified as having the
potential to cause an increase in blood lead (i.e., greater
than 5% of the population exceeding 10 ug/dL of lead in
the blood) to residents living on the site. Based on the
potential for increased blood lead concentrations in
residents at the site, it was determined that a remedial
action was warranted to reduce the potential exposures
from lead at the site.
Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
(SLERA) was conducted to evaluate potential risks to
ecological receptors at the site. The SLERA followed a
two-step approach consisting of a problem formulation
and ecological effects evaluation step and an exposure
estimate and risk calculation step. The risk calculation
consisted of calculating a hazard quotient (HQ) for each
compound by comparing the detected concentrations in
the soil samples or modeled dietary intake of
contaminants with appropriate toxicity reference values
(TRVs) for representative ecological receptors. Food web
risk was evaluated for Antillean fruit bat, Red-legged
thrush, Northern bobwhite, and Red-tailed hawk. The HQ
approach for estimating risk is based on the ratio of a
selected exposure concentration to a selected ecological
screening level (ESL) or effects concentration.
A HQ greater than 1.0 indicates that the potential exists
for adverse ecological effects to occur as a result of site-
related exposures. Based on the first two steps, the
SLERA identified 11 contaminants that could be related to
adverse ecological effects in plants, invertebrates,
mammals or birds that inhabit the site property. These
contaminants include aluminum, antimony, arsenic,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, thallium, vanadium,
zinc, and 4.4'-DDE Each of these compounds was
associated with a HQ greater than 1.0.
The next step that was followed was to refine the selection
of contaminants of potential concern at the site, which is
documented in the addendum to the SLERA referenced
above. There were two basic modifications utilized:
Refinement of exposure point concentrations (i.e.,
concentration in media) through the use 95% upper-
confidence limits instead of maximum detected
concentrations, and
Consideration of background concentrations of
metals detected in the soil and background samples.
Based on the results of the SLERA, risks to populations of
ecological receptors, especially avian species represented
in the risk assessment by the Red-legged thrush and
Northern bobwhite, at the site were determined to be
associated with exposure to lead at the site. Exposure to
other compounds detected at the site were determined not
to pose an unacceptable risk to ecological receptors, and
the compounds do not warrant a remedial action. Thus,
protection of avian receptor populations from exposure to
lead is identified as a remedial action objective. A cleanup
value of 450 mg/kg was determined to be protective of
avian populations that use the site.
Summary
It is EPA's current judgment that the Preferred Alternative
identified in this Proposed Plan, or one of the other active
measures considered, is necessary to protect public health,
welfare and the environment from actual or threatened
releases of hazardous substances, namely lead, into the
environment.
7
500113
-------
WHAT IS RISK AND HOW IS IT
CALCULATED?
A Superfund baseline human health risk assessment is an
analysis of the potential adverse health effects caused by
hazardous substance releases from a site in the absence of
any actions to control or mitigate these under current- and
future-land uses. A four-step process is utilized for assessing
site-related human health risks for reasonable maximum
exposure scenarios.
Hazard Identification: In this step, the contaminants of
concern at the site in various media (i.e., soil, groundwater,
surface water, and air) are identified based on such factors
as toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and fate and transport of
the contaminants in the environment, concentrations of the
contaminants in specific media, mobility, persistence, and
bioaccumulation.
Exposure Assessment: In this step, the different exposure
pathways through which people might be exposed to the
contaminants identified in the previous step are evaluated.
Examples of exposure pathways include incidental ingestion
of and dermal contact with contaminated soil. Factors
relating to the exposure assessment include, but are not
limited to, the concentrations that people might be exposed
to and the potential frequency and duration of exposure.
Using these factors, a "reasonable maximum exposure"
scenario, which portrays the highest level of human exposure
that could reasonably be expected to occur, is calculated.
Toxicity Assessment: In this step, the types of adverse health
effects associated with chemical exposures, and the
relationship between magnitude of exposure (dose) and
severity of adverse effects (response) are determined.
Potential health effects are chemical-specific and may
include the risk of developing cancer over a lifetime or other
non-cancer health effects, such as changes in the normal
functions of organs within the body (e.g., changes in the
effectiveness of the immune system). Some chemicals are
capable of causing both cancer and non-cancer health
effects.
Risk Characterization: This step summarizes and combines
exposure information and toxicity assessments to provide a
quantitative assessment of site risks. Exposures are
evaluated based on the potential risk of developing cancer
and the potential for non-cancer health hazards. The
likelihood of an individual developing cancer is expressed as
a probability. For example, a 10"4 cancer risk means a
"one-in-ten-thousand excess cancer risk"; or one additional
cancer may be seen in a population of 10,000 people as a
result of exposure to site contaminants under the conditions
explained in the Exposure Assessment. Current Superfund
guidelines for acceptable exposures are an individual lifetime
excess cancer risk in the range of 10"4 to 10"6
(corresponding to a one-in-ten-thousand to a one-in-a-million
excess cancer risk). For non-cancer health effects, a "hazard
index" (HI) is calculated. An HI represents the sum of the
individual exposure levels compared to their corresponding
reference doses. The key concept for a non-cancer HI is that
a "threshold level" (measured as an HI of less than 1) exists
below which non-cancer health effects are not expected to
occur.
REMEDIAL ACTION OBJECTIVES
Remedial action objectives (RAOs) are specific goals to
protect human health and the environment. These
objectives are based on available information and
standards, such as applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs), to-be-considered guidance, and
site-specific risk-based levels.
The following RAOs have been identified for lead
contaminated soils at the site:
• RAO-1: Prevent or minimize human exposure in
the Residential Area (including the Drainage
Ditch) to soil lead concentrations greater than the
cleanup goal.
• RAO-2: Eliminate potential exposure to the
remaining Trash Mounds in the Residential Area.
• RAO-3: Mitigate human exposure to lead in the
Non-Residential Area above the cleanup goal.
• RAO-4: Protect populations of avian receptors
from unacceptable exposure to lead by using a
cleanup value of 450 mg/kg, which has been
determined to be protective of ecological
receptors, including avian populations, at the site.
To achieve these RAOs, a cleanup goal for soils at the site
was identified. The results of the risk assessment (both
Human Health and Ecological) indicated that the only
contaminant for which a cleanup goal is necessary is lead.
The Superfund Lead-Contaminated Residential Sites
Handbook (EPA 2003) states "Final cleanup level
selection for Superfund sites generally is based on the
IEUBK model results and the nine criteria analysis per the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), which includes an
analysis of ARARs." Based on these considerations, EPA
has established a lead cleanup value of 450 mg/kg to be
applied to all areas where removal is undertaken,
including Residential Yards, Trash Mounds, the Drainage
Ditch, and the Non-Residential Area.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Potential remedial technologies and process options were
identified and screened using effectiveness,
implementability and cost as the criteria, with the most
emphasis on the effectiveness of the remedial technology.
Those technologies that passed this initial screening were
then assembled into five remedial alternatives for soil
contamination.
The time frames presented below for construction do not
include the time for pre-design investigations, remedial
design, or contract procurements. Five-Year Reviews will
be performed after the initiation of the remedial action, to
ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the remedy.
500114
-------
Remedial Alternatives Common Elements
Each alternative, other than No Further Action, includes
certain common elements that are discussed below.
Institutional Controls
All of the remedial alternatives, with the exception of the
No Further Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would
include institutional controls such as deed and land use
restrictions to minimize the public's potential exposure
to contaminated soils. However, consistent with
expectations set out in Superfund regulations, none of
the alternatives rely exclusively on institutional controls
to achieve protectiveness.
Institutional controls are a common element to each of
the alternatives to address certain uncharacterized areas
beneath buildings and pavements. In addition,
institutional controls would be used to prevent the
disturbance of soil covers (other than in accordance with
appropriate engineering controls).
Institutional controls will apply as follows:
Areas within Non-Residential Area where cover
is used to contain contaminated materials will be subject
to institutional controls.
For properties where soil removal is undertaken
or has already been undertaken, institutional controls
will apply to areas beneath buildings and pavement.
Paved areas and/or buildings immediately
adjoining an area where soil removal is being undertaken
will be subject to institutional controls.
Any area where final post-excavation sampling
indicates lead concentrations above the cleanup goal will
be subject to institutional controls.
Roadways adjacent to properties where soil
removal is being undertaken or has already been
undertaken will be subject to institutional controls, likely
via the existing "Call Before You Dig" program.
The specific mechanisms for establishing institutional
controls will be addressed as part of the remedial design
phase.
More information about Institutional Controls can be
found at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/pdf/ic ctzns guide.pdf
Pre-Design Investigation (PDI)
Additional investigation will be required prior to
Remedial Design. The following activities will be
included in a Pre-Design Investigation:
Detailed surveying of property features and
topography.
Soil sampling at two properties where access
could not be obtained during the OU-2 RI.
Additional soil sampling at eight properties where
additional lead concentration data are needed to support
design.
Additional Drainage Ditch soil sampling for lead
for comparison to the cleanup goal. Where bedrock is
exposed at the base of the Drainage Ditch, no samples will
be collected.
Delineation and surveying of the horizontal extent
and top elevations of existing Trash Mounds based on
visual observations and the basemap survey.
Construction/Performance Monitoring
Each remedial alternative described below will include
certain construction and/or performance monitoring
activities to ensure the effectiveness of the remedy. For
example, during remedial actions that involve removal
(excavation) of soil, post-excavation sampling may be
necessary to determine whether the excavation meets the
remedial goals. Post-excavation sampling will be
performed when soil remains in place after excavation
(i.e., sampling will not be performed if the excavation is
advanced to bedrock). In addition, air monitoring will
likely be required during construction to ensure protection
of workers and nearby residents. Performance monitoring
including cover inspections and maintenance will be
required to confirm long-term effectiveness.
Indoor Dust Monitoring and Management Program
The management of risks related to lead in indoor dust
will be the same for all remedial alternatives (other than
No Further Action) and will consist of the following:
Engineering controls during remedial activities
such that migration of lead in fugitive dust into homes is
minimized.
Post-remediation confirmation sampling three
months after completion of the selected remedy at the two
properties where elevated levels of indoor dust lead were
measured in the 0U2 RI.
If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor
dust lead concentrations are at or below acceptable
concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-
remedial surface soil concentrations), then no further
action is necessary.
If confirmation sampling indicates that indoor
dust lead concentrations are above acceptable
concentrations (based on IEUBK modeling using post-
remedial surface soil concentrations), indoor dust removal
will be performed, unless a non-site-related source of lead
is identified as the cause.
Off-Site Disposal Option
Some materials (e.g., large/bulky debris, putrescent
materials, etc.) in the Trash Mounds or Non-Residential
Area may prove to be unsuitable for on-site treatment or
consolidation, so each alternative includes an option to
500115
-------
dispose of some portion of the contaminated materials
off-site. It is anticipated that the Trash Mounds
primarily contain large boulders, soil, and small inert
debris items (e.g., broken glass, small pieces of metal,
etc.). These materials can be consolidated and covered
in the Non-Residential Area. Materials that are
unsuitable for consolidation will be disposed of or
recycled at an off-site facility. Any materials to be sent
off-site for disposal will be screened for possible off-site
recycling (as opposed to landfill disposal) where
appropriate; such materials would be decontaminated
prior to recycling as necessary. Materials sent off-site
for disposal will be classified, based on hazardous
characteristics, prior to disposal. The approach for
implementing this option will be further detailed in the
Remedial Design.
Surface Water Management and Erosion Control
The remediation of the site will result in surface
earthwork construction since the active alternatives
involve soil disturbance. A surface water management
plan will be developed during remedial design to provide
for the effective control of surface water runoff and to
minimize soil erosion from covered areas. The surface
water management and erosion control system will
consist of the following components:
A grading plan that maintains existing grades
where feasible and integrates final surface topography in
the remediated areas with the surrounding areas.
The use of slopes, berms, channels, and surface
armoring using natural vegetation and/or synthetic
materials (e.g., silt fence) to convey surface water runoff
in the Non-Residential Area and to provide erosion
protection.
Because the existing drainage ditch parallel to Alturas
Street currently provides the primary drainage pathway
for surface water runoff at the site, the surface water
management plan is likely to tie into the ditch; however,
the specifics of the surface water management system
will be developed during detailed design and will
comply with Puerto Rico soil erosion and sedimentation
control requirements.
Access Agreements
Access agreement will be obtained from private property
owners where remedial activities are planned. Access
agreements may also be sought on properties located
adjacent to areas where remedial activities will be
conducted. For example, access may be needed to
properties adjacent to Trash Mounds in the event that the
disposal area is found to extend onto those properties
during removal.
Access to the Drainage Ditch will also be needed for the
PDI sampling, and possibly for the remedial action.
10
Because the Drainage Ditch is associated with the
roadway right-of-way, formal access agreements may not
be needed from all residences that border the ditch.
However, notification will be given to owners of
properties along the ditch in advance of sampling and
remediation activities.
EPA Region 2 Clean and Green Policy
Consistent with EPA Region II's "Clean and Green"
Policy, the utilization of applicable green remediation
practices will be considered and, to the extent practical,
will be incorporated into the detailed design of the
remedial alternative. Some examples of operational
practices that would be applicable are those that reduce
emissions of air pollutants, minimize fresh water
consumption, incorporate native vegetation into
revegetation plans, and consider beneficial reuse and/or
recycling of materials, among others.
Remedial Alternatives
Alternative 1 - No Further Action
The No Further Action Alternative was retained, as
required by the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and
provides a baseline for comparison with other alternatives.
No remedial actions would be implemented as part of the
No Further Action Alternative. Although no direct action
would be taken, there may be natural processes (e.g.,
erosion/dispersion, sequestration, etc.) that would reduce
the bioavailable concentrations of contaminants overtime.
At this site, the natural processes that would reduce
bioavailable concentrations are not expected to achieve
acceptable levels within a reasonable timeframe (i.e., >30
years).
Total Capital Cost $0
Operation and Maintenance $0
Total Present Net Worth $0
Estimated Construction Time frame 0 years
Alternative No. 2 - Removal with On-Site
Consolidation and Cover in the Non-Residential Area
This alternative involves the removal of contaminated
soils located in the Residential Area, Drainage Ditch, and
three Trash Mounds, and covering of the contaminated
soils with clean soil in the Non-Residential Area.
Excavated/removed materials would be consolidated in
the Non-Residential Area prior to installation of the cover
system in that area. The final design of the cover system in
the Non-Residential Area will be determined during
detailed design, but it is anticipated that it will include a
non-woven geotextile overlain by 12 inches of clean soil.
The soil cover will be vegetated to prevent erosion that
would cause exposure to underlying materials. All
residential yards where excavation occurs would be
backfilled and re-vegetated to restore pre-excavation
conditions.
500116
-------
Total Capital Cost $4,350,000
Operation and Maintenance $20,000/yr
Total Present Net Worth $4,680,000
Estimated Construction Time frame < 1 year
Alternative No. 3 - Removal with Off-Site Disposal
Alternative 3 involves removing contaminated soil from
the Residential Area, the Drainage Ditch, the three Trash
Mounds, the Non-Residential Area and disposing of the
removed materials off-site in a non-hazardous waste
landfill. All excavated areas would be backfilled and
revegetated to existing grade with the exception of the
Trash Mounds and any elevated mounds within the Non-
Residential Area, which will be restored to the grade of
surrounding areas.
Total Capital Cost $23,440,000
Operation and Maintenance $0
Total Present Net Worth $23,440,000
Estimated Construction Time frame < 1 year
Alternative No. 4 - Removal with On-Site Ex-Situ
Stabilization and Cover in the Non-Residential Area
Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 2 in that it includes
excavating contaminated soils from the Residential Area
(followed by backfilling with clean soil), Trash Mounds,
Drainage Ditch and relocating these in the Non-
Residential Area. However, unlike Alternative 2,
Alternative 4 includes treatment of soil using ex-situ
Solidification/Stabilization (S/S). Soils would be
consolidated in the Non-Residential Area, treatment
additives would be mixed into the consolidated
materials, and then the mixture would be left to react.
Following treatment, the stabilized materials would
resemble a weak concrete. Stabilized materials from the
Residential Area, Trash Mounds, and Drainage Ditch
will be combined with stabilized Non-Residential Area
materials and placed in the Non-Residential Area and
covered using the same cover system described for
Alternatives 2. Prior to implementation of this
alternative, both bench-scale (laboratory) studies and an
on-site pilot study would be required to confirm the
effectiveness of the treatment and to determine
appropriate amendments and gather data to support the
detailed design.
Total Capital Cost $25,420,000
Operation and Maintenance $20,000/yr
Total Present Net Worth $25,820,000
Estimated Construction Time frame <1 year
EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Nine criteria are used to evaluate the different remedial
alternatives individually and against each other in order
11
to select the best alternative. This section of the Proposed
Plan profiles the relative performance of each alternative
THE NINE SUPERFUND EVALUATION
CRITERIA
1. Overall Protectiveness of Human Health and the
Environment evaluates whether and how an alternative
eliminates, reduces, or controls threats to public health and
the environment through institutional controls, engineering
controls, or treatment.
2. Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) evaluates whether the
alternative meets federal and state environmental statutes,
regulations, and other requirements that pertain to the site, or
whether a waiver is justified.
3. Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence considers
the ability of an alternative to maintain protection of human
health and the environment overtime.
4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume (TMV) of
Contaminants through Treatment evaluates an
alternative's use of treatment to reduce the harmful effects of
principal contaminants, their ability to move in the
environment, and the amount of contamination present.
5. Short-term Effectiveness considers the length of time
needed to implement an alternative and the risks the
alternative poses to workers, the community, and the
environment during implementation.
6. Implementability considers the technical and
administrative feasibility of implementing the alternative,
including factors such as the relative availability of goods and
services.
7. Cost includes estimated capital and annual operations
and maintenance costs, as well as present worth cost.
Present worth cost is the total cost of an alternative over time
in terms of today's dollar value. Cost estimates are expected
to be accurate within a range of +50 to -30 percent.
8. State/Support Agency Acceptance considers whether
the State agrees with the EPA's analyses and
recommendations, as described in the RI/FS and Proposed
Plan.
9. Community Acceptance considers whether the local
community agrees with EPA's analyses and preferred
alternative. Comments received on the Proposed Plan are an
important indicator of community acceptance.
against the nine criteria, noting how it compares to the
other options under consideration. The evaluation of the
alternatives in relation to the nine criteria are discussed
below. A more detailed analysis of the presented
alternatives can be found in the Feasibility Study report.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the
Environment
500117
-------
Alternative 1 does not provide for protection of human
health and the environment since there are current and
future risks that would not be addressed by that
alternative. Since Alternative 1 does not achieve this
threshold criterion, it will not be discussed further in the
Comparative Evaluation.
The other three alternatives can all achieve protection of
human health and the environment.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
All four alternatives are expected to be able to comply
with applicable action, and location-specific ARARs.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Since lead cannot be destroyed, the remedial alternatives
are designed to mitigate risk by minimizing potential
exposure. Alternative 3 eliminates risk by permanently
removing accessible contaminants from the site, and
employs institutional and engineering controls for
materials not currently exposed. Alternative 4 eliminates
risk by relocating, fixating, then containing accessible
contaminants, and employs institutional and engineering
controls for materials not currently exposed and the
containment area. Alternative 2 eliminates risk solely by
relocating and containing accessible contaminants at the
site, and employs institutional and engineering controls
for materials not currently exposed and the containment
area. For all alternatives, the institutional and
engineering controls to be employed for the currently
inaccessible areas are expected to be reliable in the long
term, and five-year reviews will be performed.
Alternative 3 achieves the highest level of long-term
effectiveness and permanence since long-term operations
and maintenance would not be required at the site to
mitigate risk for currently accessible soils. Although the
inherent hazard of the lead remains under the cap for
Alternatives 2 and 4, the cap is expected to effectively
eliminate the exposure pathway, effectively eliminating
the associated risk. Since the potential for cap failure,
however small, would exist, the long-term effectiveness
of Alternatives 2 and 4 would not be as reliable as
Alternative 3. Further, in the event of cap failure,
Alternative 4 would pose less risk than Alternative 2
until the cap was replaced/repaired, as the contaminants
would be less mobile.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through
Treatment
Only Alternative 4 provides treatment of lead-
contaminated soils and, therefore, was ranked highest.
S/S treatment of lead-contaminated materials will reduce
the toxicity (by reducing bioavailability) and mobility of
lead.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term adverse impacts associated with the
alternatives are caused primarily by operation of
construction equipment during excavation, transportation,
treatment, and other construction activities. Alternative 2
will have the lowest level of short-term impacts since it
involves less transportation of impacted materials
compared to Alternative 3 and it does not involve the
addition of additives and mixing that are required by
Alternative 4. Alternative 3 is expected to have the most
significant short-term impacts since numerous truck loads
of impacted soil will need to be transported for off-site
disposal through the neighboring community.
Implementability
In general, all three alternatives are implementable since
the technologies and skills are readily available.
Alternative 2 is considered the easiest to implement since
it does not require additional testing and does not involve
off-site transport of materials. Off-site disposal involves
issues associated to materials determined to be hazardous
because there are no disposal facilities in Puerto Rico that
could accept such materials without pre-treatment to
remove the hazardous characteristic.
Cost
Alternative 2 is expected to have the lowest
implementation cost since it does not involve off-site
disposal or stabilization/solidification treatment.
Alternative 3 will have a higher cost than Alternative 2
due to the need for off-site transportation and disposal.
Alternative 4 is expected to have the highest cost due to
the need for stabilization/solidification treatment of all
excavated materials, including the impacted soil in the
Non-Residential Area. Alternatives 2 and 4 include similar
long-term O&M costs, but Alternative 3 does not require a
long-term O&M component.
State/Support Agency Acceptance
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico agrees with the
preferred alternative in this Proposed Plan.
Community Acceptance
Community acceptance of the preferred alternative will be
evaluated after the public comment period ends and will
be described in the Responsiveness Summary section of
the Record of Decision for this site. The Record of
Decision is the document that formalizes the selection of
12
500118
-------
the remedy for a site.
SUMMARY OF THE PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
Alternative 2, Removal with On-Site Consolidation and
Cover in the Non-Residential Area, is the preferred
remedial alternative for soil contamination at this site.
This alternative provides for removal of lead-
contaminated soils in the Residential Area yards and the
Drainage Ditch where lead concentrations are above the
site cleanup goal of 450 mg/kg, and removal of Trash
Mound materials. Removed materials would be
transported to the Non-Residential Area and
consolidated. All residential yards where excavation is
conducted would be backfilled and re-vegetated to
restore pre-excavation conditions. Approximately 8.5
acres of the Non-Residential Area where soil lead
concentrations are above the site cleanup goal and/or
trash mound materials are present would then be covered
with a soil cover system. Confirmation sampling would
be conducted after removal of materials to confirm that
the cleanup goal has been achieved at the target depth.
Air monitoring will be required during construction to
ensure the protection of workers and nearby residents.
An option is included for materials that are not
conducive to consolidation and cover (i.e., large debris)
to be sent off-site for disposal or recycling. Any
materials to be sent off-site for disposal will be screened
for possible recycling (as opposed to landfill disposal)
where appropriate; such materials would be
decontaminated prior to recycling as necessary.
Materials sent off-site for disposal will be classified,
based on hazardous characteristics, prior to disposal.
The approach for implementing this option will be
further detailed in the Remedial Design.
The final design of the cover system in the Non-
Residential Area will be determined during detailed
design, but it is anticipated that it will include a non-
woven geotextile overlain by 12 inches of clean soil.
The soil cover will be vegetated to prevent erosion that
would cause exposure to underlying materials. Although
the future use of the Non-Residential Area has not yet
been determined, institutional controls will be
established to preclude residential use of the soil cover
area to ensure the cover will be protective. A routine
inspection and maintenance program will specifically
provide for identification of adverse impacts from severe
weather events. The monitoring program would be
designed to include both scheduled, routine inspections
(e.g., annually), as well as periodic event-driven
inspections during the initial establishment of a
vegetative cover (e.g., inspections immediately
following extreme rainfall events within the first year
after cover installation). Performance monitoring will be
performed to confirm long-term effectiveness.
This alternative will include institutional controls to
address certain uncharacterized areas beneath buildings
and pavements. In addition, institutional controls would
be established to prevent the disturbance of soil covers.
The management of risks related to lead in indoor dust
will include engineering controls during remedial
activities such that migration of lead in fugitive dust into
homes is minimized, post-remediation confirmation
sampling three months after completion of the selected
remedy at the two properties where elevated levels of
indoor dust lead were measured in the OU-2 RI.
Additional investigation will be required prior to
Remedial Design including detailed surveying of property
features and topography, soil sampling at two properties
where access could not be obtained during the OU-2 RI,
additional soil sampling at eight properties where further
lead concentration data are needed to support design, and
additional Drainage Ditch soil sampling for lead for
comparison to the cleanup goal.
The remediation of the site will result in surface earthwork
construction since the selected alternative involves soil
disturbance. A surface water management plan will be
developed during remedial design to provide for the
effective control of surface water runoff and to minimize
soil erosion from covered areas. The surface water
management and erosion control system will consist of the
following components:
A grading plan that maintains existing grades
where feasible and integrates final surface topography in
the remediated areas with the surrounding areas.
The use of slopes, berms, channels, and surface
armoring using natural vegetation and/or synthetic
materials (e.g., silt fence) to convey surface water runoff
in the Non-Residential Area and to provide erosion
protection.
Because the existing drainage ditch parallel to Alturas
Street currently provides the primary drainage pathway for
surface water runoff at the site, the surface water
management plan is likely to tie into the ditch; however,
the specifics of the surface water management system will
be developed during detailed design and will comply with
Puerto Rico soil erosion and sedimentation control
requirements.
Access agreements will be obtained from private property
owners. In addition, access agreements will also be
sought on properties located adjacent to areas where
remedial activities will be conducted.
13
500119
-------
Access to the Drainage Ditch will also be needed for the
PDI sampling, and possibly for the remedial action.
Because the Drainage Ditch is associated with the
roadway right-of-way, formal access agreements may
not be needed from all residences that border the ditch.
However, notification will be given to those residents
who live along the ditch in advance of sampling and
remediation activities.
Consistent with EPA Region 2's Clean and Green
policy, EPA will evaluate and seek to employ
sustainable technologies and practices with respect to
this alternative.
As is EPA's policy, Five-Year Reviews will be
conducted to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of the
selected remedy.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
EPA provided information regarding the cleanup of the
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site to the
public through public meetings, the Administrative
Record file for the site and announcements published in
the Primera Hora and Vocero newspapers. EPA
encourages the public to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the site and the Superfund activities
that have been conducted there.
For further information on the site including EPA's
preferred alternative for the Vega Baja Solid Waste
Disposal Superfund Site, contact:
Nancy Rodriguez Brenda Reyes
Remedial Project Manager Community Relations
(787) 977-5887 (787) 977-5869
US EPA Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
Centra Europa Building
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
(787)977-5865
Or access EPA web page at:
http://www.epa.gov/region02/superfund/npl/vegabaja
The dates for the public comment period; the date, the
location and time of the public meeting; and the
locations of the Administrative Record files are provided
on the front page of this Proposed Plan.
14
500120
-------
GLOSSARY
ARARs: Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements. These are Federal or State environmental rules
and regulations that may pertain to the site or a particular
alternative.
Carcinogenic Risk: Cancer risks are expressed as a number
reflecting the increased chance that a person will develop
cancer if exposed to chemicals or substances. For example,
EPA's acceptable risk range for Superfund hazardous waste
sites is 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6, meaning there is 1 additional
chance in 10,000 (1 x 10"4) to 1 additional chance in 1 million
(1 x 10"6) that a person will develop cancer if exposed to a Site
contaminant that is not remediated.
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act. A Federal law, commonly
referred to as the "Superfund" Program, passed in 1980 that
provides for response actions at sites found to be
contaminated with hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants that endanger public health and safety or the
environment.
COPC: Chemical of Potential Concern.
SLERA: Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment. An
evaluation of the potential risk posed to the environment if
remedial activities are not performed at the site.
FS: Feasibility Study. Analysis of the practicability of
multiple remedial action options for the site.
Groundwater: Subsurface water that occurs in soils and
geologic formations that are fully saturated.
HHRA: Human Health Risk Assessment. An evaluation of
the risk posed to human health should remedial activities not
be implemented.
HI: Hazard Index. A number indicative of non-carcinogenic
health effects that is the ratio of the existing level of exposure
to an acceptable level of exposure. A value equal to or less
than one indicates that the human population is not likely to
experience adverse effects.
HQ: Hazard Quotient. HQs are used to evaluate non-
carcinogenic health effects and ecological risks. A value equal
to or less than one indicates that the human or ecological
population is not likely to experience adverse effects.
ICs: Institutional Controls. Administrative methods to prevent
human exposure to contaminants, such as by restricting the
use of groundwater for drinking water purposes.
IEUBK: The Integrated Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model is
a mathmatical model that predicts the blood lead concentration
in humans due to exposure to lead in air, food, water, dust,
and soil. The model can also be used to develop cleanup
goals for lead that are protective of public health.
Nine Evaluation Criteria: See text box on Page 7.
Non-carcinogenic Risk: Non-cancer Hazards (or risk) are
expressed as a quotient that compares the existing level of
exposure to the acceptable level of exposure. There is a level
of exposure (the reference dose) below which it is unlikely for
even a sensitive population to experience adverse health
effects. EPA's threshold level for non-carcinogenic risk at
Superfund sites is 1.0, meaning that if the exposure exceeds
the threshold; there may be a concern for potential non-cancer
effects.
NPL: National Priorities List. A list developed by EPA of
uncontrolled hazardous substance release sites in the United
States that are considered priorities for long-term remedial
evaluation and response.
Operable Unit (OU): a discrete action that comprises an
incremental step toward comprehensively addressing site
problems. This discrete portion of a remedial response
manages migration, or eliminates or mitigates a release, threat
of a release, or pathway of exposure. The cleanup of a site can
be divided into a number of operable units, depending on the
complexity of the problems associated with the site.
Practical Quantitation Level (PQL): means the lowest
concentration of a constituent that can be reliably achieved
among laboratories within specified limits of precision and
accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions.
Present-Worth Cost: Total cost, in current dollars, of the
remedial action. The present-worth cost includes capital costs
required to implement the remedial action, as well as the cost
of long-term operation, maintenance, and monitoring.
PRG: Preliminary Remediation Goal.
PRPs: Potentially Responsible Parties.
Proposed Plan: A document that presents the preferred
remedial alternative and requests public input regarding the
proposed cleanup alternative.
Public Comment Period: The time allowed for the members
of a potentially affected community to express views and
concerns regarding EPA's preferred remedial alternative.
RAOs: Remedial Action Objectives. Objectives of remedial
actions that are developed based on contaminated media,
contaminants of concern, potential receptors and exposure
scenarios, human health and ecological risk assessment, and
attainment of regulatory cleanup levels.
Record of Decision (ROD): A legal document that describes
the cleanup action or remedy selected for a site, the basis for
choosing that remedy, and public comments on the selected
remedy.
Remedial Action: A cleanup to address hazardous substances
at a site.
RI: Remedial Investigation. A study of a facility that supports
the selection of a remedy where hazardous substances have
been disposed or released. The RI identifies the nature and
extent of contamination at the facility and analyzes risk
associated with COPCs.
Saturated Soils: Soils that are found below the Water Table.
These soils stay wet.
TBCs: "To-be-considereds," consists of non-promulgated
advisories and/or guidance that were developed by EPA, other
federal agencies, or states that may be useful in developing
CERCLA remedies.
Unsaturated Soils: Soils that are found above the Water
Table. Rain or surface water passes through these soils.
These soils remain dry:
EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency. The
Federal agency responsible for administration and
enforcement of CERCLA (and other environmental statutes
and regulations), and final approval authority for the selected
ROD.
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound. Type of chemical that
readily vaporizes, often producing a distinguishable odor.
Water Table: The water table is an imaginary line marking
the top of the water-saturated area within a rock column.
15
500121
-------
LEGEND
Jill ACCE33AC
f~~l PROPQ3E!
¦i APPROXK
I I SUILOft'G
I I PROPC3EC
I COVERED)
1=1 PREVIOUS
I I PROPERTY
I I BACKFiUE
¦I ""RA3H ViOjll
iNsrrryTiONAL
NOTES
1. ALL PROPER"
.TRASH MOUNC
ACCESS AGREE
2 UNDER ALTEf !l
SHOWN wo-jl:
REFERENCES
I.PRiMAHYGSS
BY COLDER TO
TtlE OU-2 FIELC
RSMENT REQJInSD .;NC REMEDIATION PLANNEDI
PDi 8AUFLE -OCA-ON
. ,TE EXTENT OF NON-RESIGEMT AL AREA COVER OR REMOVAL
R£3 OEM-A_ YARD REMOVAL AREA.
SEA
I EM OVAL ACTION
EI.MDARY
) AREA
HQ
( O NT HOLS REQUIRED
PROPERTY
ESTHAT REQL IRE PDi SAMPLING OR REMOVAL
5 AND RESIDENTIAL YARDS! IMLLALSO NEEC
MENTS
SNATfVES 2.4, ANC 5 THE N0N-RE5IDENTAL AREA
ALSO RECJ'RE INSTITUT£>NA_ CONTRO.S.
COVERAGES PRO/SDED BY EPA ANC VCCFIED
REPRESENT SITE CONDITIONS AT THE TIME Cr
iNVESTlGATVON (DECEMBER 2024)
(voider
Associates
Philadelphia USA
]53€2DEC003-Rek'1
03;-e:n3 |"' 1
*ELIMINARY EXTENTS OF
REMEDIATION AND PDI
VESA BAii : OUD WASTE SLFERFUND SITE
500122
17
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appendix B - Public Notice, Flyer and
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet
500123
-------
La Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental
Anuncia el Plan Propuesto y Periodo de Comentarios
Para el Lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja
Unidad Operacional 2 -Suelos
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
La Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental (EPA por sus siglas en ingles) en colaboracion con la Junta de Calidad
Ambiental anuncian el Plan Propuesto para el Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja el cual describe la alternativa
recomendada de Remocion y Consolidacion de Suelos Contaminados y las razones para esta recomendacion. Antes
de seleccionar un remedio final, la EPA va a considerar comentarios escritos y verbales recibidos sobre la alternativa
recomendada en el Plan Propuesto. Todos los comentarios deben ser recibidos en o antes del 29 de Agosto de 2010.
El Record de Decision incluira un resumen de los comentarios recibidos del publico y las respuestas de la EPA a
estos comentarios.
La EPA llevara a cabo una vista publica el martes 3 de agosto de 2010, de 6:00 pm a 7:00 pm en la Capilla de la
Iglesia Catolica localizada en la Calle Principal de la comunidad Brisas del Rosario, Barrio Rio Abajo, Vega Baja,
PR. Representantes de la EPA presentaran la conclusion de la investigacion remedial, el Plan Propuesto, y las
razones por la cual se recomienda la alternativa de Remocion y Consolidacion de Suelos Contaminados. Durante la
vista publica, la EPA contestara preguntas o comentarios que los participantes tengan con relation a la investigacion
realizada.
Copias del Plan Propuesto y otros documentos relacionados al lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio de Vega
Baja estan disponibles en los siguientes repositories de information:
Caribbean University - Vega Baja
Carr 661, Sector El Criollo,
Vega Baja, PR 00964
(787) 858-3668 Ext. 3315
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a 5:00 p.m.
Casa Alcaldia de Vega Baja (Record
Administrativo de Unidad de Suelos Solamente)
Calle Jose Francisco NaterNo. 1
Vega Baja, PR
(787) 855-2500
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a 3:30 p.m.
Junta de Calidad Ambiental
Edificio de Agencias Ambientales Cruz A. Matos
Urbanization San Jose Industrial Park
1375 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, PR 00926-2604
(787) 767-8181 Ext 3213
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a 3:30 p.m. por
cita
Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental, Region 2
Division de Proteccion Ambiental del Caribe
Edificio Centra Europa,
Avenida Ponce de Leon 1492 - Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
(787) 977-5865
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a 5:00 p.m. por
cita
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th floor
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212) 637-4308
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m a 3:30 p.m. por
cita
Para mas information, favor llamar a Nancy Rodriguez al (787) 977-5887. Comentarios escritos del Plan
Propuesto deben ser enviados a:
Nancy Rodriguez, PE, Gerente de Proyectos
Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental, Region 2
Division de Proteccion Ambiental del Caribe
Edificio Centra Europa, Avenida Ponce de Leon 1492 - Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
Fax: (787) 289-7104,
Internet: rodriguez.nancy@epa.gov
500124
-------
La Agenda Federal de Proteccion Ambiental Anuncia Reunion Publica para
presentar el Plan Propuesto y Periodo de Comentarios
Para el Lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja
Unidad Operacional 2 -Suelos, Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
La Agenda Federal de Proteccion Ambiental (EPA por sus siglas en ingles) llevara a
cabo reunion publica en la para anunciar el Plan Propuesto para la Unidad Operacional
2 que corresponde al estudio de suelos en el Lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio
de Vega Baja.
Fecha: Agosto 3, 2010
Lugar: Capilla de la Iglesia Catolica que ubica en la comunidad Brisas del
Rosario en Vega Baja
Hora: 6:00 pm
Representantes de la EPA estaran disponibles de 5:00 pm a 8:00 pm para contestar
preguntas o comentarios que los participantes tengan con relacion a la investigacion
ambiental realizada en este Lugar. Durante la reunion publica, EPA presentara la
conclusion de la investigacion remedial, el Plan Propuesto, y las razones por la cual se
recomienda la alternativa de Remocion y Consolidacion de Suelos Contaminados.
Copias del Plan Propuesto y otros documentos relacionados al lugar de Superfondo
Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja estan disponibles en los siguientes repositories de
informacion:
Caribbean University - Vega Baja
Carr661, Sector El Criollo,
Vega Baja , PR 00964
(787) 858-3668 Ext. 3315
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a
5:00 p.m.
Casa Alcaldfa de Vega Baja
Calle Francisco Nater No. 1
Vega Baja, PR
( 787) 855-2500
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a
3:30 p.m.
Junta de Calidad Ambiental
Edificio de Agendas Ambientales Cruz
A. Matos
Urbanizacion San Jose Industrial Park
1375 Avenida Ponce de Leon
San Juan, PR 00926-2604
(787) 767-8181 Ext. 3213
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a
3:30 p.m. por cita
Agencia Federal de Proteccion
Ambiental, Region 2
Division de Proteccion Ambiental del
Caribe
Edificio Centra Europa,
Avenida Ponce de Leon 1492 - Suite
417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00907
(787) 977-5865
Horario: Lunes.-Viernes, 9:00 a.m. a
5:00 p.m. por cita
Para mas informacion sobre esta reunion publica puede comunicarse con
Nancy Rodriguez, Gerente de Proyectos al (787) 977-5887 o con Brenda Reyes, 500125
Oficial de Asuntos Publicos y Relaciones con la Comunidad al 787-671-8216.
-------
HO J A INFOMATIVA SOBRE EL PLAN PROPUESTO
Lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja
Unidad Operacional 2: Suelos
Agosto 2010
EPA ANUNCIA PLAN PROPUESTO
El Plan Propuesto desarrollado por la Agencia Federal
de Proteccion Ambiental (EPA) identifica la Alternativa
Preferida para la limpieza de suelos contaminados en el
Lugar de Superfondo Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja,
localizado en Vega Baja, Puerto Rico, y proporciona las
razones para esta preferencia.
La alternativa preferida de la EPA, para la limpieza de
contamination de suelo es la alternativa 2, Remocion
con Consolidation y Cubierta de Suelo en la Zona No-
Residencial. Este remedio tambien incluira Controles
Institucionales para responder a determinadas zonas no
caracterizadas bajo estructuras y pavimento.
Una investigation de aguas subterraneas se llevo a cabo
en el Lugar como parte de la Investigation Remedial
(RI) en la Unidad Operacional 1 (OU-1). Esta
investigation concluyo que las aguas subterraneas no se
han visto afectada por los contaminantes relacionados
con el Lugar. En abril de 2004 se firmo un Documento
de Decision (ROD) de No Action para OU-1.
El Plan Propuesto incluye resumenes de todas las
alternativas de limpieza evaluadas para el Lugar. La
EPA, agencia principal para las actividades del Lugar y
la Junta de Calidad Ambiental (JCA), la agencia de
apoyo, emitieron este documento. La EPA, en consulta
con la JCA, seleccionara el remedio final para los suelos
contaminados con plomo despues de revisar y considerar
toda la information presentada durante el periodo de
comentarios publico. La EPA, en consulta con JCA,
podra modificar la alternativa preferida o seleccionar
otra respuesta de action presentada en este Plan
Propuesto basado en nueva information obtenida o
comentarios del publico. Por lo tanto, se recomienda al
publico revisar y comentar sobre todas las alternativas
presentadas en este documento.
La EPA emite el Plan Propuesto como parte de sus
programas comunitarios bajo la section 117 (a), de la Ley
de Responsabilidad, Compensation y Recuperation
Ambiental (CERCLA, conocida comunmente como el
programa de Superfondo). El Plan Propuesto resume la
information que se puede encontrar con mayor detalle en
la Investigation Remedial y Estudio de Viabilidad (RI/FS)
y demas documentos contenidos en el Record
Administrativo para el Lugar.
MARQUE SU CALENDARIO
PERIODO DE COMENTARIOS PUBLICOS:
29 de julio de 2010 - 29 de agosto de 2010
EPA aceptara comentarios por escrito sobre el Plan de
Propuesta durante este periodo de comentarios publicos.
Comentarios escritos deben ser dirigidos a:
Nancy Rodriguez, PE,
Gerente de Proyectos
Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental
Division de Proteccion Ambiental del Caribe
1492 Avenida Ponce de Leon - Oficina 417
San Juan, PR 00908
Telefono: (787) 977-5887
Fax: (787) 289-7104
Internet: rodriguez.nancy@epa.gov
REUNION PUBLICA: 3 de agosto de 2010, 6:00pm
EPA sostendra una reunion publica para explicar el Plan
Propuesto y todas las alternativas presentadas en el
Estudio de Viabilidad. Tambien se aceptaran comentarios
por escrito y orales en la reunion. La reunion se llevara a
cabo en la Capilla Catolica localizada en la Calle
Principal, Comunidad Brisas del Rosario, Barrio Rio
Abajo, Vega Baja, PR.
500126
-------
Para mas information, vea el Record Administrativo en
las siguientes localizaciones:
Caribbean University Recinto de Vega Baja
Carr 661, Sector El Criollo,
Vega Baja, PR 00964
Atencion: Lydia Ponce
(787) 858-3668 Ext. 3315
Horario: Lunes - Viernes 9:00am a 5:00 pm
Alcaldia de Vega Baja (Solo para Suelo s AR OU-2)
Calle Francisco Nater Numero 1
Vega Baja, PR
(787) 855-2500
Horario: Lunes - Viernes 9:00am a 3:00pm
EPA - Division de Protection Ambiental del Caribe
Edificio Centra Europa
Avenida Ponce de Leon Num. 1492
Oficina 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
(787) 977-5865
Junta de Calidad Ambiental de Puerto Rico
Programa de Respuesta de Emergencia y Programa del
Superfondo
Edificio Ambiental Gubernamental
PR - 8838, Sector El Cinco,
Avenida Ponce de Leon Num. 1308
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico 00907
(787)767-8181 Ext 3207
Horario: Lunes - Viernes 9:00am a 3:00 pm
Por cita
U.S. EPA Records Center, Region 2
290 Broadway, 18th Floor.
New York, New York 10007-1866
(212) 637-4308
Horario: Lunes - Viernes 9:00am a 5:00pm
Por cita
DESCRIPCION DEL LUGAR
Los 72 acres del Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja estan
localizados en el Barrio Rio Abajo de Vega Baja, Puerto
Rico. El Lugar incluye una zona residencial de 55 acres
conocida como Comunidad Brisas del Rosario, con 213
viviendas y un area de 17 hectareas sin desarrollar y
deshabitada. El Lugar de Vega Baja se encuentra en un
terreno relativamente piano y esta rodeado por zonas
residenciales al norte, este y oeste. A1 sur, el Lugar esta
rodeado por colinas de piedra caliza conocida como
mogotes conicos. Cuatro "monticulos de basura," que se
cree que contienen la basura asociada a la antigua
operation del Lugar, asi como los suelos nativos, rocas
y grandes piedras, se encontraban en la zona residencial
del Lugar con hasta 10 pies de altura.
TRASFONDO DEL LUGAR
Desde 1948 a 1979, el municipio de Vega Baja ofrecia y
utilizaba el Lugar como deposito de desperdicios solidos y
quema al aire libre de desperdicios comerciales,
industriales y domesticos. Se eliminaba o quemaba un
estimado de 1.1 millones de yardas cubicas de
desperdicios solidos en el Lugar. A finales de 1970,
residentes locales comenzaron a construir casas en las
secciones de la zona de de disposition de desperdicios. Se
construyeron doscientos trece casas en la parte superior del
relleno sanitario y tierra contaminada con plomo, arsenico
y pesticidas.
Basado en fotografias aereas historicas, la disposition de
desperdicios solidos se concentraba principalmente en la
portion suroeste del area ahora desarrollada, y en la
portion norte del area subdesarrollada del Lugar. Durante
el periodo de disposition, el Lugar era propiedad de la
Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico. En 1984, la
Autoridad de Tierras de Puerto Rico intento transferir
aproximadamente 55 acres de la propiedad al
Departamento de Vivienda de Puerto Rico. El
Departamento de Vivienda de Puerto Rico posteriormente
ha intentado otorgar titulos de propiedad a los residentes;
sin embargo, no esta claro en los registros que residentes
tienen titulos de propiedad, si alguno. Las otras partes del
Lugar permanecen bajo la propiedad del Departamento de
Vivienda de Puerto Rico o de la Autoridad de Tierras de
Puerto Rico.
INVESTIGACIONES AMBIENTALES PREVIAS
Se han llevado a cabo diversas investigaciones ambientales
y acciones de remocion en el Lugar desde 1994, bajo la
direction de la EPA y la JCA. Estas actividades estan
explicadas en detalle en el Record Administrativo del
Lugar.
PROGRAMA DE MUESTREO DURANTE LAS
INVESTIGACION DEL SUELO-OU2
El ambito de la OU-2 de RI Investigation de Campo se
definio en el documento Final del Plan Propuesto de
Calidad (QAPP) y los resultados se presentaron en el
Informe Final de RI. El mismo incluyo los programas de
muestreo siguientes:
Muestreo Residencial: para determinar las
concentraciones de plomo en el suelo, polvo domestico, y
el agua de la pluma, y las concentraciones de la lista de
analitos (TAL) de metales, lista de compuestos (TCL)
pesticidas y bifenilos policlorados (PCB) o Aroclors en el
suelo, para fines de referencia de evaluation de riesgos.
Muestreo de areas no residenciales: para delinear la
2
500127
-------
extension del area contaminada con plomo y para
recoger mas datos sobre los niveles de PCB y
plaguicidas en el suelo con fines de referenda de
evaluation de riesgos.
Muestreo del area de Monticulos de Basura: para
determinar las concentraciones de metales TAL,
pesticidas TCL, y Aroclors PCB en el suelo, con fines de
referenda de evaluation de riesgos.
Muestreo de Trasfondo: para determinar los niveles de
trasfondo de metales y plaguicidas TAL y TCL.
Los resultados de las investigaciones de Suelos
Los siguientes metales se detectaron en el suelo del
Lugar en concentraciones por encima de los niveles de
detection de la EPA basados en el riesgo: plomo,
arsenico, cromo, cobre (en tres muestras que se
recogieron de un monticulo de basura y del area no
residential), hierro manganeso, talio y zinc (en una
muestra recogida de un monticulo de basura durante el
estudio de Pre-RI). Como se indica en el Informe Final
de RI, comparaciones estadisticas y graficas de trasfondo
de arsenico, cromo, manganeso y los niveles con las
concentraciones del Lugar muestran que los riesgos
potenciales de estos contaminantes en el Lugar no son
significativamente diferentes a las presentadas por la
exposition a concentraciones de trasfondo. El unico
compuesto organico detectado con concentraciones
superiores a los niveles de evaluation fue el plaguicidas
dieldrin (en cuatro muestras, dos de los cuales se
encontraban en los monticulos de basura).
En las propiedades residenciales hubo muestras de suelo
con resultados por encima de los 400 mg/kg del nivel de
detection de plomo.
El grado de contamination por plomo por encima del
nivel de detection de 400 mg/kg en la zona no
residential del Lugar fue delineado durante el RI y esta
delimitada por la pared de roca casi vertical de los
mogotes del sur. Aproximadamente 8.5 cuerdas de la
zona no residential estan por encima del valor de un
examen de plomo de 400 mg/kg, con multiples lugares
donde el plomo ha sido detectado en concentraciones
superiores a 1,000 mg/kg. Del mismo modo, se han
caracterizado la naturaleza y el alcance de la
contamination dentro de los monticulos de basura
presentes en el lugar. Todas las seis muestras de
monticulo de basura recolectadas fueron superiores a los
niveles de detection de plomo, arsenico, talio, y hierro.
Para esta Lugar, hay dos propiedades con elevadas
concentraciones de polvo de plomo domestico. Como
parte del proceso se evaluo el potential de las tecnologias
correctivas para atender las concentraciones elevadas en el
polvo domestico.
Durante la investigation EPA OU-1, dos rondas de
muestras de suelo fueron recolectadas en siete localidades
de la Zanja de Drenaje que corre paralela a la Calle Alturas
del Lugar. Tres de los puntos de muestreo de la zanja se
encuentran en el Lugar y se detecto plomo en las muestras
en concentraciones de hasta 1,180 mg/kg.
RESUMEN DE LOS RIESGOS DE EL LUGAR
El proposito de la evaluation de riesgos es identificar los
riesgos potenciales de cancer y no cancerigenos en el
Lugar, presumiendo que no se tome ninguna otra medida
correctiva. El Plan Propuesto presenta los resultados de la
evaluation de riesgo para la salud humana y la evaluation
de riesgo ecologico.
Como parte de la RI/FS, la EPA llevo a cabo una
evaluation de riesgos de referenda para estimar los efectos
actuales y futures de los contaminantes sobre la salud
humana y el medio ambiente. Una evaluation del riesgo
initial es un analisis del potential nocivo para la salud
humana y los efectos ecologicos de las emisiones de
sustancias peligrosas en un lugar a falta de acciones o
controles para mitigar dichas emisiones, en virtud de los
usos actuales y futures del lugar. La evaluation de riesgo
initial incluye una evaluation de riesgos para la salud
humana (HHRA) y una evaluation de riesgo ecologico.
Estos informes se pueden encontrar en el Record
Administrativo.
DESARROLLO DE LA ACCION CORRECTIVA
EPA esta atendiendo la contamination de suelo existente
en el Lugar mediante la selection de una alternativa de
limpieza que sirve de action correctiva para solucionar la
contamination del suelo. La limpieza de el Lugar incluye
la aplicacion de un remedio que atendera los
contaminantes del suelo, tanto en la zona residential
(incluidos los monticulos de basura y la Zanja de Drenaje)
como en el area no desarrollada (tambien conocido como
area no residential).
OBJETIVOS DE ACCION CORRECTIVA
Los objetivos de action correctiva (RAOS) son las metas
especificas para proteger la salud humana y el medio
ambiente. Estos objetivos se basan en la information
disponible y las normas, tales como requisites apropiados
aplicables o relevantes (ARAR), orientation a ser
consideradas, y los niveles en funcion de los riesgos
especificos del Lugar.
3
500128
-------
Los siguientes RAOS se han definido para los suelos
contaminados de plomo en el Lugar:
• RAO-1: Prevenir o reducir al minimo la exposicion
humana en la Zona Residencial (incluyendo la
Zanja de Drenaje) para concentraciones de plomo
del suelo mayor que la meta de limpieza.
• RAO-2: Eliminar la exposicion potencial al resto
de los Monticulos de Basura en la zona
residencial.
• RAO-3: Mitigar la exposicion humana al plomo en
la Zona no Residencial por encima de la meta de
limpieza.
• RAO-4: Proteger los receptores de poblacion aviar
de una exposicion inaceptable al plomo usando un
valor de limpieza de 450 mg/kg que se determino
es protector de los receptores ecologicos,
incluyendo la poblacion aviar en el Lugar.
Para alcanzar estos RAO, se identified un objetivo de
limpieza para suelos en el Lugar. Los resultados de la
evaluation de riesgos (tanto la salud humana como la
ecologica) indicaron que el unico contaminante para el
cual se necesita limpieza es plomo. El Folleto de
Superfondo de Contamination de Lugares Residenciales
(EPA 2003) establece que "El nivel final de limpieza de
los lugares de Superfondo en general se basa en los
resultados del modelo IEUBK y los nueve criterios de
analisis del Plan National de Contingencia (NCP), que
incluye un analisis de los ARAR". Basado en estas
consideraciones, la EPA ha establecido un nivel de
limpieza de plomo de 450 mg/kg que se aplicara a todas
las areas, cuando la remocion se lleve a cabo, incluyendo
Patios o Areas Residenciales, los Monticulos de Basura,
la Zanja de Drenaje, y la Zona No Residencial.
RESUMEN DE LA AL TERNATIVA PREFERIDA
La Alternativa 2, Remocion con Consolidation en el
Lugar y Cubierta en la Zona No Residencial, es la
alternativa de limpieza preferida para la contamination
del suelo en este Lugar.
Esta alternativa contempla la excavation de suelos
contaminados con plomo en el Area de Residencias y la
Zanja de Drenaje donde las concentraciones de plomo
estan por encima de la meta de limpieza del Lugar de
450 mg/kg, y la remocion del material de los Monticulos
de Basura. Los materiales extraidos se transportaran a la
zona no residencial y se consolidaran. Todos los patios
residenciales donde se lleva a cabo la excavation se
rellenaran y volveran a sembrar para restablecer la
condition anterior a la excavation. Aproximadamente
8.5 cuerdas de la zona no residencial del suelo donde las
concentraciones de plomo estan por encima de la meta
de limpieza del Lugar y/o estan presentes materiales de
los monticulos de basura se cubriran con un sistema de
cubierta del suelo. Se llevara a cabo el muestreo de
confirmation despues de la remocion de los materiales
para confirmar que la meta de limpieza se ha alcanzado a
la profiindidad deseada. El monitoreo del aire sera
necesario durante la construction para garantizar la
protection de los trabajadores y residentes cercanos. Se
incluye una option para los materiales que no son
conducentes a la consolidation y la cubierta (es decir,
residuos de grandes dimensiones) para ser enviadas fuera
del Lugar para disposition o reciclaje. Cualquier material
que se envie fuera del Lugar para su disposition se
analizara para un posible reciclaje segun sea apropiado;
dichos materiales se descontaminaran antes de su reciclaje
cuando sea necesario. Los materiales enviados fuera del
Lugar se clasificaran, basados en las caracteristicas de
peligro, antes de su remocion. El enfoque para la
aplicacion de esta option se mostrara con mayor detalle en
el Diseno de la Action Correctiva.
El diseno final del sistema de cubierta en la Zona No
Residencial se determinara durante el diseno detallado,
pero se anticipa que va a incluir una capa de geotextil no-
tejido debajo de 12 pulgadas de tierra limpia. El suelo se
cubrira de vegetation para evitar la erosion que causaria la
exposicion a los materiales subyacentes. Aunque el uso
futuro de la zona no residencial aun no ha sido
determinado, se estableceran controles institucionales para
evitar el uso residencial sobre la cubierta del suelo en el
area para asegurar que la cubierta dara protection. Una
inspection de rutina y programa de mantenimiento
especifico proporcionaran para la identification de los
impactos negativos de fenomenos meteorologicos severos.
El programa de monitoreo se disenara para incluir tanto,
las inspecciones de rutina ya senaladas (por ejemplo,
anuales), y las periodicas movidas por los eventos por
ejemplo, inspecciones que procedan inmediatamente
despues de lluvias extremas dentro del primer ano de la
instalacion de la cubierta). La supervision del rendimiento
se llevara a cabo para confirmar la eficacia a largo plazo.
Esta alternativa incluira controles institucionales para
atender ciertas areas no caracterizadas debajo de
estructuras y pavimentos. Ademas, se estableceran los
controles institucionales para evitar que ocurran disturbios
en la cubierta del suelo.
El manejo de los riesgos relacionados con plomo en el
polvo domestico incluira controles de ingenieria durante
las actividades remediativas para minimizar la migration
del plomo en el polvo fugitivo hacia los hogares, muestreo
de confirmation tres meses despues de completar el
remedio seleccionado en las dos propiedades donde se
midieron los niveles elevados de plomo en el polvo
domestico en el OU-2 RI.
4
500129
-------
Se requerira una investigation adicional antes del Diseno
de Action Correctiva incluyendo la medicion detallada
de caracteristicas y la topografia de la propiedad, el
muestreo de suelos a dos propiedades donde el acceso
no se pudo obtener durante el RI de OU-2, muestreo
adicional en ocho propiedades donde se necesita mas
datos sobre la concentration de plomo para el diseno de
apoyo y de suelo, muestreo de la Zanja de Drenaje para
plomo para la comparacion con el objetivo de limpieza.
Dado que la alternativa seleccionada envuelve la
alteration de suelo, se desarrollara un plan de manejo de
las aguas superficiales durante el diseno correctivo para
establecer el control efectivo de la escorrentia superficial
del agua y reducir al minimo la erosion del suelo de las
zonas cubiertas. El manejo del agua superficial y el
sistema de control de la erosion consistira de los
siguientes componentes:
Un plan de nivelacion que mantenga los grados
existentes siempre que sea viable y se integre la
topografia de la superficie final en las areas remediadas
con las areas circundantes.
El uso de las pistas, bermas, canales, y la superficie
usando vegetation natural y/o de materiales sinteticos
(por ejemplo, cerca de limo) para transmitir el
escurrimiento superficial del agua en la zona no
residential y para proporcionar protection contra la
erosion.
Debido a que la Zanja de Drenaje paralela a la Calle
Alturas en la actualidad proporciona la via de drenaje
principal para la escorrentia de las aguas superficiales en
el Lugar, es probable que el plan de manejo del agua
superficial este relacionados con la zanja, sin embargo,
los detalles del sistema de manejo del agua de superficie,
se desarrollaran en el diseno detallado y cumplira con la
requisitos de erosion del suelo y los de sedimentation en
Puerto Rico.
Los acuerdos de acceso se obtendran de los duenos de
las propiedades privadas. Ademas, tambien se buscaran
los acuerdos de acceso en las propiedades adyacentes a
las zonas donde las actividades de recuperation se
lie varan a cabo.
Region 2, la EPA evaluara y tratara de aplicar tecnologias
y practicas sostenibles con respecto a esta alternativa.
Como es la politica de la EPA, la Revision a los 5 anos se
llevara a cabo para garantizar la integridad y eficacia del
remedio seleccionado.
PARTICIPACION DE LA COMUNIDAD
La EPA invita al publico a revisar los documentos que
actualmente estan disponible en le Record Administrativo
del Lugar donde se detalla las actividades realizadas en el
Lugar.
Para mas information sobre el Lugar de Superfondo
Antiguo Crematorio de Vega Baja incluyendo la
alternativa preferida, favor comunicarse con:
Nancy Rodriguez Brenda Reyes
Gerente de Proyecto Relaciones con la
(787) 977-5887 Comunidad
(787) 977-5869
EPA - Division de Protection Ambienta del Caribe
Edificio Centra Europa
Avenida Ponce de Leon Num. 1492, Oficina 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
(787) 977-5865
O accesar la pagina de Internet de la EPA a:
http://www.epa.gov/region2/superfund/npl/vegabaia/
Las fechas para el periodo de comentarios publicos; la
fecha, el lugar y hora de la reunion publica, y el Lugar del
Record Administrativo se proporcionan en la pagina
principal de esta hoja informativa.
El acceso a la Zanja de Drenaje tambien sera necesario
para la toma de muestras PDI, y posiblemente para las
medidas correctivas. Debido a que la Zanja de Drenaje
se asocia con el derecho de paso, quizas no se necesiten
los acuerdos formales de acceso de todas las residencias
que bordean la zanja. Sin embargo, la notification se le
dara a los residentes que viven a lo largo de la zanja
antes de la toma de muestras y actividades correctivas.
De acuerdo con la politica de Limpieza Verde de la EPA
5
500130
-------
LEGEND
l__l <"iCC£33 AS«:=
{ 1 PROPSBED PC
APPnCXWATE
~~ BUIL0N3
ZD PROPOSED =5 =
I I COVERED AREi
PREViOUB R=»
I 1 PROPERTY BO
I I BACKFILLE D AH
-RA3H MOUND
IMBTITVTIONAi. CON
RESIDENTIAL P
ROAD
MenT REQUIRED .;p«3 KtHSOKHUN FL.WicD
3AUF1E LOCATION
EXTENT OF WON-RESIDENT AL AREA COVER OR REMOVAL
JEN A_ YVO RSMO .g A#^ v
ROL8 REQJIRED
? CPERTY
552=,' I
1.AJ. PROPERTIES
fTRASM VC-JND3
ACCESS AGREEME
THAT REC'LRE PD: SAMPLING OR REMOVAL
D RESIDEH~LAL YARDS I WILL ALSO NEED
NT
2 UNDER ALTERNA
SHOWN WOULD AL
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appendix C - Public Meeting Attendance Sheet
500132
-------
Public Meeting
Sign-in Sheet
;:w
• , , ' •'* ¦/ -
/".¦j j..
r F ,s r% r« « f ,«\.„ 4f~-% ,w „#"• *
/..-. \>; t ' .!>* '•/ r c *¦»
#
¦ /*ff'!i: •* l'"-" fi(t
IV f ' 1 < ." '•„> 1
A f"t jji1 »j.
'"> . >
S C'-l'-K
f
"f 1*5—
7- 3«-K
,, — N*v *1 *-¦•+-*• -*r
.'.¦>!'¦ s •"•
» » " " •< ' V ,» 'H' I
. >"• v L <¦ ,'i ; •'..»¦< .
J"%S;"*€
V35 . 3 f . ..
/- ",-t '¦; - 11 l""V j * 1 % ' ' >H
L,'i-* <*
7v7-2.c7-?3/C>
vt % - % -! r ^
*. •>•> "-j '• * * v
C **//<
-------
Vega Saja Solid Wash? Disposal Superrjnd Site
Public Meeting
Sign-In Sheet
n>mn
i li!
«!§,*
; ¦, . ; v ;;-,5
1 ;•> ,1 a j ' \ „ -
i
¦
500134
-------
Vega Baja Solid Was it Disposal Superfund Sire
Public Meeting
Sign-In Sheet
Dale: Awjust if ?010
Platr- CowuBiilaiJ Btt» d&l RiMiatio,, V#§a B&|af fit
Name/Nombre Tetefono/Phone Agenda/Agency
ft i r > A 4 *
$v«"" _ . '' !. * ' ,s' * if^-
V , / *' s, , jJ i I-4! s r
>>* ¦'*vw < I „ !» ' * . «' *! ,'W ^ "* i' *
W V "f' ;V • ' ' ' '' ' ,/(
K 'k * 1 1
V
, $ t ii ' ', # • i k i • 1 ^ f;. « ¦' * s > - ¦ - ,,!
» , I • >'\'f r J.t v "*•" V '"¦•* ' " r I '•. -A > /
- - ¦ -••• i-1 \ v f * •>' * - ' - * " $•*" ' : *, . 1
axw ~ «r tP* n£V N
JLJ
r„" ~/, , ^
v %.«•¦ - * -J» -%* ' - , *.
i
/¦ ^ f ,
»* J* H " * «'» '
1 ..
4) . , •• • l<
f- *- + < 'I 7
% •' $ V ^ - ¦ > 1 <¦*>«
«?¦ >, ; ..»'¦ ,¦.¦ y .... ::.. ..a l ; ; ..:;¦;' ¦ a "t,. ? i ,!¦¦¦: .l;1 M
4 // i t 7 / '«/' - y Pif'd- /"> f! 1 ^
^ l( : ¦ •' •
,, J (, t, ... . . '.i, ,J '< '. -¦-¦•. ....,--.v.'
,.• ' ~ ,f 's i • - -i , ¦ : 1 .«_•
/ '* » '« ,'r t J "r ff ** » »^ .! f } , ¦ ' f- " L '"'-I*
y.A- ii,. -
' ,' i* ' , , f *
J- . ¦ ,• . . 1 ' **
r-»
Pj,fv («£ ^
-------
Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site
Public Meeting
Sign-In Sheet
^ ' /vr
¦ ' :¦ V 3 ' '¦ ¦> "
r ^.. /gp
5C//jt " X>
C Cl'' "7
Aqynoa/Ag«ncy C-Mjrf
~V . " / ;
S|1
7:
500136
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appendix D - Letters Submitted During the Public Comment Period
500137
-------
«-*- '
¦ i, I f. '.'•nil'
u .;ic; w. '.(A , ' f
id iQ (z>£lrC ^ C'' 1
'r/cfueZ-
. >
" f, f(, &|
.....
O.y /. r*:, vie #|# t^s/lo fo
y >¦ h; f' ' > / v ,, >/ ^ ,, « >4' • ' \
•'o-Vv CV;. p/cmo- Af ^ i +.1 :'jr ih( *y k' t
i r
' "W^- ofe/ 5^- '/V < ¦- '•* y €
* *. f7s * C ' J «•'» % u *'• » flfc. S rvp.ftt " ^
" )i- v' u;* rV- ^
I flfe tJ*f cp'C 1 ;>
>'U ,-.fl irlr>*
7--»: ¦„ / :. « iU, o,/' c^ll€ - ,
¦•" •¦.{,-??» v, •' -y s •" *' ,• •'^Wv ^ v "t
f)d It€ffipf<2r- Q^und lucpr 1
*"%• '*». > lt",r j? 9 J , '
••' [1 '' [t : <\ '^v'- t I
• L «?S ' < H f" * ¦' "' ' '.~p "¦ 1 <"• K'
V ;x.v>.-a ¦ = » '•¦. • \\>Ar, .
^ ,,0 r_ J ( *;
¦y, -\**l C-tsto | m-,«r a v.M..,/' . I > , =
1 .-\ '¦f'*s |MT A3 ledD
- tio ticfii r. *. f ,u - ¦. ¦ u. - ¦ i v,,u- '» kj*: ru
ft Wud ,
. f ,: 4 -f'v ;-i"., /,'¦ ,'t; ,1 c . y 'k;„
, 'X ^ < . r'- < ¦/
500138
-------
jQr Golder
it/ Associates
August 26, 2010 Project No. 033-6208
Nancy Rodriguez, PE
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Caribbean Environmental Protection Division
1492 Ponce de Leon Avenue, Suite 417
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908
RE: COMMENTS ON EPA'S PROPOSED PLAN FOR OPERABLE UNIT 2
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SUPERFUND SITE
Dear Nancy:
The following comments on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Proposed Plan
for Operable Unit 2 (OU-2) of the Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Superfund Site (Site) are submitted on
behalf of the Vega Baja Cooperating PRP Group1 (the Group).
¦ The Group supports EPA's Preferred Alternative (Alternative 2) as the most appropriate
alternative based on the criteria established in the National Contingency Plan (NCP),2
Furthermore, the effectiveness of the Alternative 2 approach has already been
demonstrated at the Site by the Group. In 2004 some trash mound materials in the
residential area were the subject of an unauthorized disturbance, creating a physical
hazard. At EPA's request, the Group responded by removing the rest of the materials,
consolidating them in the Non-Residential Area, and covering consistent with Alternative
2. This action has been effective in protecting human health and the environment.
EPA's Preferred Alternative adopts the same approach for Impacted soils and remaining
trash mounds in the Residential Area, as well as the Drainage Ditch. The associated
engineered barrier cover in the Non-Residential Area will be subject to regular Inspection
and maintenance to ensure its proper performance Into the future.
¦ Page 12 of the Proposed Plan (as well as EPA's presentation at the August 3, 2010
public meeting) indicates that a different alternative (Alternative 3) would have higher
long-term effectiveness and permanence than the Preferred Alternative. However, it
should be noted that under Alternative 3, impacted materials would simply be moved to
another location where they would need to be managed in the same way as under
Alternative 2 to maintain long-term effectiveness and permanence. In addition, given the
large volume of materials (approximately 90,000 cubic yards) that would be transported
through the Site under Alternative 3, the impacts to the community would be much
greater than for Alternative 2. Transportation of contaminated materials over substantial
distances would be necessary to reach a suitable disposal site, increasing the risk
Involved in implementing the remedy (both to the wider community and to remediation
workers). Alternative 3 would also involve a much higher level of resource consumption
(primarily fuel) and air emissions compared to EPA's preferred alternative (Alternative 2).
A
The participating Group members are: Browning-Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc., Pfizer, Inc. Motorola Electronica de Puerto
Rico, Inc., Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority, Puerto Rico Housing Department, and Puerto Rico Land Authority,
2 The Group is submitting these comments solely to express its view of the relative technical merits of the remedial alternatives
being considered by EPA. The Group's expression of support for Alternative 2 does not represent any commitment by the Group to
perform or fund the remedial action to be selected by EPA for OU-2.
g:\projects\2003 proieots\033~6208 uega baia\commentsonou2proposedplari auflust2010-final.docx
Golder Associates Inc.
200 Century Parkway, Suite C
Mt Laurel, NJ 08054 USA
Tel: (656) 793-2005 Fax: (856) 793-2006 www.golder.com
Golder Associates: Operations in Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, North America arid South America
500139
-------
Nancy Rodriguez
U.S. EPA
2
August 26, 2010
033-6208
¦ As indicated iri the Proposed Plan (page 12), Alternative 2 is the most implementable
alternative; however, EPA's presentation during the public meeting on August 3, 2010 did
not indicate that this Alternative was ranked highest for implementability. It should be
noted that Alternative 3, in particular, has significant Implementation challenges. As
discussed in the Feasibility Study, in a February 18, 2010 presentation entitled "Solid
Waste Management in Puerto Rico: Realities, Facts and Figures," the Puerto Rico Solid
Waste Authority stated that "Puerto Rico's situation regarding waste management is
critical" and it indicated that by the year 2014, 10 of the existing 24 landfills in Puerto Rico
will likely be closed, and by 2020, only 4 landfills will still be in operation at the current
rate of waste disposal. This suggests that finding an appropriate disposal facility that will
be able to accept nearly 90,000 cubic yards (about 135,000 tons) of lead-contaminated
soil will be difficult and the soils may need to be transported a significant distance to an
appropriate and available landfill. Indeed, in connection with the removal action
performed at this Site several years ago when landfill space was more readily available,
EPA stated that "The number of landfills on Puerto Rico capable of accepting the
contaminated soils generated at the Site is very limited."
¦ The cleanup goal of 450 mg/kg for lead that is presented in the approved Feasibility
Study and in the proposed plan was selected by EPA, despite scientific evidence that a
higher value would be appropriate. For example, blood lead testing of child residents at
the Site conducted in 1998 by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) did not exceed the health-based criterion established by the Center for Disease
Control. Furthermore, EPA's IEUBK model was used by the Group to develop a Site-
specific preliminary remedial goal range of 566 to 613 mg/kg. The Group recommended
a cleanup level of 550 mg/kg based on the lEUBK-calculated range. This cleanup level
would also be protective of populations of ecological receptors. EPA stated on page 8 of
the Proposed Plan that "Final cleanup level selection for Superfund sites generally is
based on the IEUBK model results and the nine criteria analysis per the National
Contingency Plan (NCP), which includes an analysis of ARARs." However, EPA's
selection of the cleanup level In this case does not appear to have been based on this
approach - rather, it Is a more conservative value close to EPA's generic residential
screening level of 400 mg/kg. The Group maintains that a cleanup level of 550 mg/kg
would be consistent with EPA's practice and would be equally protective at the Site.
¦ Specific Comments on the Proposed Plan text
• Page 7: The Proposed plan states that arsenic and manganese concentrations are
"similar to background"; however, the analyses performed as part of the Remedial
Investigation indicate no statistical difference between concentrations of these
compounds in background and on the Site.
• Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that risks associated with thallium could be re-
evaluated during the Remedial Design. However, the NCP requires that the cleanup
approach be unambiguously determined in EPA's Record of Decision. Re-evaluation
of remedies thereafter may occur only via EPA's Five-Year Review process.
• Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that the results of IEUBK and ALM modeling
indicated a potential to cause "an increase in blood lead" defined as "greater than
5% of the population exceeding 10 ug/dL of lead in the blood." This description of the
results of IEUBK and ALM modeling is not accurate. These models predict whether
lead concentrations in soil are likely to result in a 5% probability that any single
individual's blood lead level will exceed 10 ug/dL, which is significantly less severe
than 5% of the population exceeding that level. Furthermore, blood sampling
performed on all pre-school aged children at the Site in 1998 indicated no detections
of lead in blood at concentrations greater than 10 ug/dL.
g:\projects\2003 projects\033-620B vega baja\commenlsonou2proposedplari_august201O-finaLdoac
'iSSes 500140
-------
Nancy Rodriguez
U.S. EPA
3
August 26, 2010
033-6208
• Page 7: The Proposed Plan states that "A cleanup value of 450 mg/kg was
determined to be protective of avian populations that use the site." It should be noted
that, because avian receptors are the most sensitive to lead, protection of avian
populations ensures protection of all ecological receptors evaluated for the Site. In
addition, 450 mg/kg was evaluated because it was selected by EPA as the cleanup
level for protection of human health, however, higher concentrations of lead are also
protective of ecological receptor populations.
• Page 12: The Short-term effectiveness criterion also includes consideration of the
time to achieve remedial goals. It should be noted that Alternative 2 is expected to
achieve remedial goals in a shorter time frame than Alternatives 3 and 4.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this important matter.
Very truly yours,
GOLDER ASSOCIATES INC.
P. Stephen Finn, C.Eng.
Project Coordinator
PSF:Irl
cc: Vega Baja Cooperating PRP Group
g:\projects\2G03 projedts\Q33-6208 vega baja\commenteonou2proposedplan_aiigusl2010-fjrial.docx
(SpGolder 500141
VcX Associates
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
Appendix E - Transcript of the August 3, 2010 Public Meeting, English Translation of the
Public Meeting Transcript
500142
-------
AGENCIA FEDERAL DE PROTECCION AMBIENTAL
DIVISION DE PROTECCION AMBIENTAL DEL CARIBE
VISTA PUBLICA SOBRE
LUGAR DE SUPERFONDO; ANTIGUO CREMATOR10 DE VEGA BAJA
Unidad operacional 2: suelos
Fecha: 3 de agosto de 2010, 6:00 P.M.
Lugar: Capilla de Santa Rosa de Lima
Calle Principal, Brisas del Rosario
Barrio Rio Abajo
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Moderadora: BRENDA REYES
****************
FASY0 REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858 500143
-------
2
PROCEDIMIENTOS
SA. REYES: ...Luis Santos; Luis trabaja en la
division de superfondo. Tenemos a Mike Valentino, de CDM, que
es contratista para este lugar de superfondo... y les queremos
dar las gracias por sacar de su tiempo y estar aqui.
Estuvimos repartiendo hojas informativas en la
comunidad para )-^verdad?)- invitarlos a que participaran en la
reunion de hoy, donde vamos a estar hablando del plan propuesto
para la segunda unidad operacional, que es de los suelos, aqui,
en la comunidad de Brisas del Rosario.
Me avisan si voy muy rapido o no entienden algo.
Tengo aqui la hoja informativa sobre el plan
propuesto. Aqui tienes un poco de mas informacion, la voy a
estar pasando, para aquellos de ustedes que gusten leer la antes
de comenzar.
De seis a siete, vamos a estar haciendo una serie de
presentaciones. Aqui, esto es, como pueden ver, estamos
improvisando una pantalla y tenemos unos mapas. Chuck, que esta
aqui, con nosotros, Chuck Nays (fonetico) , va a estar dando una
presentacion y la van a estar grabando aqui, los j ovenes, como
parte del proceso, para tenerla en el record.
Me gustaria que, si van a hacer alguna pregunta...
Tengo problemas con el sonido, el... de parte.
Me gustaria que, si tienen alguna pregunta, la hagan
diciendo su nombre. Tenemos los microfonos. Espero que
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858 500144
-------
3
funcionen un poquito mejor durante el transcurso de la noche.
Y si no quisieran hacer la pregunta ustedes, yo tengo aqui unas
hojitas, tarjetitas y tengo bollgrafos. Las voy a dejar aqui,
por si ustedes gustan escribirlas o si tienen alguna duda en el
transcurso de la presentacion, que las puedan escribir para
que, entonces, no se les haga dificil volver...
A veces, es un tanto dificil, cuando estamos viendo
presentaciones que incluyen aspectos un poco tecnicos,
referirnos o acordarnos de todo, as 1 que voy a tener esto aqui.
Si ustedes gustan, los pueden tomar.
Tenemos companeros de la Junta de Calidad Ambiental,
que van a estar viniendo en la noche de hoy. Uno de ellos ya
vino y se fue, un segundito, Pascual, fue a buscar un cafe.
As 1 que, cualquier cosa, saben, mi nombre es Brenda
y ya mismito vamos a estar comenzando con la presentacion.
(Fue ra de1 record.)
(De vuelta al record.)
SA. REYES: Para los que 1legaron mas recientemente,
mi nombre es Brenda Reyes, yo soy oficial de prensa de la EPA,
de la Agencia Federal de Proteccion Ambiental. En la tarde de
hoy, es tamos aqui con ustedes para hablarles sobre el plan
propuesto de la unidad operacional 2 del lugar de superfondo
del antiguo crematorio de Vega Baja, tambien conocido como
Brisas. Les agradecemos a la gente de la parroquia por habernos
facilitado el lugar para 1levar a cabo la reunion.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500145
-------
4
En la noche de hoy, estan aqui varios companeros de
la EPA: Ruben Alayon; esta Luis Santos; esta el ingeniero Jose
Font subdirector de la oficina; esta el companero Chuck Nays,
que es el asesor de riesgo que va a estar dando una
presentacion; Ariel Iglesias, director de la division de
emergencias y superfondo; y Nancy Rodriguez, gerente de
proyecto.
Aparte de eso, tenemos aqui a Mike Valentino, de CDM
(sic.) , que es el cont rat ista. Y alia atras, tenemos a Pascual,
de la Junta de Calidad Ambiental.
As i que, con eso, pues, vamos dar inicio a la
presentacion que tenemos en la noche de hoy. Tenemos aqui
grabacion )-^verdad?)-, pues, para el record, de la reunion.
Tambien, para los que 1legaron mas recientemente,
indique que va a haber un periodo de preguntas y respuestas, al
final. Se les repartio el plan propuesto, tienen una hoj a
informativa sobre el plan propuesto. Tambien, en el segundo
banco, deje unos "index cards" o unas hojitas. Hay boligrafos
para que, pues, aquel que quiera hacer preguntas o, pues,
anotar algo sobre la presentacion que esta aqui, sabemos que,
pues, muchas veces hay algunos detalles y nos perdemos cuando
tenemos que recapitular un poquito la presentacion, asi , pues,
que si algo les levanta alguna duda o tienen alguna pregunta,
pues, estan bienvenidos de tomarla.
Se me olvido mencionarles que hay un bano aqui , en el
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858 500146
-------
5
costado, por si necesitan utilizar el servicio sanitario. Hay
que salir por la puerta principal...
^Se me queda algo mas?
Si, las preguntas. Va a haber un microfono para las
preguntas, pero yo me encargo de esto. Asi que nada, les dejo
aqui con Nancy, que es la... dAh? ^Con Ariel?
Ariel, ^ tu vas a estar haciendo la presentacion?
Pues, les dejo aqui con Ariel Iglesias y ya saben, cualquier
duda o pregunta, pues, creo que aqui estamos muchos de la EPA
para contestar sus preguntas. Gracias.
SR. IGLESIAS: Buenas noches a todos. Quiero
agradecerles la presencia de todos ustedes esta noche. Muchas
gracias por sacar de su tiempo para compartir con nosotros.
^No se escucha atras?
^Mej or?
Bueno. Nuevamente, muchas gracias a todos por sacar
de su tiempo y compartir con nosotros esta noche.
Nosotros vamos a estar esta noche hablando un poco
sobre el estatus de la investigacion de la contaminacion en el
"super fund site" aqui, en la comunidad de Brisas del Rosario,
dandoles un "update" y explicando los proximos pasos y el plan
propuesto para atender la remediacion.
Una excelente oportunidad para aclarar preguntas.
Habemos bastantes companeros aqui, esta noche, para ayudarnos
a entender en que estatus nos encontramos, cuales son los
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858^
v y 500147
-------
6
proximos pasos y en que consiste el plan propuesto.
Si me ayudas por aqui, Ruben...
La agenda de esta noche, vamos a tener la bienvenida,
pues, que nos la dio Brenda. Vamos a hablar un poco sobre el
proceso de superfondo. Nancy nos va a estar hablando sobre la
historia del lugar, en donde nos encontramos actualmente con
respecto a la investigacion remedial y la evaluacion de riesgo,
cuales son los resultados y las conclusiones de estos estudios
que se han estado 1levando acabo aqui por unos cuantos anos, el
estudio de viabilidad y las alternativas que se han evaluado
para atender la contaminacion que se encontro en el sitio y los
proximos pasos. En resumen, nos va a estar hablando sobre el
plan propuesto de como se propone atender la contaminacion que
se ha encontrado en el area.
Yo les voy a hablar un poco sobre el proceso de
superfondo. Como ustedes saben, esto pro. . . nosotros hemos
estado involucrados en un proceso de investigacion de la
situacion presente aqui, en el lugar de Brisas del Rosario por
unos cuantos anos.
El proceso de superfondo de un lugar generico
comienza con el descubrimiento del lugar. El descubrimiento del
lugar, pues, normalmente, se da a cabo. . . se 1 leva a cabo de
varias maneras, ya sea porque recibimos querellas ciudadanas,
porque hay un referido por parte de alguna agencia estatal,
porque personal de nosotros visito un lugar y encontro algunas
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500148
-------
7
cosas que pudiesen ser de preocupacion sobre la presencia de
materiales peligrosos y, una vez uno descubre este lugar, pues,
evalua la informacion que tiene a la mano para determinar si,
baj o el proceso de superfondo, el lugar amerita ser
cons iderado.
Si la informacion que tenemos a la mano nos 1 leva a
que el lugar si puede presentar un problema, se hace un estudio
preliminar, una evaluacion preliminar y una inspeccion del
lugar y lo que basicamente se utiliza es informacion existente
para determinar si el lugar debe ser considerado para ser
incluido en lo que se conoce como la lista nacional de
pr ior idades.
La lista nacional de prioridades es el "hit parade"
de lugares contaminados. 0 sea, es un lugar en donde, pues, se
encuentra una contaminacion. Esto es un proceso riguroso, una
vez uno consigue informacion que sugiere que un lugar pueda
estar contaminado, baj o un proceso de evaluacion y va a un
panel, el cual considera la informacion y determina si, de
hecho, este lugar debe ser incluido en la lista nacional de
pr ior idades.
Estos pasos ya nosotros los hemos andado para el
lugar de superfondo aqui, en Brisas del Rosario, se los estoy
discutiendo a modo de trasfondo para que entiendan que se ha
hecho a traves de los anos en este lugar.
Una vez el lugar es incluido en la lista nacional de
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500149
-------
prioridades, nosotros procedemos a hacer una investigacion
remedial y un estudio de viabilidad. Estos son los dos pasos
que se completaron para el lugar de superfondo de Vega Baja.
Este estudio esta dirigido a evaluar la naturaleza y la
extension de la contain inac ion: que tipo de contaminantes estan
presentes. Es donde se encuentran estos contaminantes. Y se
utiliza esta informacion para establecer si existe
contaminacion y si esa contaminacion presenta un riesgo a la
salud publica y al medioambiente . Y nosotros, a base del riesgo
que puede presentar a la salud publica y el medio ambiente,
tomamos una decision si, de hecho, existe la necesidad de
1levar a cabo algun tipo de limpieza o alguna actividad
remedial para atender esta contaminacion.
De ser necesario, comenzamos a desarrollar
alternativas para poder trabajar con esta contaminacion que
esta presente en el lugar. Estas alternativas se evaluan, se
evalua la viabilidad de poder implementar estas diferentes
alternativas y eso es lo que, en bloque, se conoce como el
estudio de viabilidad.
Estos dos pasos se acaban de completar para este
lugar. Se evaluo la naturaleza y la extension o se definio la
naturaleza y la extension de la contaminacion, se evaluo el
riesgo y se evaluaron las alternativas para atender la
contaminacion que se encuentra presente.
Nancy, mas adelante, lo que va a hacer es que va a ir
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500150
-------
9
por encima de las conclusiones de estos estudios, para que
ustedes puedan entender el tipo de contain inac ion que se
encontro y las alternativas que se estan proponiendo, que la
agencia esta proponiendo 1levar a cabo para atender esta
con t am i nac i on.
Proximo paso. La agencia provee esta informacion a la
comunidad y al publico, para que ustedes tengan una oportunidad
no tan solo de conocerla, si no de poder expresar cualquier
comentario que ustedes puedan tener antes de tomar una decision
aqui . Y eso es lo que estamos haciendo en este periodo de
comentarios publicos, que termina en el mes de agosto. Y esta
reunion publica es una oportunidad que nosotros tenemos para
poder sentarnos con ustedes, compartir la informacion que
nosotros hemos recopilado y que ustedes puedan entender que es
esta informacion, que quiere decir esta informacion y cuales
son los planes que se estan proponiendo hacer.
Una vez nosotros culminemos este proceso de
comentarios publicos, nosotros entonces tomamos una decision
sobre que hacer en el lugar y eso se plasma en un record de
dec i s ion.
Una vez se plasma en un record de decision, pasamos
al proximo paso, que consiste en disenar el remedio. Ya
definimos la naturaleza y la contaminacion, decidimos que hay
que tomar una accion remedial o hacer una limpieza, evaluamos
las alternativas, el proximo paso es disenar como se van a
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500151
-------
10
implementar esas alternativas.
Ya estos pasos, a partir del record de decision en
adelante son pasos prospectivos. 0 sea, son pasos futuros.
Ahora mismo, nosotros estamos en el punto de tomar una decision
final sobre que vamos a hacer.
Una vez se disene el remedio, se construye dicho
remedio.
Luego que se construye el remedio, pues, este remedio
se va evaluando a traves del tiempo )-Ruben, si puedes darle
para alante)- para asegurarnos que el remedio esta cumpliendo
su cometido, que el remedio se esta desempenando como se habia
disenado. Y esto es lo que se conoce como el monitoreo de post
const rucc ion.
Una vez se termina la accion remedial y, por lo
tanto, se concluye que esta funcionando el remedio, pues,
pasamos por el proceso de "delistar" el lugar. Quiere decir que
se acabo el trabajo en ese lugar, el lugar ha sido devuelto a
uso beneficioso y pasamos para el proceso de "delisting".
Es importante recalcar que, en todo momento, en el
proceso de superfondo, nosotros estamos trabajando con
contaminacion y con receptores, salud publica y medioambiente.
Y esos son los dos elementos que, en todo momento, nosotros
estamos pendientes y considerando en nuestro proceso de toma de
decisiones. Y el fin del proceso de superfondo es devolver el
lugar a uso beneficioso.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500152
-------
11
Asi que, con esto, yo culmino este proceso... bueno,
esta parte del trasfondo del proceso de superfondo. Ahora, voy
a dejar a Nancy, para que les hable un poco sobre la histori a
del lugar y los 1 leve sobre los trabajos que se han estado
haciendo y cuales son las conclusiones de estos trabajos y cual
es el plan propuesto y la accion que se esta proponiendo 1 levar
a cabo para atender la contaminacion.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Hola, bienvenido a todos. Quiero
tambien agradecerle el tiempo en que ustedes de estar aqui con
nosotros esta noche.
Ariel nos dio una buena introduce ion del proceso que
estamos pasando aqui, en el lugar del antiguo crematorio de
Vega Baja un poquito los...
Como conocemos , aqui se traia, por treinta y un anos ,
desde el 48 al 79, se traia...
Se escucha ahora mejor.
Se traia material, desperdicios comerciales,
industriales y domesticos y se practicaba tambien la quema de
desperdicios en este lugar. Se estima que uno punto uno
yardas... millones de yardas fueron traidas al lugar.
En esa figura, se le esta enseiiando. . .
Basicamente, este es el area residencial y esta es el
area que es no residencial, hacia los mogotes, para que tengan
mas o menos una idea de donde estamos en la figura. Y aqui
estamos mostrando como se comenzo a cubrir area de los
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500153
-------
12
desperdicios que se estaban depositando.
Con esta grafica, lo que le quiero ensenar,
basicamente, aqui tenemos un resumen de la cantidad de muestras
que se tomaron inicial. Son muestras de campo que, basicamente,
son la base para que la EPA haya comenzado una investigacion,
pues, mas formal.
Como muchos conocen, desde la decada de los 70, se
comenzo la construccion de residencias en el lugar. La primera
inspeccion fue en el 94 y, de ahi, dados los resultados, fue
evolucionando a que hay una necesidad de mas "data", de mas
recoleccion de "data", de conocer mejor, porque estabamos
encontrando contaminantes en el lugar.
Esto nos 1levo a que el lugar fue listado en la lista
nacional de prioridades en el 99 y, luego de eso, con re lac ion
a la unidad de suelos, en el 2003, las partes responsables
firmaron una orden de consentimiento con la EPA, que fueron,
como conocen, el municipio de Vega Baja, PREPA, Autoridad de
Tierras, Departamento de Vivienda, Pfeizer, por comprar a
Warner Lambert, que fue quien depositaba, BFI y Motorola.
Una vez vemos toda esa "data" que le presente
anteriormente, nos daba una base para decir: "Mira, entendemos
que hay una contaminacion en el lugar y deseamos hacer una
investigacion mas profunda. La EPA, entonces, divide el lugar
en dos unidades operacionales. Una es el agua subterranea y la
otra es el suelo.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500154
-------
13
En el momento, comenzamos con la unidad operacional
de agua subterranea que, hace un tiempo atras, le estuvimos
presentando los resultados y, basicamente, despues de la
instalacion de los pozos, los resultados que se obtuvieron de
muestras de agua, tambien el canal, la zanja de drenaje, Rio
Indio, oj os de agua tambien que se muestreo, encontramos que no
habia, en el agua subterranea, ninguna contaminante que se
relacionara al lugar.
Por lo tanto, se firmo un record de decision,
recomendando no accion para el lugar en el 2004. Es entonces
cuando nos movemos a la unidad operacional de suelos y
comenzamos una investigacion ambiental.
^Cual es mi objetivo? ^Que es lo que yo quiero
lograr? ^Hacia donde voy? Esta evaluacion, basado en la "data"
que habiamos recolectado inicialmente, decidimos delinear,
decidimos caracterizar cual es la contaminacion que hay en el
lugar.
Buscamos, con estudio tambien, determinar hasta donde
llega; cual es la extension de esta contaminacion y, luego,
evaluar los riesgos; que riesgo presenta los contaminantes
presentes a la salud humana y al ambiente.
La investigacion de suelos, basicamente, lo que
incluyo fueron unas muestras en la zona residencial, muestras
en areas, muestras en propiedades donde la "data" antigua, la
"data" original nos mostraba que habia una necesidad de tener
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500155
-------
14
una "data" mas de laboratorio, una "data" mas definitiva, una
investigacion mas profunda.
Como en estas residencias se tomaron muestras para
plomo, tanto en el suelo como dentro de los hogares, en las
plumas, en el agua de pluma y, tambien, en el polvo que hay
dentro de los hogares.
Tambien en el area residencial, completo, lo que es
Brisas del Rosario, lo que es el lugar completo, que es lo que
estoy mostrando aqui, en la figura, se tomaron muestras
alrededor de toda el area para otros contaminantes, para saber
si estaba presente y si me presentaban algun preocupacion en el
lugar.
Tambien se tomaron muestras en el area no
residencial, que es el area verde, abajo, que es la area que
esta hacia los mogotes, que no esta desarro11ada, para delinear
cual es la extension de plomo en esta area y si habia otro
contaminante de preocupacion. Esta area abajo me incluye
diecisiete acres de terreno, que todo ello fue muestreado.
Antes de que pase, le anadi esta nota aqui, abaj o,
porque la EPA tiene lo que se llama la guia. . . "super fund lead
contaminated residential site sample", es un "handbook", es una
guia que ayuda a estudiar lugares como Brisas del Rosario, que
tienen contaminacion de plomo y es en area residencial.
Basicamente, la guia te da idea o te da unas
direcciones, unas recomendaciones para como vas a tomar las
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500156
-------
15
muestras, donde tomarlas, como entender la "data", como... que
hacer con la "data", te 1 leva todo ese proceso de identificar
y de evaluar en lugares que son residenciales y contienen
plomo. La usamos de guia, que nos asistio en el proceso.
En adicion, durante la investigacion de suelos,
tomamos muestras en los monticulos, en las montanitas esas de
basura, que tenemos cuatro, que las podemos ver en color
marron, tenemos una, dos, la de arriba, tres y una por donde
esta la otra iglesia. Esa, pues, como ustedes conocen, hubo...
se comenzo a hacer una remocion no autorizada y ya, pues, nos
adelantamos y esa se removio y se acomodo en el area no
desarro11ada. Por eso, ahora nos quedan basicamente tres
monticulos de basura o montanitas de basura.
En estos lugares, aqui, en la basura, se tomo
muestras de plomo, pero tambien para otros analisis o
compuestos para determinar que contaminantes eran una
preocupacion en esa area.
Y por ultimo, se tomo muestras de trasfondo, que es
lo que conocemos en ingles como "background" . Son areas que
buscamos cerca del lugar , pero que no hayan sido impactadas por
ninguna actividad. Lo que buscamos es ver una referencia de
cuales son las concentraciones digamos que natural de estos
contaminantes o de estos metales, por ejemplo, en estas areas
que no han sido alteradas por ninguna cons truce ion o por
ninguna. . . trabajo que se haya realizado que haya impactado
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500157
-------
16
estos suelos.
Ahora les voy a mostrar unas figuras y, en estas
figuras, basicamente, pueden ver donde fue que se tomaron las
muestras. Aqui estoy enfatizando el area residencial y, como
podemos, ver la mayor ia esta concentrada entre la Calle Santa
Maria Alturas y Los Angeles Ortiz y esta area aqui, en
progreso.
Una vez les recalco que estas areas surgen de los
resultados que ya previamente se habian tornado en el area
completa, en las doscientas trece casas, que es lo que incluye
los cincuenta y cinco acres de propiedad en el area
res idenc ial.
Lo que le habia explica'o anteriormente, de que para
otros contaminantes que no fuera plomo, se separaron toda esta
parte residencial, se separaron en bloque. Y lo que buscabamos
aqui era tener una representacion de las distintas areas, pero
lo que estamos buscando era recolectar muestras, basado en lo
que necesitamos para hacer una evaluacion de riesgo. Eso es lo
que nos 1levo a hacer esta... digamos que estas distintas
figuras aqui, para separar los bloques y lo que buscabamos era
satisfacer la necesidad de "data" que nos pide la evaluacion de
riesgo, para saber para otros contaminantes que no son plomo,
si hay un riesgo a la salud humana o a ecologica.
Esta es el area que no residencial. Son los
diecisiete acres en verde, abajo, en la figura. Basicamente,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500158
-------
17
tambien se mostro toda el area y, como podemos ver , fueron
muestras suficientes como para saber hasta donde 1lega mi
con t am i nac i on.
Y por ul... La proxima.
Y por ultimo, esto es lo que me referia con las areas
de trasfondo. Si ven, se tomaron en areas que son abiertas, que
no han tenido ninguna construce ion, ninguna edificacion.
Basicamente, son areas que nos puede dar una idea de cuales son
las concentraciones naturales de estos contaminantes o de estos
metales en el lugar.
Le anadi esta figura, pero basicamente, esto es parte
de lo que se hizo en la invest igacion del agua subterranea.
Cuando le comente que se instalaron pozos, tambien ese
entonces , la idea era tomar muestras en la zanj a de drenaje que
tienen ustedes, que corre por Alturas y 1lega hasta Rio Indio,
pero como ustedes bien sabe, mayormente esta seco. No se pudo
tomar aguas . . . muestras de agua, pero si se tomaron muestras de
sedimento. En algunas areas, si nos dio unas concentraciones de
plomo y es por eso que lo estamos... Dentro de la accion que
estamos recomendando para el lugar, estamos incluyendo la zanj a
de drenaje para limpieza.
Luego que tomo esa... toda esa "data", que se analiza
toda esa "data" , en esta caja, le puedo. . . basicamente, tenemos
todos los documentos aqui, disponibles, se generan unos
documentos, que son revisados por distintos expertos de la
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500159
-------
18
agenda y se 1 lega a la conclusion de que el plomo,
def ini t ivamente, es un problema para el lugar y, aqui , le estoy
dando un poco los valores que encontramos.
El suelo residencial, en la parte superficial, le
estoy dando un rango de setenta y nueve a mil ciento treinta
miligramos por kilogramo. Eso fue lo que encontramos en la...
en el. . . en la "data" recolectada. El suelo a profundidad, hubo
un area que 1 lego hasta veintiseis mil miligramos por
kilogramos de plomo.
Como podemos ver en los monticulos de basura, tenemos
unos valores un poquito mas altos. Nos hemos dado cuenta que lo
que es en los monticulos de basura y el area no residencial, es
donde tengo unos valores mas elevados de plomo en el lugar.
En el polvo residencial...
Esta "data", basicamente, yo la utilice para correr
los modelos de anal is is de riesgo que me pedia, basicamente,
una informacion del lugar, una informacion mas especifica.
Basicamente, queriamos ver cual es la concentracion de polvo
dentro de las residencias. Nos dio un maximo de ochocientos
veinticuatro, pero el promedio fueron unos valores mas bajos.
Por eso queda un promedio de ciento veintidos.
Lo mismo con el agua de pluma. Esta "data" yo la
utilizo, basicamente, para correr el modelo de riesgo y ver,
entonces, cual es mi situacion en cuanto riesgo a la salud
humana en el lugar.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500160
-------
19
Durante la investigacion y los... la "data" que se
recolecto, encontramos tambien algunas excedencias esporadicas
de antimonio, cromio, cobre, talio, zinc y de hierro, tambien,
que fueron mas orientadas hacia las... monticulos de basura y
hacia el area no residencial.
Luego de una excelente evaluacion y muchos aspectos,
muchas perspectivas que se toman en cuanto a la "data"
recolectada y evaluar lo que se interpreta, se concluyo que ya
entendiamos o ya teniamos definido cual era la naturaleza de la
contaminacion )-que se resume a plomo)- y cual es la
remediacion; donde esta y hasta donde llega.
En los mogotes, que se investigo diecisiete acres,
pudimos ver que solamente ocho punto cinco acres son los que
estan impactados por plomo y, por tanto, pues, necesita que se
atienda ese problema. Y los valores, como arsenico, cromio y
manganeso, se encontraron... aunque fueron por encima de los
valores de residencia, se compara con los analisis de trasfondo
que habiamos hecho. Por esas muestras que le explique, que
estaban en lugares que no han sido impactados, cerca del area,
al compararlos, son unos niveles que estan en promedio bastante
cercano, por lo tanto, se concluye que no es relacionado al
lugar, sino que es particularidad del suelo.
Una vez tenemos toda esa "data" , ^que hacemos con
el la? Aqui tenemos a Chuck Nays, que es nuestro toxicologo y
el, basicamente, es el 1ider al evaluar los documentos que se
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500161
-------
20
miran con relacion a la salud humana, al riesgo de la salud
humana, en un proceso complicado, que voy a resumir. Es
basicamente... Lo que tu estas buscando es ver la exposicion a
este quimico, en el caso de nosotros, la exposicion al quimico,
que significa, que representa, para los residentes, ya sean
adultos o ninos, para el visitantes intermitentes, que es la
persona que viene, juega, visita, se va, por lo tanto, no esta
expuesto dia a dia, pero puede venir frecuentemente y el
trabajador de construce ion, que tiene una exposicion menor,
pero puede venir al lugar.
Cual es la exposicion para ese tipo de personas
cuando hay quimicos en el suelo, en polvo y en vegetales. La
conclusion fue que no hay... El riesgo de cancer, presente por
los contaminantes del lugar, no es elevado. Esta dentro de los
rango de la EPA. Por lo tanto, entendemos que no hay problema
de riesgo de cancer.
La pe1igrosidad, que son los compuestos que no son
carcinogenos. Se determino que es principalmente asociado con
los compuestos que le dije, que aunque excedian los valores de
referencia de la EPA, estaban en unos valores que eran
similares a las condiciones del lugar, a las muestras de
"background", las muestras de trasfondo, a lo que vemos en esta
region.
Y, basicamente, se concluyo que plomo sabemos que es
un problema y, para los niveles que puedes encontrar en la
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500162
-------
21
sangre, pudiera crear un potencial de niveles elevados en la
sangre. Por lo tanto, me 1 leva a que tenemos que hacer y tomar
una accion en el lugar.
El riesgo al ambiente; el riesgo ecologico. ^Que
hicimos aqui? Basicamente, primero hay una evaluacion, una
inspeccion de cuales son las especies que podemos ver en esta
area, en esta region en Puerto Rico. Y basado a las especies
que pueden estar presentes, los receptores ecologicos que
puedan estar presentes, se escogieron aves, murcielagos, me
parece que esta el "Puerto Rican boa", que son especies que
pueden estar presentes en el lugar.
Se evalua cual es el riesgo a estos receptores con
respecto a plomo. Se concluyo que el contaminante presenta un
nivel no aceptable para las aves. ^Que me qui ere decir eso?
Que, obviamente, plomo tambien para las aves es un problema que
tenemos que, entonces, "postar" una limpieza o una remediacion.
Para los otros contaminantes. En las otras
concentraciones que se vieron en el lugar, el riesgo a los
receptores ecologicos es minimo. Por lo tanto, volvemos a
concluir tenemos que hacer algo con plomo.
Aqui, entonces, nos movemos a un estudio diferente
que es un estudio... OK., ya sabemos que tenemos una
contaminacion de plomo. ^Que vamos a hacer? ^Como vamos a
resolver este problema? ^Que alternativas yo tengo? ^Que
tecnologia existe para yo hacer una limpieza que, basicamente,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500163
-------
22
me resuelve el problema de plomo en el lugar?
El estudio de viabilidad es un mecanismo que se
utiliza para una evaluacion detallada de las alternativas de
remediacion o limpieza. ^Que me quiere decir eso? Yo busco cual
es mi objetivo. Mi objetivo que yo quiero hacer en el lugar.
Que yo voy a limpiar. A cuanto yo voy a limpiar. Y entonces,
evaluo que hay disponible en el mercado para yo resolver este
problema.
Mis objetivos aqui, basicamente, es prevenir o
minimizar el contacto de las personas... el contacto humano, el
contacto de los. . . de las aves, que ya vimos que era un
problema con re lac ion a plomo, en areas como el area
residencial, en las propiedades donde se identified que habia
un problema, en los monticulos de basura y en el area no
res idenc ial.
Mi objetivo aqui es yo tengo que resolver o minimizar
el contacto directo a estas areas con concentraciones altas de
plomo. Y tambien queremos, para resolver el problema ecologico,
eliminar el contacto de plomo para proteger los receptores.
La EPA, entonces, hace... De toda esta informacion
que hemos recolectado, de lo que me ha dicho la evaluacion de
riesgo, de los valores de referencia que tenemos en cuanto a
plomo, buscamos un anal is is y 1legamos a la conclusion de que,
de cuatrocientos cincuenta miligramos de kilogramos, va a ser
mi valor, va a ser mi meta de limpieza en el lugar. Eso es un
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500164
-------
23
valor bien conservador que atiende el problema, me. . . y
entendemos que limpiando sobre cuatrocie. . . limpiando las areas
de cuatrocientos cincuenta miligramos kilogramo, todo lo que
tenga un valor por encima de eso seria nuestra alternativa de
resolver el problema en el lugar.
Y le recuerdo que esto incluye el area no
residencial, el area residencial, la zanja de drenaje que, en
la unidad operacional 1, habiamos indicado que habian unos
valores similares a lo que encontramos en el area residencial,
en la zanja y los monticulos de basura.
Ya yo se lo que quiero hacer. Conozco mi problema,
conozco que yo quiero lograr, mi objetivo, mi meta, conozco a
que valor yo quiero llegar, ^como lo voy a hacer? ^Que
tecnologias hay para yo, entonces, poder llegar y cumplir mi
meta?
Tenemos estas tecnologias, bastante simples y que son
viables para el lugar de Vega Baja. La primera es excavar
suelo. Llegar, remover, excavar el suelo, sacarlo del lugar.
^Que podemos hacer con este suelo excavado? 0 se 1 leva a fuera
del lugar, a algun vertedero o se puede consolidar en una
area... En el caso de Vega Baja, seria el area no residencial.
Se puede consolidar alii y se pone una cubierta de suelo que,
basicamente, me minimiza mi exposicion al suelo contaminado.
Contencion. Eso es poner una cubierta de suelo.
Puedes poner una cubierta de suelo y, basicamente, estas...
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500165
-------
24
tienes una cubierta de suelo, que te sirve de barrera con el
suelo que contiene contaminacion de plomo.
Solidificacion o estabi1izacion. Ya esto envuelve
tratamiento. Basicamente, aqui estariamos trayendo cemento o
cal y se estaria mezclando con el suelo contaminado. Todo lo
que tenga niveles de plomo y no aceptables se estaria mezclando
para solidificarlo; para que ese plomo pierda su movilidad y
evitar el contacto directo y que, en algun futuro, pues,
pudiera afectar o contaminar otro tipo de suelo o 1legar al
agua subterranea.
Otra tecnologia para el polvo en las residencias es
remoc ion.
Y por ultimo institucio... controles institucionales.
^Que son los controles institucionales? Basicamente, son unas
restricciones de uso, restricciones que, basicamente, limitan
el uso del area contaminada, como tambien, limita excavacion
donde hay el terreno contaminado.
^Que podemos hacer en Brisas del Rosario con re lac ion
a la alternativa de excavacion de suelo? Cuando yo digo de
1legar, excavar, remover suelo, ^a que me estoy refiriendo? Me
estoy refiriendo a las "trash mounts", a los monticulos de
basura. Voy y remuevo toda la basura, toda la montana de basura
que tenemos... en este momento, tenemos tres existentes en el
area residencial.
Una vez remuevo, traigo relleno, traigo suelo limpio,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500166
-------
25
uso una membrana, simplemente, pues, para identificar hasta
donde 1 lego la concentracion y, encima, cubro con relleno para
restaurar el nivel de tierra y no dejar el hueco abierto.
En las areas propie. . . en las propiedades
residenciales o en las areas que, pues, se entiende que tiene
que haber una remoclon, basicamente, lo que este por encima de
cuatro cincuenta, entramos, excavamos y removemos, sacamos el
suelo contaminado de la residencia, del area de la propiedad,
del patio es en la mayor i a de los casos. Y con el suelo que
esta contaminado o se envia a un vertedero, como les habia
mencionado anteriormente o se 1 leva a un area donde se pueda
consolidar y cubrir.
La alternativa de con tens ion. . . Aqui le anadi lo
que. . . cuando hablamos de una membrana geotextil, es lo que
pueden ver en la foto abajo, es... simplemente, es una barrera
fisica para, una vez se coloca, si hubiese, en el futuro,
alguna excavacion, pueden notar: "Mira, hasta ahi 1 lego la
remocion anterior, de ahi en abajo, hay... puede haber suelo
contaminado o basura".
Entonces, como pueden ver en esta figura, se tira
primero la capa de la membrana y, luego, se pone un pies, doce
pulgadas de terreno por encima y esto seria lo que es la
cobertura. Para evitar, entonces, la erosion del lugar, tambien
se le anade una capa vegetativa, luego de terminar la capa de
suelo. Esta tecnologia requiere un mantenimiento, porque
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500167
-------
26
obviamente, una vez la instalas, necesitas asegurarte de que no
haya ningun tipo de excavacion futura y que la capa se
mantenga, para que, entonces, el remedio continue siendo
efect ivo.
En esta figurita, aqui podemos ver lo que les habia
explicado de como es la tecnologia en solidificacion y
estabi1izacion. Extraes agua y extraes el material, ya puede
ser cemento o puede ser cal y, basicamente, lo que estas es
mezclandolo con el suelo contaminado, para que, entonces, el
suelo contaminado se mezcle y cree, entonces. . . Se ve como
cemento debil, como "weak cement" una vez tu tienes todo esto
mezclado, para solidificarlo en suelo contaminado.
Tengo estas tecnologias: puedo excavar; puedo poner
una cobertura de suelo; puedo sol ificar. Estas tecnologias,
^que hago yo con el las ahora? Pues, las agrupo en alternativas.
CERCLA me requiere que una de mis alternativas sea no accion.
Y es mas bien para tener un punto de comparacion. En no accion,
yo lo que estoy diciendo es: "No voy a hacer nada. Voy a dejar
las cosas como estan". Y este... y en el caso del reporte que
hemos desarro11 ado, es nuestra alternativa numero 1.
La alternativa numero 2, lo que agrupa es remover
todo el suelo contaminado que este por encima de los
cuatrocientos cincuenta miligramos por kilogramo, segun la
"data" que ya hemos recolectado del area residencial, de las
propiedades, obviamente, que pues, tenemos esa informacion de
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500168
-------
27
que este por encima de los cuatro cincuenta, de la zanj a y
tambien de la "trash mounds", de la. . . de los monticulos de
basura. Remuevo todo ese suelo contaminado, lo 1levo al area no
desarrollada y ahi lo consolido. Tengo todo consolidado junto
con los ocho punto cinco acres de terreno que habiamos
comentado de que tenian plomo a un nivel excedente y pongo una
cubierta de suelo. Pongo la cubierta de membrana, como le
ensene anter iormente y le pongo una cubierta de un pies de
terreno. Y luego, una capa vegetativa para que, basicamente, la
vegetacion me cubra que mi capa de terreno no se altere, no se
pierda, no minimice y me provoque una exposicion de basura. Lo
que estoy buscando es que esta barrera de... esta capa de suelo
me permita, me minimice, me s i rva de barrera para el suelo
contaminado y la basura.
La alternativa 3 seria que, para todas las areas, las
cuatro areas )-residenciales, zanja, basura y no residencial)-
se excave todo el terreno y se envia a algun vertedero.
Y la alternativa 4 es la... basicamente, remover...
igual que la alternativa 2, remover el suelo del area
residencial, de la zanja, del monticulo, llevarlo a mi area no
desarrollada y al1i es que yo hago mi sistema de tratamiento,
donde voy mezclando el suelo contaminado con ya sea cemento o
cal, que es lo que voy a estar anadiendo.
Cualquiera de estas alternativas va a 1levar
institule... controles institucionales, porque cualquiera de
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500169
-------
28
estas alternativas me va a prevenir, segun la alternativa, el
uso futuro del lugar o que areas, como por ejemplo, baj o
pavimento o bajo estructuras donde no haya el alcance de
remover el suelo o de remover la basura, que no sean alteradas
en un futuro.
Ya yo tengo estas alternativas. Todas estas
alternativas tienen unos elementos comunes y estos elementos
son los controles institucionales que ya le habia mencionado.
Obviamente, excepto la alternativa de no accion. Lleva una
investigacion prediseno. En el diseno es donde nosotros,
detalladamente, discutimos toda la logistica, todo el... como
se va la implementacion de esta alternativa, del diseno, de la
remediacion, de la limpieza. Y siempre, antes del diseno, pues,
hay veces que hay que venir y tomar algun dato adicional para
poder completar. . . definir cual va a ser el trabajo, ya en una
precision mas detallada.
Tambien nosotros... los... El agua de escorrentia es
algo tambien que se toma en consideracion. No queremos alterar
o crear un problema de agua escorrentia. Por lo tanto, tiene
que haber un manejo, tiene que haber unos controles y, en el
diseno, tiene que tomar en cuenta que va a suceder con el agua
de escorrentia. En el caso... Como tenemos la zanja de drenaje,
se estaria divirtiendo, para que las aguas de lluvia vayan por
el canal, no se queden en residencia, por ahi 1 legan al Rio
Indio. "So", se estarian conectando los dos dentro del diseno.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500170
-------
29
Los acuerdos de acceso. No podemos entrar a sus
hogares sin que nos den el permiso, la autorizacion de entrar.
"So", antes de hacer cualquiera de las alternativas, tenemos
que solicitar de las personas, donde tenemos que entrar a sus
propiedades, accesos a las propiedades. Y entonces, ahora todo
es verde, ahora todo es "green".
"So", la region, la EPA region 2 ha desarroll ado una
politica de limpieza verde para los lugares de superfondo que
vamos a estar tomando en consideracion y esto incluye, pues,
reciclaje de mater i ales, todo lo que pueda hacer que pueda
ahorrar energia... Un sistema de tratamiento pudiera ser
utilizando energia solar... Cualquier aspecto que se pudiera
implementar, eso se va a tomar en consideracion en el diseno.
Tenemos las alternativas. Sabemos que queremos hacer
en el lugar. Sabemos a cuanto queremos limpiar. ^Pero como yo
escojo? Escojo la alternativa 1, la 2, la 3, la 4. No es asi,
no es tan azar, no es tan facil.
El programa de superfondo tiene nueve criterios que
nos ayuda a evaluarlas. A evaluarlas de una manera detallada,
para hacer una decision correcta en cuanto a resolver el
problema de contaminacion en el lugar.
Estos criterios son como la alternativa protege,
obviamente, la mision de nosotros, la salud humana y el
medioambiente. Como cumple con los requisitos aplicables,
regulaciones relevantes y apropiados en el lugar. Cual es mi
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500171
-------
30
eficiencia a largo plazo. A largo plazo, que significa, que
representa esa alternativa para mi . Lo mismo que a corto plazo;
que significa esa alternativa a corto plazo. Cual es la
reduccion de toxicidad, movilidad o volumen de contaminantes.
Y eso es cuando hay tratamiento. Esto es a traves del
tratamiento. Como me reduce, cuan toxico es el contaminante o
cuan movil es el contaminante.
La implementabi1idad. A lo mejor hay una alternativa
fabulosa, pero no es algo que es viable en Puerto Rico. Y se
evalua tambien si es una alternativa que se puede implementar.
Se evalua costo, la aceptacion de la agencia estatal
que, en este caso, es la Junta de Cal idad Ambiental y la
aceptacion de la comunidad, que por eso es tamos aqui esta noche
y por eso abrimos un periodo de comentarios, porque ustedes
tambien tienen una participacion dentro de la evaluacion de
estas alternativas.
Aqui les quiero mostrar, basicamente, como las
alternativas compara una con la otra con relacion a mis nueve
criterios. Y basicamente, lo que les quiero ensenar es que la
alternativa de no accion, si ve, no me protege la salud humana
y no me protege... no me cumple con los requisitos aplicables,
^por que? Porque es hacer nada; es dejar la contaminacion tal
como esta. Por lo tanto, es algo que no me cumple mi criterio.
Las otras alternativas si lo cumplen.
La eficiencia a largo plazo. El removerlo todo del
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500172
-------
31
lugar, obviamente, pues, la contaminacion, el suelo contaminado
no estar presente en Brisas del Rosario, pues, a largo plazo me
crea una mayor eficiencia y permanencia del remedio. Pero
basicamente, estamos moviendo la contaminacion de punto A a
punto B y, en punto B, pues, si habria que, entonces, tomar
unas medidas a largo plazo de asegurarnos que no sea una
exposicion en otro lugar.
La reduccion de toxicidad, movilidad o volumen a
traves de tratamiento, lo que le estoy indicando aqui es que no
es que las otras alternativas. . . Ellas si presentan una
minimision o una prevencion de exposicion directa al
contaminante. Pero como este criterio es solamente a traves de
tratamiento y excavar no es un tratamiento, solamente cuando se
mezcla con lo que le comente de cemento o cal, es lo unico que
se considera tratamiento, es por eso que la al ternat iva 4 es la
unica que si me puede reducir la toxicidad o movilidad o
volumen. En este caso, no reduce el volumen, porque el volumen
se queda igual, pero si me reduce la movilidad de plomo.
Y me queda costos. Como ven, tenemos... Perdon,
implementabi1idad, todas son implementables. Todas son
alternativas que si se pueden 1 levar a cabo aqui. Unas mas
faciles y una mas dificil. Por ejemplo, el tener que hacer una
estabi1izacion y traer cemento y cal, eso con 1 leva unos
estudios adicionales, porque hay que hacer unos. . . Es una
alternativa, pues, que no se ha practicado aqui y se buscaria,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500173
-------
32
entonces, hacer como un. . . a una escala menor, basicamente,
buscar cual es el... si... la formula magica, digamos. Y eso
llevaria ese estudio adicional. Por lo tanto, es implementable,
pero da un poquito mas trabajo.
Lo mismo, pues, con la alternativa 3; es
implementable, pero entonces, ya entramos en la problematica de
escoger el vertedero y cual es la capacidad del vertedero para
recibir una cantidad, un volumen que es bastante grande de
terreno que se estaria removiendo del lugar.
Por la aceptacion de la agencia estatal, la Junta de
Calidad Ambiental, pues, que ha estado con nosotros trabajando
desde un principio, ellos han estado tambien siendo participe
de la revision de los documentos y presentando comentarios.
Ellos ya revisaron el plan propuesto que tenemos para el lugar
de superfondo aqui, en Vega Baja. Ellos ya emitieron su carta
de apoyo para la alternativa que vamos a estar presentando como
la alternativa preferida, que es la alternativa 2, la
alternativa de remocion, excavacion de suelo en el area
residencial, en monticulos de basura, en la zanja de drenaje y
consolidarlos en el area que ustedes tienen no residencial y
ahi cubrirlos con suelo. Ya ellos emitieron la carta de apoyo.
La aceptacion de la comunidad, ese criterio todavia
esta abierto, porque estamos en el proceso de comentarios
publicos y es ahora cuando estamos evaluando cual es la
aceptacion de ustedes en cuanto a la alternativa 2, que es la
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500174
-------
33
alternativa que estamos presentando esta noche como la
prefer ida.
Abundando un poco mas, como les comente, queremos
presentar esta noche la alternativa de remover todo suelo que
este por encima de los cuatrocientos miligramos por kilogramo,
que entendemos que es un valor bien conservador para niveles de
plomo, removerlos del area residencial, de la zanja de drenaje,
de los monticulos de basura, transportar todo ese material al
area no residencial que, como les habia explicado, ya tenemos
ocho punto cinco acres de terreno que estan ya impactados, que
es por eso que los costos...
No le discuti costos, pero no se si pudieron ver que
la alternativa 2 me representa cuatro millones, cuando la
alternativa 3 y 4 me representa veinticuatro millones y
veinticinco millones y es porque, basicamente, en esas dos
al ternat ivas, estoy entrando a ya sea excavar o a dar un
tratamiento a ocho punto cinco terrenos de... ocho punto cinco
acres de terreno y eso es mucho volumen, a una profundidad ya
sea de cuatro o seis pies.
El volumen mayor de contaminacion esta en el area no
residencial y eso es lo que me impacta mucho los costos.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: (habia sin microfono).
SA. RODRIGUEZ: No residencial. Que es el area esta
verde que esta abaj o, que es donde esta mi mayor concentracion,
en terminos de volumen, de la contaminacion de plomo en el
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500175
-------
34
lugar.
En esta area se estaria consolidando el material y,
luego, se estaria haciendo una cubierta, primero con una
membrana geotextil y, luego, con doce pulgada o un pies de una
capa de suelo, que va a ser cubierta tambien, luego, con una
capa vegetativa.
Esto es similar a lo que ya se hizo en el monticulo
de basura 1, que le habia comentado al principio que se comenzo
a hacer una remocion ahi de la basura del monticulo, que no fue
autorizada, basicamente, en ese entonces, eso fue lo que se
hizo alii. Se removio el area donde presentaba un riesgo, se
consolido, se puso una membrana geotextil y se puso doce
pulgadas de terreno. Basicamente, estamos haciendo lo que...
similar a este proceso.
En las areas que sean excavadas, en el area
residencial, van a ser, obviamente, traidas otra vez a nivel
con suelo limpio que se traeria para restaurar la propiedad,
segun las condiciones estaban anterior a la excavacion.
Esta alternativa ya le habia explicado sobre la
cubierta de suelo en el area no residencial y para todas las
areas donde haya excavacion, se van a tomar unas muestras de
confirmacion que, basicamente, es para nosotros asegurarnos que
todo suelo por encima de los cuatrocientos cincuenta fue
removido. Y comenzar... entonces, entender que alcanzamos
nuestra meta de limpieza.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500176
-------
35
Esta figura es basicamente el mismo mapa que tengo
aqui mayor. Los invito a que, una vez terminemos la
presentacion, si tienen dudas, pueden pasar y ver mas de cerca.
Pero aqui, yo lo estoy mostrando, cual es el area de accion de
remediacion. Las areas que ven azules son las areas que estan
siendo propuestas para residenciales, los patios de las
residencias, que fueron encontradas con valores mayores de
cuatrocientos cincuenta, a 1levar a cabo una excavacion.
Tenemos los monticulos de basura, que son las areas
"brown", el area no residencial... Ah, todo este suelo se va a
estar removiendo, se va a estar 1 levando al area no residencial
y tambien estoy mostrando las areas donde se van a pedir
acceso, las residencias que van a ser impactadas para pedirle
acceso y poder entrar a hacer algun trabajo.
Tambien se muestra en esta figura areas como, por
ejemplo, eses... lugares. Aqui, anteriormente, no se pudo
accesar durante la remediacion. Entonces, queremos volver para
completar esa parte de tomar muestras en esas residencias y
todo eso esta mostrado en esta figura, que pues, los invito a
que pasen, al final de la presentacion, mas de cerca, para que,
entonces, vean con mejor claridad.
Pero tambien lo tienen en la hoja de plan propuesto.
Es la misma figura que esta al final del "handout" que pasamos
de plan propuesto.
^Que continua? Ariel hizo un excelente trabajo
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500177
-------
36
explicando el proceso, pero queria recordarle donde estamos.
Ya hicimos la investigacion de suelo, ya hicimos el
estudio de viabilidad, nos estamos moviendo aqui, al record de
decision. Basicamente, ahora tenemos un periodo de comentarios,
que termina el 29 de agosto. Una vez se termina, los
comentarios que se reciban escrito, se prepara un resumen y eso
es parte del record de decision.
Una vez completa el periodo de comentarios y tenemos
unas respuestas a las preocupaciones que pueda traer la
comunidad, sale el record de decision, donde detalla cual fue
la alternativa seleccionada y detalles sobre la decision, las
bases para tomar esta decision y cual fue la decision.
Y ahi, nos movemos al diseno de remedio. Aqui, como
este lugar, ahora, basicamente, las partes responsables son las
que estarian, pues, tambien trabajando en lo que es el diseno
del remedio y la accion, la implementacion de la accion, entre
el record de decision y el documento de diseno, hay un proceso,
digamos que legal, donde se firma otra vez un acuerdo de
consentimiento que detalla, basicamente, lo que deben cubrir,
cual va a ser el plan de trabajo y los requisitos para poder,
entonces, movernos al diseno de remedio y, obviamente, que las
partes responsables, pues, esten de acuerdo con la
implementacion. Incluye tambien el diseno y la implementacion.
Una vez completado este proceso, ya tenemos revisado
el diseno, ha pasado por la EPA, distintos expertos lo han
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500178
-------
37
evaluado, se han sometido comentarios, se han incorporado los
comentarios, ya tenemos el diseno final )-posiblemente, nos
veran de nuevo, porque compartiremos entonces con ustedes todo
lo que es la logistica, todo lo que es detalles de como va a
suceder este evento)- viene la construccion. Viene ya entonces
movernos a hacer. . . La cons truce ion, en este caso, pues, seria
la excavacion y la capa de terreno en el area no residencial.
Luego terminado, siempre hay una serie de
evaluaciones, de inspecciones, para asegurarnos que todo vaya
de acuerdo al diseno, que todo sea de acuerdo como planeado.
Viene una revision tambien a los cinco anos. Basicamente, lo
que se busca es darle un seguimiento y asegurarnos que los
controles institucionales... que el remedio que se implemento
continue siendo efectivo y protectivo a los residentes.
Luego de eso, una vez se entienda que los objetivos
de limpieza se han logrado y el lugar este, entonces, listo
para ser propuesto para eliminacion de lista nacional de
propiedades. . . de prioridades, se hace tambien otra reunion
publica, donde se les envuelve a ustedes para dejarles saber
que hay una intencion de remover el lugar de la lista nacional
de prioridades.
Y una vez completado, pues, obviamente, hay otros
potenciales reusos para... en especial, pues, para el area...
Ya, obviamente, ya en la parte residencial, esta uti1izado como
residencial, el area. . . o que haya un remedio en el area no
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500179
-------
38
residencial, si es candidato para algunos tipos de reuso. Y eso
pudiera ser el final.
Aqui les estoy dando una informacion sobre los
lugares de la EPA en el internet, donde pueden buscar
informacion adicional, si tienen dudas, con respecto al
programa de superfondo. Este "link" que tengo aqui los 1 leva a
una pagina donde es en espanol y hay una informacion adicional
sobre programa de superfondo, sobre las oportunidades de
participacion comunitaria, que los invito, pues, a que pasen y
visiten, para que conozcan mas.
Tambien dentro de la EPA, que es el "link" que tengo
aqui, abajo, pueden accesar la informacion segun se va
encontrando y se va incluyendo en una pagina que hay dedicada
al lugar de Vega Baj a. Los invito para que, entonces, si
necesitan alguna informacion adicional... Claro esta, yo estoy
aqui a la orden, en las oficinas de la EPA, en San Juan, para
alguna pregunta.
Los voy a dejar aqui, en este momento, con Brenda.
(Pausa.)
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Ahora los voy a dejar con Jose Font,
nuestro subdirector de la oficina.
SR. FONT: Gracias, Nancy.
Luego de la presentacion de Nancy, yo queria
enfatizar unos puntos, antes de entrar en la seccion mas
importante, de preguntas y respuestas.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500180
-------
39
Para nosotros es de suma importancia el proceso de
participacion publica y por eso es que estamos aqui. Todos los
comentarios seran tornados en consideracion. Se esta grabando lo
que se esta discutiendo aqui hoy y todos y cada uno de sus
comentarios seran atendidos. Esto se atiende por escrito. Hoy
aqui estaremos contestando preguntas.
Pero para enfatizar ciertos puntos. La limpieza. La
limpieza seria propuesta; hoy aqui, lugares que exceden
cuatrocientos cincuenta. Cuatrocientos cincuenta mi 1 igramos por
kilogramo.
Aparte de eso, no se selecciona una alternativa sin
haber escuchado a todos ustedes. "So", hoy estamos aqui para
que ustedes nos dejen saber sus preocupaciones, nos hagan
preguntas. . . Y podemos estar todo el tiempo que ustedes
quieran, ciertamente.
En terminos del proceso, la Junta de Calidad
Ambiental participa activamente, la EPA tratara y buscara la
manera de tener una comunicacion efectiva con ustedes. Los
documentos estan disponibles, ciertamente, hemos estado
trabajando en este lugar por muchos anos, se han 1levado a cabo
varias acciones. Recordaran ustedes cuando se removieron suelos
contaminados, porque habia un riesgo inmediato a la salud
publica. Hoy estamos trabajando con riesgo a largo plazo.
Aparte del riesgo a largo plazo, se estudio el agua
subterranea. No tiene problemas. No preocupen por eso. No hay
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500181
-------
40
problema. En este momento, a largo plazo, suelos contaminados
con plomo en exceso de cuatrocientos cincuenta. Eso es lo que
ustedes tienen que tener en mente hoy y me imagino yo que
muchas preguntas seran: donde; donde excede esa concentracion.
Pues, nosotros estaremos aqui, senalandole donde son
estos lugares y tratando de aclarar preocupaciones especificas
de aquellas personas que pudieran ser afectadas por esta
limpieza propuesta en este momento. Y esta limpieza no sera
final hasta tanto el proceso culmine. Y el proceso culmina
despues de haber recibido comentarios de ustedes y evaluarlo
nuevamente todos y cada uno de ellos. Que esto sean parte de un
reto administrativo que sera anejado a la decision final.
Con eso, quizas podemos dar paso a las preguntas. 0
Brenda, tu...
SA. REYES: Bueno, ya vieron la presentacion y
escucharon unos puntos finales adicionales que dijo aqui Jose
Font, subdirector de la oficina.
En terminos de preguntas y respuestas, como vamos a
hacer. El microfono esta aqui. Necesi to)-es bien importante)-
que digan su nombre y apellido, ya que estan aqui los j ovenes
grabando la transcripcion de esta reunion. Necesito que digan
su nombre y apellido. Traten, por favor, de hacerlo de la forma
mas organizada posible. Nos gusta evitar un poco las
distracciones y las conversaciones, "Fulano pregunto, pero
Sutanito y yo estamos anadiendo al lado". Se lo digo. Es mucho
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500182
-------
41
mas facil. Ustedes quieren 1legar a su casa, nosotros queremos
1legar a nuestra casa. Queremos contestar todas sus preguntas
y que ustedes salgan de aqui, esta noche, con todas sus
preguntas contestadas y una idea clara )-^verdad?)- en terminos
de esas respuestas.
As l que le voy a pedir, entonces, que se organicen en
terminos de hacer las preguntas. Nosotros tenemos un microfono
aqui y tenemos un microfono aca, para que la persona de EPA o
de la Junta que tenga que contestar su pregunta, pues, lo haga
as i .
^Podemos dar inicio? dSi?
^Quien desea comenzar?
Acuerdense, tienen que decir nombre y ape 1 lido. Si
pueden venir un momentito hasta donde mas 1legue aqui el
m i crofono.
SR. MALAVE: Buenas, saludos. Gracias por la
informacion. Yo tengo una pregunta y es referente a la
informacion que estaba dando Nancy. Us ted menciono que se iban
a estar trabajando con las areas que tuvieran cuatrocientos
cincuenta PPM o mas de contaminacion. Si el nivel maximo de
exposicion recomendado es cuatrocientos, ^que va a pasar con
esas unidades que tengan de cuatrocientos uno a cuatrocientos
cuarenta y nueve? Esa es mi pregunta. Carlos Malave.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Y esa pregunta es excelente. Como le
habia comentado anteriormente, que habiamos tornado unos valores
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500183
-------
42
especificos de polvo domestico dentro del lugar, el agua de
grifo, el agua de pluma del lugar, estos valores, basicamente,
lo que se hace es que se entra en un modelo de riesgo, que es
similar al que la EPA utiliza, para desarrollar el valor de
cuatrocientos .
Que sucede . Cuando la EPA utiliza este modelo y 1 lega
a. . . te da el numero, digamos, magico de cuatrocientos, es
usando unos valores que se le llaman "default values", unos
valores que son general. Una vez yo reemplazo esos valores con
los valores especificos del lugar, me da que, en el caso de
Brisas del Rosario, el valor de el polvo residencial, tambien
como el valor de agua de pluma, son mucho mas bajos que los de
"default", que los que corre el modelo, que me resulta
cuatrocientos .
Que sucede. Para el caso de Brisas, me dio un rango
entre quinientos sesenta y seis a seiscientos cinco, que es un
valor conservador. Es lo que el modelo, similar a la manera,
con los valores nacionales que usa la EPA, para derivar el
cuatrocientos con los valores especificos del lugar, me indica
que un valor protectivo es dejando... teniendo un valor de
plomo de entre un rango de quinientos sesenta y seis a
seiscientos cinco.
Que sucede. La EPA. . . Por eso es que dije
anteriormente que el valor de cuatrocientos cincuenta es un
valor bien conservador y es porque decidimos no irnos
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500184
-------
43
exactamente al valor que me resulto el modelo. Decidimos ir un
poco por debajo, para atender algunas preocupaciones o algunas
areas que podian traer un nivel de incertidumbre y
determinamos, entonces, que cuatrocientos cincuenta es un valor
bien conservador.
Es un proceso un poquito complicado, un poquito
largo, que esta. . . yo diria que es bien explicado en los
documentos, que inclusive, en el estudio de viabilidad, abre
una seccion que te habla de todos estos valores que tomamos en
consideracion y como 1legamos a la conclusion de cuatrocientos
c incuenta.
Pero basicamente, estamos diciendo que hasta un valor
un poquito mayor de cuatro cincuenta es tan protectivo a la
salud humana y, en el caso de ecologicos aqui, a los
receptores, tanto como lo es el valor de referencia de la EPA.
Quiero... ^Te conteste la pregunta?
Que bueno.
Quiero recordarles que olvide decir en la
presentacion que tenemos unos depositorios de informacion y,
basicamente, todos esos documentos, que estan en esa caja, van
desde el plan de trabajo inicial hasta el plan propuesto que
estamos presentando hoy, estan disponibles en el Caribbean
University, aqui, pero lamentablemente, esta semana estan de
receso. "So", ellos estarian abriendo... me parece que es el
proximo lunes. Van a estar alii, disponibles. En el momento,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500185
-------
44
estan en la oficina de la alcaldia, en el segundo piso, en la
alcaldia, al 11 hay una copia tambien de todo el record
administrativo, de todos estos documentos. En la universidad,
van a estar de manera electronica. En la alcaldia, estan en
"hard copy". Pero tambien en la EPA, aqui, en Puerto Rico,
tenemos una copia y la Junta de Calidad ambiental, pues, esos
documentos estan bien disponibles para revision de ustedes, en
New York. Los que quieran, en New York, revisar esos
documentos, tambien tenemos una copiadora disponible. Eso esta
en la hoja informativa que les di, estan todos estos lugares,
los horarios, para que puedan. . . los que tengan el tiempo y
quieran conocer mas detalle de todos estos reportes estan
disponibles para la revision.
SA. REYES: El caballero de la guayabera azul tenia
aqui una pregunta.
SR. PEREZ: Si, buenas noches a esta distinguida
comunidad. Acudimos... Mi nombre es Mario B. Perez, acudo con
varios amigos, residentes del area, del grupo VIDAS,
Vegabajenos Impulsando Desarrollo Ambiental Sustentable. Una de
las areas que hemos trabajado es en Villa Pinares con un
proyecto. Vamos a presentar una imagen, queremos compartirla
con los oficiales que nos presentan aqui. Este es un trabajo
cientifico, publicado en el 1999. No se si se puede poner mas
grande.
Esa imagen ha si do "escaneada" de la publicacion
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500186
-------
45
cientifica, as! que lo... Esta escrito a mano, pero lo que esta
as i , la imagen "per se" son los plumachos de un contaminante de
un sitio de superfondo en la Carretera 2, en el area... en la
esquina con la 686 y la Carretera 2, el area industrial, el
cientifico es Sepulveda, quien lo publica. Eso que parecen...
^Me puedo acercar?
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Cuidado, que no se vaya a caer.
SR. PEREZ: Es to que esta aqui... esto que esta aqui
son concentraciones similares de un contaminante cancerigeno,
que es un compuesto organico volatil, VOCS, como lo resumen los
de la EPA. Se llama tricloroetileno, TCE. Es cancerigeno.
Cuando publican este estudio, las concentraciones que
calificopa'l superfondo, segun Sepu1veda, tardaria veinte anos
)-y pone el 99)- en seguir corriendo en direccion al mar, por
debajo del agua. Si a eso le hubieran puesto un "lining", pa'
que la lluvia no lo haga percolar por abajo, como quiera, el
agua subterranea corre en direccion al mar, como quiera. Como
un rio, que va corriendo al mar, es as i . Lo unico, que esta
subter raneo.
Eso es un... ese trabajo aparece en la pagina 81,
como escribo a mano, en un documento que resume diferentes
estudios, que se llama "Karst Region, a Vital Resource", la
zona del carsico... del carso, un recurso vital. Por el agua.
Aqui, en Villa Pinares, hay una toma de agua de
Acueductos, pero no es la unica. Al terminar Villa Pinares,
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500187
-------
46
inmediatamente. Cien metros alrededor es la area de influencia,
segun los trabajos de los que trabajan con el uso del agua para
Acueductos y los especialistas en este campo. Le voy a decir
que yo soy especialista en recursos naturales, que trabaje en
esa area de investigaciones cientificas.
Eso quiere decir que el agua, alrededor de cien
metros de donde succiona para uso de todos ustedes y todos
nosotros, estara influenciado por los contaminantes que estan
ahi, tengan "lining" o no, porque va a estar succionando y las
moleculas del agua son como imancitos, que se atraen unos a
otros, porque tienen cargas como imanes. Es una molecula
bipolar.
Me preocupa, en terminos de la poblacion, si algo tan
sencillo como la pintura con plomo )-que estaba prohibida)- y
a penas se va a despegar muy poquito. Ahora imaginese
cuatrocientos cincuenta partes. . . ^Por mi lion es? ^0 por mil?
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: Mi lion.
SR. PEREZ: Por mi lion. Bueno. Pues, eso va a estar en
una area y se va a ir concentrando por la succion. Usted puede
medir en un punto particular, pero si tu vas al pozo que chupa
Acueductos, que son muchos gal ones al dia, se va a ir
concentrando lo que ya concentro la tierra y esa es una gran
preocupac i on.
En terminos de los millones, el cos to, que
metodologia utilizar, yo preguntaria cuanto cuesta mas gente
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500188
-------
47
con cancer )-como la causa el plomo)- o problemas de
aprendizaje que le causa a los ninos, entre cinco y veinticinco
millones, que es la diferencia.
Y ademas, aprovecho a aplaudir el hecho que, aunque
sea en una manera remedial, se tome la. . . empiece a tomar
precauciones para parar el proceso danino de este punto en
adelante y que sirva como una leccion para no seguir otorgando
permisos de actividades muy contaminantes a la poblacion
humana.
Ahora mismo, en Villa Pinares Sur, se aca... despues
de haber sido detenido por vistas publicas del grupo VIDA, el
grupo OCUPA, que es parte de nosotros, un proyecto al sur de
Villa Pinares, se ha aprobado mil quinientas viviendas con...
en un area de subsidencia, de hundimientos. Es la zona 3 en el
p 1 an de manej o de la Laguna... de la cuenca de 1 a Laguna
Tortugueros, queda ahi, la zona 3, el area de Pihas, esta asi
tambien en el area de planificacion especial de Laguna
Tortugueros, area subsidencia, area que sirve para cultivo,
sembraran casas, se pueden hundir, como paso en Monte Verde,
con la misma formacion geologica, como paso... Ricardo, si me
acuerdas, lo tengo ahi impreso, una casa que se cayo...
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: Parcelas Marquez.
SR. PEREZ: Parcelas Marquez. Por cuestion de tiempo,
no lo pudimos pasar a esa imagen que ustedes estan viendo.
Tambien lo imprimi. Son parcelas colindantes con los terrenos
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500189
-------
48
de Villa Pinares, pues, despues se lo muestro, pa' no cogerle
mas tiempo. Que esta es la foto de una casa que tambien se
hundio. Y los mogotes que van a pi car tambien, por los estudios
cientificos, han habido desprendimientos del tamano de dos
carros encima del otro, cincuenta metros p'abajo, que tambien
en Manat1 y Vega Baja, hemos visto que han pasa'o por encim'e
casas y las han demo lido.
Entonces, que sirva de leccion, que tomemos
conciencia y que las agencias reguladoras )-^verdad?)- regulen
a favor de la gente de a pie, del pueblo, de la misma manera
que ahora estamos teniendo que remediar, que es mas costoso que
prevenir. Muchas gracias.
SA. REYES: Gracias a usted por el comentario.
(Pausa.)
SR. FONT: Si, muchas gracias por el comentario bien
amplio. Trataremos de manejarlo paso a paso. Si aqui, en Puerto
Rico, precisamente en el area norte, es zona carsica, menciono,
existen muchos lugares que hemos pasado por los contaminantes,
compuestos organicos volatiles, carcinogenos, pero por otro
lado, muchos de ellos ya se encuentran en remediacion. A traves
de los anos de estar trabajando en estos lugares, nos hemos
dado cuenta que mientras mas rapido se movilice al lugar y se
trabaje en la fuente de contaminacion, menos tiempo tardariamos
en remediarlo, pero como quiera, una vez estos contaminantes
1legan al agua subterranea, estamos hablando de treinta anos en
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500190
-------
49
remed i ac ion.
Pero ese no es el caso aqui . El caso aqui , lo que
tenemos es plomo en suelo. Y no estamos hablando de riesgos
carcinogenos, si no no carcinogenos. Y debemos mantenernos
enfocados en plomo en suelo y la remediacion que estamos
discutiendo al dia de hoy.
En terminos generales, pudiera anadir tambien que
esta formacion carsica del norte provee para flujo rapido, a
alta velocidad, de contaminantes en agua subterranea. Todos
descargan al mar. Lo mejor seria interceptarlos lo mas rapido
posible, previo a que esto llegue. La situacion pudiera
exacerbarse con la extraccion de agua subterranea excesiva en
esa area. Han ocurrido varias cosas que han aliviado esto;
limpieza, supertubo, varias cosas que han ocurrido, pero
ciertamente, la inmensa mayoria de estos lugares estan siendo
atendidos. Y se han extraido cantidades significativas a traves
de los anos, a traves del program'e superfondo de compuestos
organicos volatiles del agua subterranea.
SR. REYES: Muy respetuosamente, el flujo del agua
subterranea, en el caso que plantea Sepulveda, sin intervencion
por el flujo superfondo, tardaria veinte anos en correr y salir
de ahi . Veinte anos da tiempo para uno bioconcentrar un
contaminante cancerigeno. Uno.
Tengo que tambien diferir de que el hierro en suelo
no es cancerigeno. En Vieques )-que yo fui parte del grupo de
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500191
-------
50
apoyo tecnico y profesional a Vieques, con investigaciones en
agua, suelo, sedimentos, plantas y animales y personas)-, esa
cadena... esa cadena alimentaria, a traves del alimento, del
polvo fugitivo, como por el agua subterranea, fueron conductos
a encontrar cinco metales pesados cancerigenos en el pelo, unas
y, algunos casos, sangre y orina.
El indice de cancer en Vieques era veintisiete
poreiento por encima de cualquier comunidad, municipio
comparable. Pero en Vieques no habia este tipo de empresas de
ningun tipo, excepto el que habia alii, que era las bombas de
la Marina. Pero poniendo ese punto aparte, la ciencia misma
demos tro que, por esas tres vias, polvo fugitivo, el agua
subterranea del este de Vieques, que en Esperanza hay un
acuifero de dos porciento a cuatro, si se pasa, porque el
hierro pasa a ferrico, mediante cambios de ionizacion, perdida
de electrones y si se hace disponible. Y si es cancerigeno. El
plomo, igual. Me discrepa, pero esto es parte de la ciencia.
SR. FONT: Pero podemos seguir discutiendolo y,
ciertamente, hay muchos lugares con sus caracteristicas
individuales y comportamiento de los contaminantes.
SR. PEREZ: No, perdoneme. El hierro es un atomo, el
plomo es un atomo y se comporta igual donde quiera. Lo que lo
hace formarse en hierro ferrico. . . 0 sea, los estados del
hierro versus Valencia depende de la acidez del terreno. Y en
un suelo carsico, donde tu tienes una combinacion de agua y
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500192
-------
51
materia organica, se forma el acido que crea las cuevas y las
cavernas. Por eso es que cor re el agua por debajo, porque lo
acidifico. Y ahi es que se forma y se hace disponible el
hierro. Y esto es ciencia. Y no es "case by case story". Asi es
que se comporta la naturaleza.
SR. FONT: Caramba, no estamos debatiendo su
planteamiento ni es el interes nuestro eso. Solamente
hablabamos por experiencias especificas en otros lugares, no
necesariamente que sea aqui. Pero podemos seguir dialogando.
Pero volviendo al caso que tenemos aqui , ^alguna otra
pregunta?
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Le agradecemos su planteamiento,
^verdad? Todo planteamiento tiene validez. Y entiendo su
preocupac ion. Y luego le voy a pedir que me dej e su correo
electronico para ponerlo en nuestro "mailing list" de la
agencia, porque pues, para nosotros es muy importante
mantenernos en comunicacion con las comunidades y, sobre todo,
pues, ya, cuando hay una serie de grupos )-^verdad?)- formados.
Les voy a pedir que, si tienen alguna otra
pregunta...
Si, por favor, pase adelante y diganos su nombre, que
no se olvide, para el record. Nombre y, pues, su planteamiento.
Creo que esta apagado.
SA. MORALES OTERO: OK. Perdon.
SA. REYES: Si, buenas noches.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500193
-------
52
SA. MORALES OTERO: Buenas noches. Dios me los
bendiga. Verdaderamente, pues, la informacion que ha estado
trayendo es muy buena para todos, pero a lo que vinimos.
SA. REYES: Si.
SA. MORALES OTERO: Este... a lo mejor, la pregunta
mia, pues, practicamente seria la conclusion de la char las que
vamos a tener aqui. . . hemos tenido. La pregunta es. . . Mas bien,
dos. Cuando... Porque fue que 1legue aqui un poquito tarde. Se
estaban hablando de diferentes alternativas que tenian para
corregir el problema que tenemos los residentes de Rio Abajo.
Creo que se dijo. . . se mencionaron cuatro y, de esas
cuatro, creo que hay una ya practicamente que no cuenta...
SA. REYES: La alternativa propuesta.
SA. MORALES OTERO: Amen, perdon, si, exacto.
Alternativas, exacto. Pero creo que hay una. . . Ah, no. Creo que
es la numero 2, que es la que es mas viable para todos, ya sea
en cuanto a costo y la manera de como manejarlo.
La pregunta es, conforme a las experiencias
anteriores, ^cuanto tiempo ustedes piensan que se va a tomar...
este. . . pues, desde el comienzo del proceso hasta terminar, que
puedan decir: "OK., ya Rio Abajo esta 1ibre de toda
contaminacion"? Pregunto, porque aunque no se si venga al caso,
pero como es de saber de muchos de los que vivimos en esta
comunidad, muchos. . . este. . . es tamos con la problematica de que
no tenemos los titulos de propiedad y, entonces, una de las
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500194
-------
53
trabas que nos pone la. . . esa agencia en especifico son
ustedes. Que yo entiendo que no, porque ya, pues, por
experiencias anteriores, yo se que la EPA no tiene que ver nada
con lo de los titulos de propiedad y que no... no ponen ninguna
traba, pero esa es la informacion que nos dan ellos, pienso yo
que una manera de como curarse en salud.
SA. REYES: ^Eso seria el Departamento de la Vivienda?
SA. MORALES OTERO: Departamento de la Vivienda. Se
escuda de que la EPA son los que no... los que no quieren. Y yo
entiendo que no... la EPA, nada que ver con eso, pero como esta
es la informacion que ellos nos dan.
La ultima informacion que yo tuve con ellos, cuando
me reuni, fue que hasta tanto la EPA )-ustedes)- terminen el
procedimiento completo de limpieza, etcetera, pues, ellos no
proceden. Entonces, pregunto yo, ^mas o menos cuanto ustedes
piensan que esto estaria "ready"?
SA. REYES: ^Quien contesta?
SA. MORALES OTERO: Santa Morales Otero.
SR. FONT: Reconozco, por lo que usted dice, que no
estuvo al principio de la char la. Solo a modo de repaso, una
vez nosotros seleccionemos la alternativa finalmente, luego de
pasar por este proceso de comentarios publicos y se emita el
record de decision...
No se... ^Me escuchan al...?
OK. Muchas gracias. OK.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500195
-------
54
Una vez nosotros completemos este proceso de
seleccionar la alternativa finalmente, una vez concluya el
proceso de comentarios publicos y de participacion publica y se
emita el record de decision, pasamos a un proceso de disenar el
remedio, disenar como es que se va a implantar este remedio.
Parte de lo que Nancy nos estuvo explicando es que, durante
este proceso de diseno, se van a estar tomando muestras
adicionales en algunas areas que incluyen propiedades en donde,
anter iormente, no se obtuvo acceso para. . . o no se pudo obtener
acceso para poder tomar estas muestras.
Luego que se disene este remedio, entonces es que
pasamos a la implementacion del remedio y la construccion de
este remedio. Nosotros, ahora mismo, no tenemos un tiempo
establecido para. . . de cuanto se va a tardar esto, pero
ciertamente es un proceso que toma un par de anos antes de
tener la construccion fisica del remedio.
Ahora bien. Con re lac ion a los titulos de propiedad,
quiero, pues, solo recalcar que el proceso de titulos de
propiedad no es parte del proceso de la EPA. EPA no esta
involucrada en ese titulo de propiedad. Eso son otras ,
pues, que le pertenece al Departamento de la Familia y que son
externas a este proceso que nosotros estamos conduciendo ahora
m i smo.
(Pausa.)
SA. REYES: Si, el la, permiso. Con permiso. Nancy le
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500196
-------
55
va a decir algo.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Yo queria anadirle que. . . Si, el
proximo paso es el diseno detallado, obviamente, de la
alternativa que se seleccione, de la alternativa final, que eso
lo va a tener el record de decision.
Una vez se publique el record de decision, si es
correcto, nos movemos al diseno. Pero antes de que eso pase,
hay una parte legal, que es la que, a veces, trae un poquito de
incertidumbre cuanto tome, entre la EPA y las partes
responsables de negociar como va a suceder, como nos vamos a
mover la participacion de las partes responsables en la parte
del diseno y de implementacion. Y esto pudiera atrasar un poco
el proceso, porque ahi puede ser una negociacion corta, como
tal vez no. Y una vez se negocea, una vez se f i rma ese
documento legal, entonces es que las partes responsables
comienzan el diseno. Y ahi, entonces, estaremos ultimando los
detalles y tendremos una. . . digamos que mejor estimado de
cuando, entonces, estariamos comenzando las labores.
SA. REYES: El caballero nos habia pedido ya turno.
Recuerde decir su nombre y ape 1 lido.
SR. GUTIERREZ JAIME: Mi nombre es Disraeli Gutierrez
Jaime y yo vivo en Villa Pinares y lamento haber 1 legado un
poco tarde a la exposicion. No pude oirla completa, pero lei
las cuatro a 1 ternat ivas que tengo aqui , en. . . en. . . aqui
presentes. Y yo tengo una preocupacion. Porque oi primero, en
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500197
-------
56
parte de las ponencias de... sobre las alternativas y se que
ustedes van a decidir, pero yo voy a tratar de, como residente
aqui, que la alternativa que se escoj a sea la que sea en
costobenef icio de salud. 0 sea, la mas segura para los
residentes que se van a quedar aqui.
Y estaba mirando as 1, por encima y de mi experiencia
en Villa Pinares, cuando llueve, este subsuelo... Yo no soy...
Mi preparacion es en filosofia. Pero he visto que el subsuelo,
el agua se la chupa para abajo. Y yo estaba mirando en algunas
de las alternativas, que si remueven el area contaminada, para
dej ar1 a en el mi smo... "in situ", como d i cen en el mi smo s i t i o,
pues, yo se que... que si... Eso no se si lo van a cubrir con
cemento o algo, en algun momento, con el agua, ese... eso puede
percolar y afectar el pozo que... mio, donde yo tomo agua es en
Villa P inares , en el... en e 1 fondo y. . . y so 1 amente , pues ,
queria exponer eso, que la alternativa que se escoja sea la...
en el costobeneficio de salud para los residentes aqui.
SA. REYES: Muchas gracias.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Lo voy a dejar aqui.
SA. REYES: Nancy, tu le vas a responder.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Si, queriamos... queria, pues,
indicarle que nosotros estamos, basicamente, con usted y
nosotros. . . uno de los criterios. . . y basicamente, el primer
criterio es que la alternativa sea... cumpla con la proteccion
a la salud humana y al ambiente. Nosotros no escogeriamos una
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500198
-------
57
alternativa solamente basado en costos, poniendo en riesgo la
salud.
Como les habia comentado, hay nueve criterios. Costo
es uno de ellos. Pero al igual que us ted, nosotros no
escogeriamos una alternativa que no fuera protectiva.
Ademas, es un esfuerzo co1aborativo. La EPA no impone
la alternativa. Simplemente, nosotros exponemos cual es la
preferida y ustedes, la comunidad, son parte del proceso de
seleccion. Es por eso que es despues del periodo de comentarios
que se toma la decision final en cuanto al lugar. Al igual que
la agencia del estado, que tambien es parte de este proceso de
seleccion y de aprobacion de la alternativa.
SA. REYES: ^Si?
SR. PEREZ: Si, buenas. Es que se me olvido un punto
importante. ^Cuantos de ustedes se le va el agua con alguna
frecuencia en Vega Baja?
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: Todo el tiempo.
SR. PEREZ: Sin embargo usted... entre el Rio Indio,
segun Moe Nimelly (fonetico) Freytes, entre Rio Indio y el Rio
Grand'e Manat1, hay la mayor recarga del acuifero de la costa
norte. 0 sea, ustedes estan sobre el agua y se le va el agua.
Eso, con re lac ion a un ge. . . un codiferendo que se me olvido
traer, cuando en el. . . entre el 2003 y 2005, fuimos a unas
vistas publicas para una construccion que iba a hacer en area
que no se puede, segun Recursos Naturales, encontramos en los
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500199
-------
58
documentos que. . . No me acuerdo el orden, pero Vega Baj a y
Manati, se estaba extrayendo de este acuifero entre el sesenta,
en un la'o, en un municipio y ochenta porciento en el otro de
este solo acuifero.
Recientemente, en otro lugar que VIDAS intervino para
un proyecto que. . . por . . . hecho y derecho, no debio darsele
permiso, tenemos cartas certificadas de la Autoridad de
Acueductos diciendo que ya esta, no se puede sacar mas de lo
que se esta sacando, en millones gal ones diarios, de este. . . de
este acuifero, sobre el cual ustedes viven, sobre el cual todos
nosotros aqui vivimos y, precisamente, en los terrenos al sur
de Villa Pinares, Vega Sereno, el proyecto propuesto que acaban
de aprobar su ubicacion, a pesar de haber traido detenido dos
anos por nuestra oposicion fundamentada cient1ficamente, son
terrenos que se hunden, eso que senalo Disraeli, que es parte
del grupo OCUPA y VIDAS, es cient1ficamente correcto.
0 sea, por eso es que se recarga el acuifero,
porque. . . y tenemos imagenes ahi , cientifico sobre eso y
observaciones sobre el terreno, es porque los terrenos son
mantos de arena. Us ted sabe que la arena, cuando viene la ola,
se va to'a p'abajo y parte regresa. Eso es lo que tenemos aqui.
Son terrenos elasticos, que expanden y contraen y, debajo,
tienen mantos de arena riquisimos de si lice, al sur de Villa
Pinares.
^Que pasa si impermeabi1izamos esos terrenos? No se
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500200
-------
59
recarga el acuifero por esa via y hay siete sumideros ahi ,
junto a Las Bolinas, que piensan sellar.
A la misma vez, son mil quinientas casas extrayendo
ochenta galones diarios por persona, que es lo que estima
Acueductos.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: ^Ese es el desarrollo nuevo?
SR. PEREZ: Si. Lo que qui ere decir es que, si ya esta
saturado, no se pue' suplir mas agua, se cumplen uno de los
planteamientos que dice el senor , que contaminaria mas el agua.
Y segundo, perderiamos la capacidad de recarga del
acuifero, que ya esta... habria menos que la disponible, pero
con mas casas.
Y tercero, ^sabe lo que pasa cuando tu... extraemos
mas agua del acuifero que la que fluye? Es como un rio. Si le
sacamos el agua, entra el agua de mar. Y tenemos imagenes aqui
tambien mostrando el punto como se encuentra debajo del
acuifero, la intrusion salina que, en Barceloneta, en el 84,
pasaba al sur de la Carretera 2 y lo que sacabamos era agua
salada.
^Que pasa si se saliniza el acuifero por todo esto?
Ademas de que estan las condiciones para contaminar en forma de
crear cancer, estaria de que, por mas de veinte anos, si to...
si se recargara el acuifero, tardaria en expulsar hacia afuera
la intrusion salina y no tendriamos agua. No a veces, si no
cuando la sacaran, iba a ser salada. Esa es la importancia de
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500201
-------
60
la agencia reguladora de prevenir los danos al ambiente.
Si los recursos son buenos y nos dan servicio, como
el agua, pues, entonces el danarlos para el beneficio de alguna
empresa o algun desarrollo no beneficia al comun de a pie, como
dice la Constitucion, articulo 6, seccion 19. Que a la luz de
esa. . . mandato const i tucional es que se crean las leyes
organicas de agencias reguladoras en Puerto Rico. Y a eso es
que estamos apelando.
0 sea, estan las condiciones, si, con el plomo, para
ser cancerigeno y toxico. Las otras condiciones, de seguirse
aprobando proyectos en esta area, para que haya el riesgo a la
seguridad publica, ese otro tema, no lo voy a seguir elaborando
por tiempo, pero yo quiero votar tambien, como lo plantea
Disraeli Gutierrez, que si la empresa pudo generar sus ingresos
privados a costa de danar el ambiente, hay una ley federal
RCRA, el que ensueia, que limpie. Y si se pudo ser bueno, su
empresa, pa' generarle ingreso, debe ser buena pa' limpiar lo
que ensueio. Muchas gracias.
SA. REYES: Gracias por su planteamiento.
Precisamente, el programa de superfondo esta disenado
para el que ensucia limpia y la agencia esta facultada para
recuperar los costos de la limpieza hasta tres veces, de ser
necesario. Y le agradezco, pues, los planteamientos. Se que
algunos )-^verdad?)- son de jurisdiccion del estado;
permisologia que tiene que ver con jurisdiccion del Estado
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500202
-------
61
Libre Asociado y sus agendas reguladoras, pero creo que en
muchos de sus planteamientos, creo que... que tienen que ser
llevados, tal vez, a Recursos Naturales.
SR. PEREZ: Si, pero tambien yo hable con...
SA. REYES: Si.
SR. PEREZ: ...Carl Soderberg y da la casualidad...
SA. REYES: Si.
SR. PEREZ: Como esto esta graba'o, ^verdad? Saludo al
doctor Carl Soderberg. Le recuerdo que, cuando fuimos al
encuentro de Coral Reef Task Force federal, que se dio ahora,
en el 2009, en el Caribe Hilton, hablamos sobre este asunto.
Otra persona le hablaba de este tipo de cosa, de permisologia,
"yo no tengo jurisdiccion", con... correctamente le contesto,
desde la EPA, para el uso de tierra. Pero resulta que, para el
agua, si. Y en la medida que una accion impact a el agua de
consumo humano, que es lo que estamos planteando aqui, se nos
salinizael acuifero, un recurso vital, nada mas importante que
el agua )-olvidate de la luz)-, no hay vida sin agua.
Senor Carl Soderberg, aqui hay material para tener
jurisdiccion de que no nos impermeabi1icen la zona de recarga
del acuifero y que no. . . y ahi no tiene que entrar en
jurisdiccion de uso de terreno. Simplemente, ya todos los
estudios senalan, desde los 80. Por eso es que se creo la Ley
de proteccion del carso de 1999, la ley 292, en 1984, 85, la
proteccion de cuevas, cavernas y sumideros y nos los estan
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500203
-------
62
planteando rellenar y nos va a impactar el agua. Son leyes de
Puerto Rico, pero nos van a impactar el agua.
Pues, la Junta de Cal idad que tome jurisdiccion y
EPA, que podria tomar jurisdiccion, porque si me salinizan el
agua, no hay agua disponible. Esa es el reto. Muchas gracias.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Traeremos su planteamiento a la
atencion del senor Soderberg.
Ah y que el comentario ha si do anotado para el
proceso, pero traeremos su planteamiento al ingeniero
Soderberg.
^Alguien tiene alguna pregunta adicional sobre la
presentacion del dia de hoy?
SA. CALDER: Mi nombre es Avia Calder. ^Cuando van a
empezar?
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: No se oye.
SA. CALDER: ^Cuando van a empezar?
OK. Cuando van a empezar la limpieza. . . este. . . y que
tiempo... Y que pasa con las casas que no estan contaminadas
con (no se escucha; habla sin microfono).
SA. REYES: Ella desea saber que pasa con las
resideneias que no tienen todo el terreno contaminado, pero hay
parchos que estan contaminados. Nancy, tu contestas.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Si, bas icamente, pues, nos toma un
tiempo, porque ahora, pues, nos movemos al record de decision
y de la negociacion con las partes responsables al diseno del
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500204
-------
63
lugar, que una vez tengamos el diseno y tengamos toda... los
detalles de la... en el... alternat iva que resu1te ser elegida,
nos estaremos dirigiendo otra vez a ustedes para dejarles saber
los detalles de. . . especificos, tanto la entrada, salida de
camiones, todos esos detalles, tanto como las areas especificas
donde vamos a estar excavando. Pero estas areas que tienen
basicamente parchos dentro de residencias, basicamente, se va
excluir... se va a incluir en la parte del diseno.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: (no se escucha; habla sin
microfono).
SA. REYES: Bueno, le informo que, siempre que
nosotros tenemos un lugar de superfondo como este )-y yo he
trabajado con Nancy en otros casos tambien)-, nosotros
informamos a la comunidad cuando vamos a empezar y hacemos
visitas puerta por puerta, repartimos una hoj a informativa,
siempre nos comunicamos con los 1 ideres de la comunidad y se le
deja saber, con anticipacion, cual va a ser el modo a proceder
para la limpieza o la accion que se este 1levando a cabo en la
comunidad. Pero nosotros siempre lo dejamos saber con
ant icipacion.
As i que tend ran. . . vera una hoj ita suelta o le
tocaremos su puerta.
^Alguna pregunta? dSi?
Recuerda decir tu nombre.
SA. GARCIA: Si, mi nombre es Nydia Garcia, la senora
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500205
-------
64
Nydia Garcia. Mi pregunta es para ustedes que significa riesgo
a largo plazo. Cuando ustedes dicen riesgo a largo plazo a las
personas que viven aqui, ^cuantos anos significa eso para
ustedes? A largo plazo.
SR. FONT: Si, veo que esto, este termino siempre trae
muchas dudas y esta no es la excepcion. Yo le mencione, cuando
hice una introduccion breve, antes de las preguntas y
respuestas, que existe riesgo inminente a la salud publica.
Esto es inmediato. Por eso fue que, en estos luga... en este
vecindario, se removio suelo contaminado a unas concentraciones
que nosotros entendiamos era lo suficientemente elevadas como
para representar un riesgo inmediato.
Ahora, cuando nosotros miramos a largo plazo, miramos
a treinta anos. Normalmente, es cual es el riesgo que pudiera
haber si una persona es expuesta... Permitame, permitame
explicarle. Si una persona es expuesta, a traves de los anos,
a estas concent raci ones. Y de ahi se saca unos valores de
riesgo y se trabaja hacia atras para eliminarlos y llevarlos a
unos niveles que son aceptables.
0 sea, que cuando estamos hablando a largo plazo es
que si usted reside en su casa, nosotros estamos asegurando
que, de aqui en adelante y en lo sucesivo, usted no debe sufrir
efectos adversos a la salud publica, porque estamos mirando a
largo plazo. A largo plazo.
A corto plazo seria si yo determino que la
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500206
-------
65
concentracion es excesivamente alta, quizas yo tengo que
removerlo, ya, es demasiado alta. 0 tengo que 1levar un
acciones o remover suelo. Pero aqui estamos hablando
asegurandonos prospectivamente; que de usted residir ahi por un
periodo largo, asegurarnos que usted no va a recibir ningun
efecto adverso. Y eso es lo que estamos... eso es lo que nos
refer imos.
Y la limpieza no es a treinta anos, acaban de... aqui
de decir. La limpieza se 1 leva a cabo inmediatamente. Estos son
trabajos de ingenieria, remocion de suelo, conso1idacion...
Esto no toma mucho tiempo. Quizas, una negociacion. Pero estas
acciones se 1levan a cabo con... con cierta inmediatez, que no
creo que vaya a tardar mucho.
(Pausa.)
SA. GARCIA: Esos terrenos que ustedes piensan limpiar
ahora...
SA. REYES: ^Como se 11ama?
SA. GARCIA: Nydia Garcia. Los terrenos que ustedes
piensan limpiar ahora, porque aparecen en el mapa como que
estan contaminados , hay personas que ya viven ahi , sobre mas de
cincuenta anos, mas o menos, por ahi, porque aqui hay muchas
personas. . . 0 sea, esas personas que ya 1 levan ahi, vamos a
decir, bregando esas tierras desde entonces, ^que pasaria con
esa gente que ya 1levan tanto tiempo con esa contaminacion?
Porque de poquito a poquito se 1lena el vaso.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500207
-------
66
SR. FONT: Si, e 1 1 a pregu ... la. ..el pi an t earn i en to de
la vecina es que hay personas que 1levan viviendo ahi tiempo y
a el la le preocupa, legitimamente, que es lo que pudiera estar
pasando con ellos, que ya 1levan un tiempo viviendo aqui.
Pues mire, este asunto de los estudios de riesgo
establece unos escenarios hipoteticos. Por ejemplo, cuando se
esta evaluando el riesgo, uno va y busca la concentracion mas
alta que se encontro en todo el vecindario y uno asume que toda
persona que viva alii va a estar expuesta a esto. Entonces,
mira eso prospectivamente hacia el futuro.
Por lo tanto, lo que le estoy diciendo es que son
unos escenarios hipoteticos conservadores. Asumen la peor de
las situaciones para todos y cada uno de ustedes y, basado en
eso, es que se toman decisiones. Y esas decisiones son asi para
asegurarnos que se protege la salud.
Vamos entrando en esta ciencia de estudios de riesgo,
que es bastante complicada. No se entiende, pero yo estoy
haciendo aqui lo posible por tratar de 1 levar esto de una
manera clara y precisa, de manera que nos podamos ubicar
efect ivamente.
^Alguna otra pregunta?
SA. REYES: Venga hacia adelante y nos dice su nombre
y ape 1 lido para el record.
SA. PEREZ: Aqui me conoce to'1 mundo.
SA. REYES: Pero para grabarlo, lo necesitamos.
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500208
-------
67
SA. PEREZ: Mi nombre es Marta Perez. Tengo una
preocupacion... Tengo una preocupacion, porque mi solar, lo
limpiaron, pero por partes, porque el vecino, pues, se puso a
limpiar con una maquina y me afecto mi... mi solar. Entonces,
hubo obligacion de limpiar mi... mi solar, pero no fue
completamente... completamente limpio.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Dejeme ver si entiendo bien. El vecino
remueve terreno y lo deposita en su solar.
SA. PEREZ: No, no, no, no. No, no, no. El se puso a
limpiar el solar pa' la parte de atras. ^Que pasa? El trae una
maquinaria y, entonces, el pego a amontonar la basura. Me
afecto mi solar. Fue obligatorio limpiar, porque hubo una
montana muy alta. Entonces, limpiaron una parte. La otra, la
mi tad, no la limpiaron. Y siguen con volver otra vez.
SA. REYES: Nancy o Ariel.
SR. FONT: Dona Marta, yo le recomiendo, si es
posible, que se quede al final de la reunion, para que se reuna
con Nancy y vaya sobre el mapa, ver cual es su propiedad en
especifico y discutir su situacion en particular de uno a uno,
con Nancy, del problema. dOK.?
SA. REYES: Gracias.
^Alguna pregunta adicional?
Bueno, pues, si no hay alguna pregunta adicional, les
recuerdo que hay unos...
Si, si, se pueden acercar aqui y ver el mapa, donde
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500209
-------
68
estan todos los lotes y todas las propiedades aqui.
Para concluir, les agradezco su tiempo a todos, por
estar aqui. Se que todos tenemos cosas que hacer y familias que
atender. Les recuerdo que los documentos estan en Caribbean
University, aqui, en Vega Baja, en la Carretera 661 e
interseccion con la Carretera numero 2, en la Alcaldia, en el
segundo nivel, en nuestras oficinas de la EPA, en San Juan, en
Santurce, en la Avenida Ponce de Leon, donde muy gustosamente
le atenderemos. Tambien estan en la Junta de Calidad Ambiental
y en la oficina de la EPA, en Nueva York.
Les agradecemos inmensamente todo su tiempo...
iene. . .? S i, si.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: (no se escucha; habla sin
microfono).
SA. REYES: Nancy, por internet, si se pueden accesar
ciberneticamente los documentos.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Los documentos estan. . . eh. . .
electronicos, van a estar disponibles, pero no... ahora mismo,
no estan en... para que... me imagino que, desde su casa, usted
pueda accesarlos. Habria que trabajar eso. Estan en Caribbean
University, de manera electronica, al igual que en la EPA, la
Junta de Calidad Ambiental, van a estar de manera electronica.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: La otro era...
SA. REYES: Si.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: ...si habian co... la copia que
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500210
-------
69
me toco es en ingles y yo la entiendo, pero mi esposa no esta
aqui y no la entiende, si habia posibilidad de accesar algo en
espanol.
SA. RODRIGUEZ: Si, nosotros tenemos. . . estuvimos
repartiendo aqui una copia de una hoj a informativa. Es una hoj a
mas resumida en cuanto a la informacion del plan propuesto,
pero el plan propuesto en espanol va a estar disponible en los
repos i tor ios.
SA. REYES: Le recuerdo que nos f i rmen la ho j a de
asistencia y, pues, si quieren dejarnos su correo electronico
y recuerden que tienen hasta el 29 de agosto para someter sus
comentarios con relacion al plan propuesto, de este lugar de
super fondo.
Muchisimas gracias. Agradecemos la...
^Si? <^Si? Digame.
VOZ SIN IDENTIFICAR: Unos anos atras, el los le
hicieron pruebas a los ninos, pero esos ninos ya no son ninos.
Esos ninos tienen ninos. Y gordos. Y se estan criando adonde
mismo se criaron el los. Y muchos de el los. . . sabe, no le
hicieron las pruebas, porque eran afuera de la edad. Pero el los
estan criando sus ninos aqui. "So", ^que se va a hacer con
esto, los d'esos nuevos que hay?
(Pausa.)
SR. FONT: Si. El estudio para establecer el riesgo
por las concentraciones de plomo en suelo, el estudio que se
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500211
-------
70
hizo para establecer el riesgo que presenta las concentraciones
de plomo, como le estuvo explicando Nancy, fue un estudio
especifico a este lugar . Y ese estudio es una ecuacion
matematica que, para ponerlo de una manera simplista, lo que
hace es que establece. . . que utiliza las concent raci ones de
plomo en polvo, las concentraciones de plomo en agua potable y
las concentraciones de plomo en suelo para evaluar cual es la
probabilidad de que se exceda los niveles aceptables de plomo
en sangre.
0 sea, que la "data" para nosotros tomar la decision
del nivel de plomo al cual vamos a limpiar fue a base de la
"data" del polvo en las residencias y del agua potable. Y de
ahi, extrapolamos para ver cuanto se le puede aceptar el nivel
de plomo en suelo sin que presente un riesgo.
0 sea, que indirectamente se. . . se. . . la formula
matematica establece como una constante, un numero ya dado,
cual es el nivel maximo de plomo que se le debe permitir a una
poblacion para que sea aceptable y que no presente un riesgo.
(Pausa.)
SA. REYES: ^Estamos? Quiero agradecerle su tiempo
nuevamente, como les indique, por haber venido esta noche.
Muchas gracias.
(Se da por concluidos los procedimientos.)
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500212
-------
71
CERTIFICADO DEL TAQUIGRAFO
Yo, Luis Garcia, E.R. Reporter, miembro de FASYO
Reporters, CERTIFICO:
Que la que antecede constituye la transcripcion fiel
y exacta de la grabacion realizada durante la celebracion de la
vista publica, en el sitio y la fecha que se indican en la
pagina uno de esta transcripcion.
En San Juan de Puerto Rico, a 20 de agosto de 2010.
LUIS GARCIA
E.R. Reporter
FASYO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan, PR 00918 (787)767-5593 447-8858
500213
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CARIBBEAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
PUBLIC HEARING ON SUPERFUND SITE;
VEGA BAJA SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
Operational Unit 2: soils
Date: August 3, 2010, 6:00 p.m.
Place: Santa Rosa de Lima Chapel
Main Street, Brisas del Rosario
Rio Abaja Ward
Vega Baja, Puerto Rico
Moderator: BRENDA REYES
***************
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500214
-------
2
PROCEEDINGS
MRS. REYES: ...Luis Santos; Luis works in the Superfund Division. We
have Mike Valentino from CDM who is a contractor for this superfund site...and
we want to thank him for taking time and being present.
We were passing out informative sheets in the community to -
right? - invite them to participate in today's meeting, in which we will talk about
the proposed plan for the second operational unit which is of the soils, here, in
the community of Brisas del Rosario.
You let me know if I am going too fast or you do not understand
something.
I have here the informative sheets about the proposed plan. Here it
has a bit more information I am going to be passing it, for those of you who wish
to read it before we start.
From six to seven we are going to be making a series of
presentations. Here, this is, as you can see, we are improvising a screen and we
have some maps. Chuck, who is here, with us, Chuck Nays (phonetic), is going
to be giving a presentation and they are going to be taping it here, the youths, as
part of the process, to have it in the record.
I would like that if you are going to ask any question...
I have problems with the sound, the ... of part.
I would like that if you have any question you ask it stating your
name. We have the microphones. I hope that
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500215
-------
3
they function a bit better during the course of the night. And if you do not wish to
ask the questions, I have here some sheets, cards and I have ballpoint pens. I
am going to leave them here, in the event you wish to write them or if you have
any doubt during the course of the presentation, that you may write them so that
then it is not difficult to return...
Sometimes, it is a bit difficult, when we are seeing presentations
that include aspects a bit technical, to refer or remember everything, so that I am
going to have this here. If you wish, you may take them.
We have colleagues from the Environmental Quality Board, who
will be coming here tonight. One of them already came and left, just a second,
Pascual went to get coffee.
So that anything you know my name is Brenda and we are going to
be starting the presentation shortly.
(Off the record.)
(For the record.)
MRS. REYES: For those who just recently arrived, my name is Brenda
Reyes; I am the press officer of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are
with you here this afternoon to talk to you about the plan proposed for the
operational unit 2 of the superfund site of the Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal
Site, also known as Brisas. We thank the people of the parish for having
facilitated the place to hold the meeting.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500216
-------
4
Tonight there are several colleagues from EPA: Ruben Alayon,
there is Luis Santos; there is engineer Jose Font Deputy Director of the Office;
there is colleague Chuck Nays, who is the Risk Advisor who is going to be
making a presentation; Ariel Iglesias, Director of the Emergencies and Superfund
Division and Nancy Rodriguez, Project Manager.
Besides that we have Mike Valentino, from CDM (sic), who is the
contractor. And there in the back, we have Pascual from the Environmental
Quality Board.
So that, with that, well, we are going to start the presentation we
have tonight. We have here recording - right? - well for the record of the
meeting.
Also for those that just recently got here I indicated there is going to
be a questions and answers period, at the end. The Proposed Plan was
distributed you have an informative sheet about the proposed plan. Also, I the
second bench I left some index cards or some sheets. There are ballpoint pens
so that well whoever wishes to ask questions or, well jot something down about
the presentation here, well if anything raises any doubt or you have a question,
well, you are welcome to take them.
I forgot to mention that there is a restroom here, in the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500217
-------
5
side, in the event you need to use the restroom. One has to exit by the main
door...
Is there anything I have forgotten?
Yes, the questions. There is going to be a microphone for the
questions. But I'll be in charge of that. So that nothing, I leave you with Nancy,
who is the...Ah? With Ariel?
Ariel, you are going to be making the presentation? Well I leave
you with Ariel Iglesias and you already know, any doubt or question, well, I
believe that there are many here from EPA to answer your questions. Thanks.
MR. IGLESIAS: Good evening everyone. I want to thank you all for being
here tonight. Thank you for taking time to partake with us.
You can't hear in the back?
Better?
Well, once again thank you very much for taking time and partaking
with us tonight.
Tonight we are going to be talking a bit about the status of the
investigation of the contamination in the superfund site here, in the Brisas del
Rosario community, giving you an update and explaining the next steps and the
plan proposed to address the remediation.
An excellent opportunity to clarify questions. We have a lot of
colleagues here tonight to help us understand the status we are in, what are the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500218
-------
6
next steps and what the proposed plan consists of.
If you help me around here, Ruben...
Tonight's agenda, we have the welcome, well that Brenda gave us.
We are gong to talk a bit about the superfund process. Nancy is going to be
talking to us about the history of the site, where we presently are with regard to
the remedial investigation and the risk evaluation, what are the results and the
conclusions of these studies which have been carrying out here for quite some
years, the feasibility study and the alternatives which have been evaluated to
address the contamination found in the site and the next steps. In summary, she
is going to be talking to us about the proposed plan as to how it is proposed to
address the contamination which has been found in the area.
I am going to talk to you a bit about the superfund process. As you
know, this process...we have been involved in an investigation process of the
situation present here, in the location of Brisas del Rosario for a few years.
The superfund process of a generic location starts with the
discovery of the site. The discovery of the site well normally occurs...is carried
out several ways, be it because we receive citizen claims, because there is a
referral from any state agency, because our personnel visited a site and found
some
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500219
-------
7
things which could be of concern as to the presence of hazardous materials, and
once one discovers the site, well, one evaluates the information at hand to
determine whether under the superfund process, the location deserves to be
considered.
If the information we have on hand leads us to believe that the
place can present a problem, a preliminary study is made, a preliminary
evaluation and an inspection of the site and what is basically used is existing
information to determine if the site must be considered to be included in what is
known as the national priorities list.
The national priorities list is the hit parade of contaminated
locations. That is, it is a site where, well there is contamination. This is a
rigorous process, once one obtains information which suggests that a site may
be contaminated, under an evaluation process and it goes to a panel which
considers the information and determines whether in fact this place should be
included in the national priorities list.
We have already taken these steps for the superfund site here in
Brisas del Rosario; I am discussing it as background so that you understand
what has been done through the years in this site.
Once the site is included in the national list of
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500220
-------
8
priorities, we proceed to make a remedial investigation and a feasibility study.
These are the two steps that were completed in the for the Vega Baja superfund
site. This study is addressed to evaluating the nature and the extension of the
contamination: the type of contaminants present. It is where these contaminants
are found. And this information is used to establish if there is contamination and if
that contamination presents a risk to the public health and the environment. And
we, based on the risk which it may present to the public health and the
environment, decide if, in fact, there is a need to perform some type of cleaning
or some remedial activity to address this contamination.
If necessary, we start to develop alternatives in order to work with
this contamination which is present in the site. These alternatives are evaluated,
the feasibility of implementing these different alternatives is evaluated, and that is
what, in block, is known as the feasibility study.
These two steps have just been concluded for this site. The nature
and the extension were evaluated or the nature and the extension of the
contamination were defined. The risk was evaluated and the alternatives to
address the contamination present were evaluated.
Later, what Nancy is going to do is that she is going to go
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500221
-------
9
over the conclusions of these studies so that you may understand the type of
contamination found and the alternatives being proposed which the agency is
proposing to perform to address this contamination.
Next step. The agency provides this information to the community
and the public so that you have an opportunity not only to learn about it, but to
express any comment you may have before a decision is made here. And that is
what we are doing in this period of public comments, which ends in the month of
August. And this public meeting is an opportunity we have in order to sit with
you, share the information we have compiled and that you may understand what
this information is, what this information means and what are the plans that are
being proposed to be carried out.
Once we conclude this process of public comments, we then
decide what to do in the site and this is reflected in a record of decision.
Once it is reflected in a record of decision, we go on to the next
step, which consists of designing the remedy. We already defined the nature
and the contamination, we decided that remedial action must be taken or a
cleaning, we evaluate the alternatives, the next step is to design how these
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500222
-------
10
alternatives are going to be implemented.
From the record of the decision onward these steps are
prospective. That is, they are future steps. Right now we are at the point of
making a final decision as to what we are going to do.
Once the remedy is designed, said remedy is constructed.
After the remedy is constructed, well, this remedy is evaluated
through time - Ruben if you can forward it - to make sure that the remedy is
complying its objective that the remedy is being performing as designed. And
this is what is known as the post construction monitoring.
Once the remedial action is concluded and therefore, it is
concluded that the remedy is functioning, well, we go on to the process of
delisting the site. This means that the work in that site has been completed, the
place has been returned to beneficial use and we go on to the delisting process.
It is important to emphasize that at all times in the superfund
process; we are working with contamination and with receptors, public health and
environment. And these are the two elements which we are at all times on the
watch for and considering in our decision making process. And the purpose of
the superfund is to return the site to beneficial use.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500223
-------
11
So that with this, this process has concluded...well, this part of the
background of the superfund process. Now, I am going to leave Nancy, so that
she talks to you a bit about the history of the site and takes you over the work
being performed and what are the conclusions of that work and what is the plan
proposed and the action being proposed to be carried out to address the
contamination.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Hello, welcome everyone. I also want to thank you
for your time to be here with us tonight.
Ariel gave us a good introduction of the process we are going
through there, in the site of the Vega Baja Solid Waste Disposal Site — a bit the -
As we know, for thirty-one years from 48 to 79 there was brought
here...
You can hear better now.
Material was brought, commercial, industrial and domestic waste
and the burning of waste was also performed herein. It is considered one point
one yards... millions of yards were brought to the site.
In this figure, you are being shown...
Basically, this is the residential area and this is the area which is
not residential, towards the hummocks, so that you have more or less an idea of
where we are at in the figure. And here we are showing how the area started to
be covered of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500224
-------
12
waste being deposited.
With this graphic what I wish to show basically is that here we have
a summary of the amount of samples initially taken. They are field samples which
basically are the basis for EPA starting a well, more formal investigation.
As many known, from the decade of the 70s, the construction of
houses was commenced on the site. The first inspection was in 94 and from
there given the results, it evolved to the need for more data, of more collection of
data, of better knowing, because we were finding contaminants in the site.
This took us to the site being listed in the national priorities list in
99, and thereafter, with regard to the soils unit in 2003, the parties responsible
signed an Order of Consent with EPA that were as you know the Municipality of
Vega Baja, PREPA, the Land authority, the Housing Department, Pfizer, due to
purchase from Warner Lambert, who was the one who deposited, BFI and
Motorola.
Once we have all that data which I previously presented, this gave
us basis to say: "Look we understand there is contamination in the site and we
wish to make a more at depth investigation. EPA then divides the place in two
operational units. Once is the underground water and the other is the soil.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500225
-------
13
At the time, we started with the underground water operational unit
which some time back we were presenting the results, and basically after the
installation of the wells, the results obtained from water samples, also the canal,
the drainage ditch, Rio Indio, waterholes were also sampled, we found that there
was not contaminant related to the place in the underground waters.
Therefore, a record of decision was signed, recommending no
action for the site in 2004. It is then that we move to the soil operational unit and
we started an environmental investigation.
What is my objective? What do I want to achieve? Where am I
going? This evaluation, based on the data we had initially collected, we decided
to outline we decided to characterize what is the contamination in the site.
We searched, also with study, to determine how far it reached; the
extension of this contamination and, later, evaluate the risks; what risks are
presented by the contaminants present to human health and the environment.
What the soil investigation basically included were some samples in
the residential zone, samples in areas, samples in properties were the old data,
the original data showed us that there was a need of having
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500226
-------
14
more laboratory data, more definitive data, a more profound investigation.
As in these residencies samples were taken for lead, both in the
soil as well as inside the homes, in the water tap, in the tap water and also in the
dust inside the homes.
Also in the whole residential area, what is Brisas del Rosario, what
is the complete site, which is what I am showing here, in the figure, samples
were taken around the whole area for other contaminants, to learn if they were
present and if they presented any concern in the site.
Samples were also taken in the non-residential area, which is the
landscape area below which is the area which is towards the hummocks, which
is not developed, to outline what is the extension of lead in that area and if there
was another contaminant of concern. This area below includes seventeen acres
of land, which was all sampled.
Before I go on, I added this note here, below, because EPA has
what is called the superfund lead contaminated residential site sample, it is a
handbook, it is a guide which helps to study sites such as Brisas del Rosario,
which have lead contamination and it is in a residential area.
Basically the guide gives you an idea or gives you certain
directions, certain recommendations as to how you are going to take the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500227
-------
15
samples, where to take them, how to understand the data, how...what to do
with the data, it takes all this process of identifying and evaluating in places
which are residential and contain lead. We use it as a guideline, which assisted
us in the process.
Additionally, during the soil investigation, we took samples in the
mounds, in those promontories of waste, that we have four, that we can see
them in brown, we have one, two, the one above, three and one around the other
church. That well, as you know there was... an unauthorized removal was
started and already well we advanced and that one was removed and it was
accommodated in the undeveloped area. For that reason now we are left with
basically three mounds of waste or promontories of waste.
In these places here, in the waste, lead samples were taken, but
also for other analysis or compounds to determine what contaminants were a
concern in that area.
And finally, background samples were taken, which is what we
know in English as background. They are areas we seek near the site, but which
has not been impacted by any activity. What we seek is to see a reference of
what are the concentrations let's say that natural from these contaminants or
from these metals, for examples, in these area which have not been altered by
any construction or by any...work which has been performed which has impacted
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500228
-------
16
these soils.
Now I am going to show you some figures and, in these figures,
basically you can see where the samples were taken. Here I am emphasizing the
residential area and as we can see the majority is concentrated between Santa
Maria Alturas Street and Los Angeles Ortiz and this area here, in progress.
Once I emphasize that these area arise form the results which had
previously been taken in the whole area, in the two hundred thirteen houses,
which is what includes the fifty five acres of property in the residential area.
What I had previously explained, that for contaminants other than
lead, all this residential part was separated, they were separated in blocks. And
what we sought here was to have a representation of the different areas, but
what we are seeking was to collect samples based on what we need to make a
risk evaluation. That is what led us to make this... let's say these different figures
here, to separate the blocks and what we sought was to satisfy the need of data
which the risk evaluation requests, in order to know for other contaminants that
are not lead, if there is a risk to human health or to the ecological.
This is the nonresidential area. They are seventeen acres in green,
below, in the figure. Basically,
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500229
-------
17
the whole area was also shown and as we can see, they were sufficient samples
to know how far my contamination reaches.
And fin...the next.
And finally, this is what I meant by the background areas. If you
see, open areas were taken, which have had no construction, no building.
Basically they are areas that can give us an idea of the natural concentration of
these contaminants or of these metals at the location.
I added this figure, but basically, this is part of what was done in the
investigation of the underground water. When I mentioned that wells were
installed, also at that time, the idea was to take samples in the drainage ditch
which you have, which runs by Alturas and up to Rio Indio, but as you well know,
it is principally dry. We were unable to take water...samples of water, but
samples of sediment were taken. In some areas, it did give us concentrations of
lead and that is why we are... Within the action we are recommending for the
site, we are including the drainage ditch for cleaning.
That taking that...all that data, that all that data is analyzed, in this
box, well I can ... basically, we have the documents here, available, certain
documents are generated, which are reviewed by different experts of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500230
-------
18
Agency and the conclusion is reached that the lead, definitely is a problem in the
site and here, I am giving a few of the values we found.
The residential soil, in the surface area, I am giving a rank of
seventy nine to thirteen hundred milligrams per kilogram. That was what we
found in the... in the... in the data collected. The soil at depth, there was an area
that reached up to twenty six thousand milligrams per kilogram of lead.
As we can see in the trash mounds, we have some values a bit
higher. We have realized that it is in the trash mounds and the non residential
area, is where I have higher values of lead in the site.
In the residential dust...
I basically used this data to run the risk analysis models I was
required, basically information of the site, a more specific information. Basically,
we wanted to see what the concentration of dust inside the residences. It gave
us a maximum of eight hundred twenty-four, but the average was some lower
values. That is why there remains an average of one hundred twenty-two.
The same with the tap water. That data I used basically to run the
risk model and see then what is my situation as to risk to the human health at the
site.
During the investigation and the... the data that was collected, we
also found some sporadic excesses of antimony, chrome, thallium, zinc and iron,
also they were more oriented towards the ...trash mounds and towards the non
residential area.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500231
-------
19
After an excellent evaluation and many aspects, many perspectives
that are taken as to the data collected and evaluating what is interpreted, it was
concluded that we already understood or we had already defined the nature of
the contamination - which is resumed to lead - and what is the remediation;
where it is and how far it reaches.
In the hummocks, that seventeen acres were investigated, we were
able to see that only eight point five acres are impacted by lead and therefore,
well this problem needs to be addressed. And the values, such as arsenic,
chrome and manganese were found...although they were above the values of
residence, it is compared with the background analysis we had performed. For
those samples which I explained that were in places that have not been
impacted, near the area, upon comparing them, they are certain levels that are in
average pretty close, therefore, it is concluded that it is not related to the place,
rather it is the particularity of the soil.
Once we have all that data, what do we do with it? Here we have
Chuck Nays, who is our toxicologist and he basically, is the leader by evaluating
the documents which are
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500232
-------
20
looked at with relation to human health, the human health risk, in a complicated
process that I am going to resume. It is basically....what is sought is to see the
exposure to this chemical, in our case, the exposure to the chemical, what does it
mean, what does it represent, to the residents, be they adult or children, for the
intermittent visitors, which is the person who comes, plays, visits, leaves,
therefore, it is not exposed day to day but may come frequently and the
construction worker who has a minor exposure, but who may come to the place.
What is the exposure for this type of persons when there are
chemicals in the soil, in dust and in vegetables. The conclusion was that there is
no...The risk of cancer, present by the contaminants of the place, is not high. It
is within EPA's ranges. Therefore, we understand there is no problem of a risk of
cancer.
The hazard, which are the compounds that are not carcinogens. It
was determined that it is principally associated with the compounds I said, that
although they exceeded EPA's reference values, they were at values that were
similar to the conditions of the site, to the background samples, the background
samples, what we see in this region.
And, basically, it was concluded that lead we know is a problem,
and for the levels that one may find in the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500233
-------
21
blood, it could create a potential of high levels in the blood. Therefore, it leads me
to what we need to do and take action in the site.
The risk to the environment, the ecological risk. What did we do
there? Basically, first there is an evaluation an inspection of what are the species
that we can see in this area, in this region in Puerto Rico. And based on the
species that may be present, the ecological receptors that may be present, birds,
bats were selected, I believe there is the Puerto Rican boa, which are species
that may be present in the site.
The risk to these receptors with regard to lead are evaluated. It
was concluded that the contaminant presents a level unacceptable for the birds.
What does this mean? That obviously the lead for the birds is also a problem we
have that then we must post a cleaning or a remediation.
For the other contaminants. In the other concentrations seen in the
site, the risk to the ecological receptors is minimal. Therefore, we again
conclude that we have to do something with the lead. What are we going to do?
How are we going to resolve this problem? What alternatives do I have? What
technology exists for me to clean up which basically
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500234
-------
22
resolves the problem of lead in the site?
The feasibility study is a mechanism used for a detailed evaluation
of the alternatives of remediation or clean-up. What does this mean? I seek my
objective. My objective that I want to carry out in the site. What am I going to
clean? How much am I going to clean? and then I evaluate what is available in
the market for me to resolve this problem.
My objectives here are basically to prevent or minimize the contact
of the persons...the human contact, the contact of the ....of the birds, which we
already saw was a problem with regard to lead, in areas such as the residential
area, in the properties where it was identified there was a problem, in the
mounds of waste and in the non residential area.
My objective here is that I must resolve or minimize the direct
contact to these areas with high lead content. And we also want, to resolve the
ecological problem, eliminate the lead contact to protect the receptors.
EPA then makes...Of all this information we have collected, what
the risk evaluation has told me, the reference values we have as to lead, we
search for an analysis and we arrive at the conclusion that of four hundred fifty
milligrams of kilograms, is going to be my value, it is going to be my clean up
goal in the site. That is a
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500235
-------
23
Very conservative value which addresses the problem, it...and we understand
that cleaning up over four hundr...cleaning up the areas of four hundred fifty
milligrams kilogram, everything that has a value over that would be our
alternative of resolving the problem in the site.
And I remind you that this includes the non residential area, the
residential area, the drainage ditch that, in operation unit 1, we had indicated
there were certain values similar to those we found in the residential area, in the
ditch and in the trash mounds.
I already know what I want to do. I know my problem, I know what I
want to achieve, my objective, my goal, I know the value I have to reach, how am
I going to do it? What technologies exist so that I can then reach my goal?
We have these technologies, pretty simple and which are feasible
for the Vega Baja site. The first is to excavate soil. Arrive, remove, excavate the
soil remove it from the site. What can we do with this excavated soil? It is either
removed, to a landfill or it may be consolidated in an area... In the case of Vega
Baja, it would be to the nonresidential area. It can be consolidated there and a
cover of soil is placed which basically minimizes my exposure to the
contaminated soil.
Containment. That is to place a cover of soil. You can place a
cover of soil and basically, you are...
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500236
-------
24
have a soil coverage, which serves as a barrier with the soil that contains lead
contamination.
Solidification or stabilization. This involves treatment. Basically,
here we would be bringing cement or lime and it would be mixed with the
contaminated soil. Everything that has unacceptable lead levels would be mixes
to solidify it; so that the lead loses its mobility and avoid the direct contact and in
the future well it could affect or contaminate another type of soil or reach the
underground water.
Other technology for the dust in the residents is removal.
And finally institution...institutional controls. What are institutional
controls? Basically they are certain use restrictions, restrictions which basically
limit the use of the contaminated area, as well as limits excavation where there is
contaminated soil.
What can we do in Brisas del Rosario with regard to the alternative
of soil excavation? When I say, arrive, excavate, remove soil, what do I mean? I
am referring to the trash mounts, to the trash mounds. I go and remove all the
waste, all the trash mounds we have...at this time, we have three existing in the
residential area.
Once I remove, I bring in fill, I bring in clean soil,
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500237
-------
25
I use a membrane, simply well to identify how far the concentration reached and
on top I cover with fill to restore the level of the soil and not leave an open hole.
In the areas prope...in the residential properties or in the areas
that, well, it is understood that there must be a removal, basically, what is over
four fifty we go in, we excavate and we remove, we remove the contaminated soil
form the resident, from the area of the property, in the majority of the cases the
backyard. And with the soil that is contaminated it is either sent to a landfill, as I
had previously mentioned or it is taken to an area where it may be consolidated
and covered.
The containment alternative...Here I added what...when we talk
about the geotextile membrane, it is what you can see in the photo below, it is ...
simply a physical barrier to, once it is placed, if there is any excavation in the
future, you may note: "Look the prior removal reached here, from there onward
there is....there may be contaminated soil or waste."
Then as you may see in this figure, first the membrane is laid and
then a foot is placed, twelve inches of soil on top and that would be the cover.
To avoid then the erosion of the site, a vegetative layer is also added, after
concluding with the layer of soil. This technology requires maintenance, because
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500238
-------
26
obviously, once you install them, you need to ensure that there is no type of
future excavation and that the layer is maintained, so that then the remedy
continues to be effective.
In this figure, here we can see what I had explained about the
technology in solidification and stabilization. You extract water and you extract
the material, it may be cement or it may be lime, and basically what you are
doing is mixing it with the contaminated soil, so that then the contaminated soil is
mixed and creates, then... It is seen as weak cement, as weak cement once you
have all that mixed, to solidify it in contaminated soil.
I have these technologies: I can excavate; I can put a cover of soil;
I can solidify. These technologies, what do I do with them now? Well, I group
them in alternatives. CERCLA requires me that one of my alternatives be no
action. And it is rather to have a point of comparison. In no action, what I am
saying is: "I am not going to do anything. I am going to leave things as they are."
And this... and in the case of the report we have developed, it is our alternative
number 1.
Alternative number 2, what it groups is removing all the
contaminated soil that is over the four hundred fifty milligrams per kilogram,
according to the data we have already collected form the residential area, from
the properties, obviously, that well, we have that information that
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500239
-------
27
It is over the four fifty, from the ditch and also from the trash mounds, from the
...from the trash mounds. I remove all the contaminated soil, I take it to the
undeveloped area and I consolidated it there. I have everything consolidated
together with the eight point five acres of land we had mentioned had an excess
level and I place a soil cover. I place the membrane cover, as I showed you
before and I place a cover of a foot of soil. And later a vegetative layer so that
basically the vegetation covers that my layer of soil is not altered, is not lost, is
not minimized and provokes an exposure of waste. What I am seeking is that
this barrier of...this barrier of soil allows me, minimizes serves as a barrier for the
contaminated soil and the waste.
Alternative 3 would be that for all the areas, the four areas -
residential, ditches, waste and non residential - all the soil is excavated and it is
sent to some landfill.
And alternative 4 is the...basically, remove...the same as
alternative 2, remove the soil from the residential area, from the ditch, from the
mound, take it to my undeveloped area and it is there that I perform my treatment
system, where I mix the contaminated soil be it with cement or lime, which is
what I am going to be adding.
Any of these alternatives is going to take institu...institutional
controls, because any of
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500240
-------
28
these alternatives is going to prevent, according to the alternative, the future use
of the place or what areas, as for example, under pavement or under structures
which cannot be reached to remove the soil or remove the waste, not be altered
in the future.
I already have these alternatives. All these alternatives have
certain common elements and these elements are the institutional controls that I
had already mentioned. Obviously, except the alternative of no action. It calls
for a pre-design investigation. In the design is where we in detail discuss all the
logistics, all the ...how this alternative is to be implemented, of the design, of the
remediation, of the clean up. And always, before the design well there are times
one has to come and get some additional data in order to complete...define what
the work is going to be, in a more detailed precision.
We also...the...the storm water runoff is something that is also
taken into consideration. We do not want to alter or create a problem of storm
water runoff. Therefore, there has to be a handling, there have to be certain
controls, and in the design, it must take into consideration what is going to
happen with the storm water run off. In the event... As we have the drainage
ditch, it would be divided so that the rain water goes through the channel, they
don't stay in residence, that way they reach the Rio Indio. So, the two would be
connected within the design.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500241
-------
29
The agreements of access. We cannot go into your homes without
your permission, authorization to enter. So, before we perform any of these
alternatives, we must request the persons where we have to enter their
properties, access to the properties. And then, now everything is green, now
everything is green.
So, the region, EPA Region 2 has developed a green clean-up
policy for superfund sites that we are going to be taking into consideration and
this includes, well, recycling of materials, everything that may save energy... A
treatment system could be using solar energy... Any aspect that could be
implemented, that is going to be taken into consideration in the design.
We have the alternatives. We know what we want to do in the site.
We know how much we wish to clean up. But how do I select it? I select
alternative 1, 2, 3, 4. It is not like that, it is not at random, it is not so easy.
The superfund program has nine criteria which helps us to evaluate
them. To evaluate them in a detailed manner, to make a correct decision as to
resolving the problem of contamination in the site.
These criteria are how does the alternative protect obviously our
mission, the human health and the environment. How does it comply with the
applicable requisites, applicable regulations and appropriate in the site. What is
my
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500242
-------
30
efficiency long-term. What does long-term mean? What does that alternative
represent for me? The same as short-term. What does this alternative mean at
short term? What is the reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume of contaminants.
And that is when there is treatment. This is through the treatment. How does it
reduce, how toxic is the contaminant or how mobile is the contaminant.
The implementability. Perhaps there is a fabulous alternative, but it
is not something that is feasible in Puerto Rico. And it is also evaluated to see if
it is an alternative that may be implemented.
The cost is evaluated, the acceptance of the state agency, which in
this case is the Environmental Quality Board and the acceptance of the
community, that is why we are here tonight and that is why we opened a period
for comments, because you also have participation within the evaluation of these
alternatives.
Here I want to show you, basically, how the alternatives compare
one with the other with regard to my nine criteria. And basically, what I want to
show you is that the alternative of no action, if you see, does not protect the
human health and does not protect...does not comply with the applicable
requisites. Why? Because it is to do nothing; it is to leave the contamination as
is. Therefore, it is something that does not comply with my criteria. The other
alternatives do comply.
The long-term efficiency. Remove everything from the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500243
-------
31
Place, obviously, well the contamination, the contaminated soil not being present
in Brisas del Rosario well, at long-term creates a better efficiency and
permanency of the remedy. But basically, we are moving the contamination from
point A to point B, and in point B well, one would then have to take certain
measures at long-term to ensure that it is not an exposure in another location.
The reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment,
what I am indicating here is that it is not that the other alternatives...These do
present a minimization or a prevention of direct exposure to the contaminant.
But since this criteria is only through treatment and excavation is not a treatment,
only when it is mixed with what I mentioned about the cement or lime, it is the
only thing that is considered treatment, it is due to this that alternative 4 is the
only one that can reduce the toxicity or mobility or volume. In this case, it does
not reduce the volume, because the volume remains the same, but it does
reduce the mobility of the lead.
And then there are the costs. As you can see we have... Excuse
me, implementability, they are all implementable. They are all alternatives that
can be carried out here. Some easier and one more difficult. For example,
having to stabilize and bring cement and lime, that entails certain additional
studies, because one has to make some... It is an alternative, well, which has not
been practiced here and one would seek
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500244
-------
32
then, make like a...a minor scale, basically, seek what is the...if...the magic
formula, let's say. And that would entail that additional study. Therefore, it is
implementable but it takes a bit more work.
The same well with alternative 3. It is implementable, but then, we
already went into the problem of choosing the landfill and the capacity of the
landfill to receive an amount, a volume which is pretty big of land that would be
removed from the site.
Acceptance by the state agency, the Environmental Quality Board,
well, which has been working with us from the beginning, they have also
participated in the review of the documents and making comments. They have
already reviewed the proposed plan we have for the superfund site here in Vega
Baja. They already issued their letter of support for the alternative we are going
to be presenting as the preferred alternative, which is alternative 2, the
alternative of removal, excavation of soil in the residential area, in trash mounds,
in the drainage ditch and consolidate them in the area that you have which is non
residential and cover them with soil. They already issued the letter of support.
The community's acceptance, this criteria is still open, because we
are in the process of public comments and it is now that we are evaluating what
is your acceptance as to alternative 2, which is the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500245
-------
33
alternative we are presenting tonight as the one preferred.
Going into a bit more detail, as I mentioned, tonight we want to
present the alternative of removing all the soil which is on top of the four hundred
milligrams per kilogram, which we understand is a very conservative value for
lead levels, remove it from the residential area, from the drainage ditch, from the
trash mounds, transport all this material to the nonresidential area, which as I
have explained, we already have eight point five acres of land that are already
impacted, which is why the costs...
I did not discuss costs, but I don't know if you were able to see that
alternative 2 represents four million, when alternative 3 and 4 represents twenty
four million and twenty five million and it is because basically in those two
alternatives I am going in to either excavate or go treat eight point five land of
eight point five acres of land and that a lot of volume, at a depth of either four or
six feet.
The greatest volume of contamination is in the non residential area
and that is what impacts the costs a log.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: — (talks without microphone).
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Not residential. Which is the area this landscape
area below, which is where my greatest concentration is, in terms of volume, of
the lead contamination in the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500246
-------
34
site.
In this area the material would be consolidated, and later a cover
would be made, first with a geotextile membrane and later with twelve inches or
one foot of a layer of soil which is also going to be covered later with a vegetation
layer.
This is similar to what was already done in trash mound 1, that I
had mentioned in the beginning that a removal of the trash mound had been
started, which was not authorized, basically, at that time, that was done there.
The area which presented a risk was removed, consolidated, a geotextile
membrane was placed and twelve inches of soil were placed. Basically, we are
doing what...similar to this process.
In the areas to be excavated, in the residential area, there are
going to be obviously brought again to level with clean soil that would be brought
to restore the property, according to the conditions prior to the excavation.
This alternative had already been explained about the cover of soil
in the non residential area and for all the areas where there is excavation, some
confirmation samples are going to be taken basically to make sure that the soil
over four hundred fifty was removed. And start...then, understand that we
reached our clean up goal.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500247
-------
35
This figure is basically the same map I have here bigger. I invite
you to once we conclude the presentation if you have doubts you may approach
and get a closer look. But here, I am showing it, the area of the remediation
action. The areas that are blue are the areas being proposed for residential, the
backyards of the residences that were found with values over four hundred fifty,
to carry out an excavation.
We have the trash mounds which are the brown areas the non
residential areas... Ah, all this soil is going to be removed, it is going to be taken
to the non residential area and I am also showing the areas for which access is
going to be requested, the residences that are going to be impacted to request
access and in order to enter and do some work.
This figure also shows areas like for example, these ... places.
Here, previously, it could not be accessed during the remediation. Then, we
want to return to complete this part of taking samples in these residences and all
this is shown in this figure, that well, I invite you to approach at the end of the
present and get a closer look so that then you are able to see it more clearly.
But also you have it in the proposed plan sheet. It is the same
figure that is at the end of the handout we passed of the proposed plan.
What then? Ariel did an excellent job
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500248
-------
36
explaining the process, but I wanted to remind you where we are at.
We already investigated the soil, we made the feasibility study, we
are moving here, to the record of decision. Basically now we have a section for
comments, which ends on August 29. Once it concludes the comments that are
received in writing, a summary is prepared and that is part of the decision record.
Once the comments period is concluded and we replies to the
concerns of the community, the decision record is issued, which details the
alternative selected and details on the decision, the bases to make that decision
and the decision.
And there we move to the remedy design. Here, like this place,
now basically the responsible parties are the ones that would be well also
working in what is the design of the remedy and the action, the implementation of
the action, between the decision record and the design document there is a
process, let's say legal, where a Consent Agreement is once again signed which
basically details what must be covered, the work plan and the requisites to then
be able to move to the remedy design and obviously that the parties responsible
well agree with the implementation. It also includes the design and the
implementation.
Once this process is completed, we have already reviewed the
design, it has gone by EPA, different experts have
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500249
-------
37
evaluated it, comments have been submitted, the comments have been
incorporated, we have the final design - possibly, you will see us again, because
we will then share with you everything that is the logistics, everything that is the
details of how this event is going to happen — the construction. Then we move
towards...the construction, in this case, would be the excavation and the layer of
soil in the non residential area.
After concluded there are always a series of evaluations, of
inspections, to ensure that everything goes according to design, that everything
is as planned. There is also a 5-year review. Basically what is sought is follow up
and ensure that the institutional controls...that the remedy that was implemented
continues to be effective and protective to the residents.
After that once it is understood that the clean up objectives have
been achieved and the place is then ready to be proposed to be removed from
the national list of properties ...of priorities, another public meeting is also held,
where you are involved to let you know there is an intention to remove the site
form the national priorities list.
And once completed well obviously there are other potential
reuses to... specially, well for the area... Obviously in the residential part it is
already being used as residential, the area... or there is a remedy in the area non
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500250
-------
38
Residential, if it is a candidate for some type of reuse. And that could be at the
end.
Here I am giving you information about the sites of EPA on the
Internet, where you can look for additional information, if you have doubts, with
regard to the superfund program. This like I have here takes you to a page which
is in Spanish and there is additional information about the superfund program,
about the opportunities of community participation, that I invite you well to visit it
so that you learn more.
Also within EPA there is the link I have here below you can access
the information as it is found and it is included in a page dedicated to the Vega
Baja site. I invite you to then if you need additional information...Of course I am
here at your disposal in EPA's offices in San Juan, for any questions.
I am going to leave you here at this time with Brenda.
(Pause)
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Now I am going to leave you with Jose Font our
Deputy Director of the Office.
MR. FONT: Thanks Nancy.
After Nancy's presentation, I wanted to emphasize certain points,
before going into the most important section of questions and answers.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500251
-------
39
For us the process of public participation is very important and that
is why we are here. All the comments shall be taken into consideration. What is
being discussed here today is being recorded and each and every one of your
comments shall be addressed. This is addressed in writing. Today we will be
answering questions here.
But to emphasize certain points. The clean-up. The clean-up would
be proposed; today here, places which exceed four hundred fifty. Four hundred
fifty milligrams per kilogram.
Besides that, an alternative is not selected without having heard all
of you. So we are here today so that you let us know your concerns, you ask
questions... And we can be here all the time you wish of course.
In terms of the process the Environmental Quality Board
participates actively, EPA shall try and seek the manner to have an effective
communication with you. The documents are available certainly we have been
working here for many years various actions have been carried out. You will
recall when contaminated soil was removed because there was an immediate
risk to the public health. Today we are working with long-term risk.
Besides the long-term risk, the underground water was studied. It
has no problems. Do not worry about that. There is no
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500252
-------
40
problem. At this time, long-term, soils contaminated with lead in excess of four
hundred fifty. That is what you have to bear in mind today and I imagine that
many questions will be where; where does it exceed that concentration?
Well, we will be here indicating those places and trying to clarify
specific concerns of those persons who could be affected by the clean-up now
proposed. And this clean up shall not be final until the process ends. And the
process ends after having received your comments, evaluating each and every
one of them. These they are part of an administrative challenge that shall be
attached to the final decision.
With this, perhaps we can start with the questions. Or Brenda,
you...
MRS. REYES: Well, you saw the presentation and you heard some
additional final points expressed by Jose Fond, Deputy Director of the Office..
In terms of questions and answers, how we are going to do this.
The microphone is here. I need -it is very important - that you state your name
and surname, since the youths are here recording the transcript of this meeting.
I need you to state your name and surname. Try, please, to do so in the most
organized manner possible. We like to avoid the distractions and the
conversations a bit. "John Doe asked, but Richard Roe and I are adding on the
side." I tell you. It is a lot
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500253
-------
41
easier. You want to get home, we want to get home. We want to answer all your
questions and that you leave here tonight with all your questions answered and a
clear idea - right?—in terms of these answers.
So that I am going to ask you then to organize yourselves in terms
of asking the questions. We have a microphone here and we have a microphone
over here, so that the person from EPA or from the Board who has to answer
your question well, does so.
May we start? Yes?
Who wants to start?
Remember, you have to state your name and surname. If you can
come here a moment as far as the microphone reaches.
MR. MALAVE: Hello, greetings. Thanks for the information. I have a
question and it regards the information given by Nancy. You mentioned that
work was going to be carried out in the areas that have four hundred fifty ppm or
more of contamination. If the maximum level of exposure recommended is four
hundred what is going to happen with these units that have four hundred one to
four hundred forty nine? That is my question. Carlos Malave.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: And that question is excellent. As I had mentioned
before, we had taken certain values
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500254
-------
42
Specific of domestic dust within the site, the tap water, the tap water of the site,
these values, basically what is done is that a risk model is entered, which is
similar to the one used by EPA to develop the value of four hundred.
What happens? When EPA uses this model and arrives at... it gives
you the number, let's say, magic of four hundred, is using certain values which
are called "default values," some values which are general. Once I replace those
values with the specific values of the site, it gives me in the case of Brisas del
Rosario, the value of the residential dust, also the tap water value, they are much
lower than the "default," run by the model, which results in four hundred.
What happens? In the case of Brisas, it gave me a range between
five hundred sixty six to six hundred five, which is a conservative value. It is what
the model, similar to the manner, with the national values used by EPA, to derive
the four hundred with the specific values of the place, it indicates that a protective
value is leaving... having a value of lead of between a range of five hundred sixty
six to six hundred five.
What happens? EPA... That is why I previously said that the value
of four hundred fifty is a very conservative value and it is because we decided not
to go
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500255
-------
43
exactly to the value resulting from the model. We decided to go a bit lower, to
address certain concerns or some areas that could bring a level of uncertainty
and we then decided that four hundred fifty is a very conservative value.
It is a process a bit complicated, a bit long, that is... I would say
that it is well explained in the documents, which even in the feasibility study,
opens a section which talks about all these values we took into consideration and
how e arrived at the conclusion of four hundred fifty.
But basically, we are saying that up to a value a bit higher than four
fifty is so protective to human health and in the case of ecological here, to the
receptors, as well as the value of reference of EPA.
I want... Did I answer the question?
Very good.
I want to remind you that I forgot to say in the presentation that we
have certain depositories of information and basically, all these documents that
are in this case, go from the initial work plan up to the proposed plan we are
presenting today, are available in Caribbean University, here, but unfortunately,
this week they are at recess. So they would be opening...I believe it is next
Monday. They are going to be there available. At present
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500256
-------
44
they are in the Mayor's Office, on the second floor, in City Hall, there is a copy
there also of the whole administrative record, of all these documents. At the
University they will be available electronically. In City Hall they are in had copy.
But also in EPA, here in Puerto Rico we have a copy and the Environmental
Quality Board well these documents are also available for your review, in New
York. Those who wish in New York to review these documents. We also have a
copier available. These is on the informative sheet that I gave you, all those
places are there, the schedules so that you can...those who have the time and
wish to learn in more detail about the reports they are available for review.
MRS. REYES: The gentleman in the blue guayabera shirt had a question
here.
MR. PEREZ: Yes, good evening to this distinguished community. We
have come...My name is Mario B. Perez, I am here with several friends,
residents of the area, from the group VIDAS, Vegabajenos Impulsando
Desarrollo Ambiental Sustentable ("Residents of Vega Baja Promoting
Sustainable Environmental Development"). One of the areas we have worked is
in Villa Pinares with a project. We are going to present an image, we wish to
share it with the officials presented to us here. This is a scientific work, published
in 1999. I don't know if it can be enlarged.
This image has been scanned from the publication
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500257
-------
45
Scientific, so that the... It is handwritten, but what is here, the image per se are
the plumes of a contaminant from a superfund site on Road 2, in the area... on
the corner of 686 and Road 2, the industrial area, the scientist is Sepulveda, who
publishes it. That which appears...
May I approach?
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Be careful, you don't fall.
MR. PEREZ: This here... this here are concentrations similar to a
carcinogen contaminant, which is a volatile organic compound. VOCS, as
resumed by EPA. It is called trichloroethylene, TCE. It is a carcinogen.
When this study is published, the concentrations which qualified for
the superfund, according to Sepulveda would take twenty years -and sets 99 -
to continue running towards the sea, under the water. If a lining had been placed
here so that the rain does not percolate underneath, whatever, the underground
water runs towards the sea, anyway. Like a river, that runs towards the sea,
that's how it is. The only thing that it is underground.
That is a ...that work appears on page 81, as I handwrite, in a
document which resumes different studies, that is called
"Karst Region a Vital Resource," the Karst zone...of the karst, a vital resource.
By water.
Here in Villa Pinares, there is an Aqueduct water main, but it is not
the only one. At the end of Villa Pinares
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500258
-------
46
Immediately. One hundred meters around is the influence area, according to the
work of those who work with the use of water for Aqueduct and the specialists in
this field. I am going to say that I am a specialist in natural resources that I
worked in that scientific investigations area.
That means that the water, around one hundred meters from where
it suctions for use of all of you and all of us, shall be influenced by the
contaminants there, whether they have a lining or not, because it is going to be
suctioning and the water molecules are like magnets that attract each other,
because they have loads like magnets. It is a bipolar molecule.
I am concerned in terms of the population, if something as simple
as lead paint -which was prohibited—and it is barely going to peel very little.
Now imagine four hundred fifty parts... Per million is it? Or per thousand?
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Million.
MR. PEREZ: Per million. Well, that is going to be in an area and it is going
to concentrate by the suction. You can measure in a particular point, but if you
go to the well which suctions Aqueducts, which are many gallons a day, it is
going to concentrate what already concentrated on land and that is a great
concern.
In terms of the millions, the costs, what methodology to use, I would
ask how much more would people cost
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500259
-------
47
with cancer - as the cause of lead - or learning problems which it causes
children, between five and twenty five million, which is the difference.
And I also take the opportunity to applaud the fact that even if in a
remedial manner, there is taken...precautions start to be taken to stop the
damaging process from this point onward and that it serves as a lesson to not
continue issuing permits for activities that are very contaminant to the human
population.
Right now, in Villa Pinares Sur, there has just...after having been
detained by public hearings of the VIDA group, the OCUPA group, which is a part
of us, a project to the south of Villa Pinares, fifteen hundred houses have been
approved with... in an area of subsidence, area which is good for farming, they
will plant houses, they can sink, as happened in Monte Verde, with the same
geological formation, as happened...Ricardo if you remind me, I have it here
printed, a house which sunk...
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Parcelas Marquez.
MR. PEREZ: Parcelas Marquez. Due to the time factor we were unable
to pass it to that image you are looking at. I also printed it. They are parcels
which adjoin the land
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500260
-------
48
of Villa Pinares, well, I'll show it to you later, so as to not take any more of your
time. That this is the photo of a house that also sunk. And the hummocks that
are going to be cut also, by the scientific studies, there have been landslides of
the size of two cars one on top of the other, fifty meters down, that also in Manati
and Vega Baja, we have seen that they have gone over houses and they have
demolished them.
Then, let it serve as a lesson, that we become aware and that the
regulating agencies—right?—regulate in favor of ordinary people, of the people,
in the same manner that we are now having to remediate it, which is costlier than
preventing. Thank you very much.
MRS. REYES: Thank you for your comments.
(Pause.)
MR. FONT: Yes, thank you very much for the very broad comment. We
shall try to handle it step by step. If here in Puerto Rico, precisely in the northern
area, it is a karst zone, you mentioned there are many places we have passed by
the contaminants, volatile organic compounds, carcinogens, but on the other
hand, many of them are already in remediation. Through the years of working in
those places we have realized that the quicker the place is mobilized and one
works with the contamination source, the less time it would take us to remediate
it, but anyway, once these contaminants reach the underground waters, we are
talking about thirty years in
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500261
-------
49
Remediation.
But that is not the case here. The case here, what we have is lead
in the soil. And we are not talking about the carcinogen risks, rather non
carcinogens. And we must keep focused on the lead in the soil and the
remediation we are discussing today.
In general terms, I could also add that this karst formation of the
north provides for the quick flow, at high speed of contaminants in underground
waters. They all discharge into the sea. The best would be to intercept them as
quickly as possible, before this happens. The situation could exacerbate with the
extraction of excessive underground water in that area. Several things have
occurred which have eased this: cleaning, supertube, several things which have
occurred, but certainly, the immense majority of these places are being
addressed. And significant amounts have been extracted throughout the years,
through the superfund program of volatile organic compounds of the
underground water.
MRS. REYES: Very respectfully the flow of underground water, in the
case raised by Sepulveda, without intervention by the superfund flow, would take
twenty years to correct and get out of that. Twenty years gives time for one to
bioconcentrate one carcinogenic contaminant. One.
I must also differ that the iron in soil is not carcinogenic. In Vieques
-that I was part of the group of
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500262
-------
50
Technical and professional support to Vieques, with investigations in water, soil,
sediments, plants and animals and persons -, that chain...that food chain,
through food, of the fugitive dust, as well as through underground waters, were
conduits to find five heavy carcinogenic metals in the hair, nails and in some
cases, blood and urine.
The cancer index in Vieques was twenty seven percent over any
comparable community, municipality. But this type of company did not exist in
Vieques except the one there, which were the Navy bombs. But putting that
point aside, science itself showed that by these three ways, fugitive dust,
underground water of the east of Vieques, that in Esperanza there is an aquifer
of two percent to four, it does go through because the iron becomes ferric, by
changes in ionization, loss of electrons and it becomes available. And it is
carcinogenic. Lead is the same. I differ but this is part of science.
MR. FONT: But we can continue discussing it and certainly, there are
many places with their individual characteristics and behavior of the
contaminants.
MR. PEREZ: No, excuse me. Iron is an atom lead is an atom and
behaves the same everywhere. Making it into ferric iron... That is, the condition
of the iron versus de valence depends on the acidity of the soil. And in karst soil,
where you have a combination of water and
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500263
-------
51
Organic matter, the acid is formed which creates the caves and the caverns.
That is why the water runs beneath it, because it acidified it. And that is where
the iron forms and becomes available. And this is science, and not "a case by
case story." That is how nature behaves.
MR. FONT: Gosh, we are not debating your argument nor is it our interest
to do so. We only talked by specific experiences in other places, not necessary
that it is here. But we can continue talking.
But going back to the case we have here, is there any other
question?
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: We appreciate your statements right? All statements
are valid. And I understand your concern. And later I am going to ask you to give
me your e-mail to put it in our mailing list of the agency, because well for us it is
very important to keep in contact with the communities, and most of all well,
when there are a series of groups -right- formed.
I am going to ask that if you have any other question...
Yes, please come forward and tell us your name, and don't forget
for the record. Name and well, your statement.
I believe it is not on.
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Ok. Excuse me.
MRS. REYES: Yes, good evening.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500264
-------
52
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Good evening. God bless you all. Really well
the information that has been brought is very good for everyone, but let's get to
the point.
MRS. REYES: Yes.
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Uh... perhaps, my question is, would
practically be the conclusion of the talk here...we have had. The question
is...rather two. When...Because I arrived a bit late. When you were talking
about the different alternatives available to correct the problem we, the residents
of Rio Abajo have.
I believe it was said...four were mentioned and of those four, I
believe there is one already which practically does not count...
MRS. REYES: The proposed alternative.
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Amen, excuse me, yes, exactly. Alternatives,
exactly. But I believe there is one...ah, no. I believe it is number 2, which is the
most feasible for everyone, be it as to cost and the manner of how to handle it.
The question is, pursuant to the prior experiences, how long do you
think it is going to take... uh...well from the start of the process until its conclusion
that you can say: "Okay, Rio Abajo is now free of all contamination"? I ask you
because although I don't know if it is pertinent, but like many people know in this
community, many ...eh...we have the problem that we don't have title to the
property and then, one of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500265
-------
53
Obstacles put by the...that agency specifically are you. That I understand that
no, because already, well, from prior experiences, I know that EPA has nothing
to do with the property titles and that they do not ...put any obstacles, but that is
the information they give us, I believe that is a way of passing the buck.
MRS. REYES: That would be the Housing Department?
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Housing Department. It hides behind EPA
saying it is EPA the one ...who does not want this. And I understand that it is
not... that EPA has nothing to do with that, but since that is the information they
give us.
The last information I had with them, when I met with them was that
until EPA -you—conclude the full clean-up process, etcetera well they will not
proceed. Then I ask you, more or less when do you think this would be ready?
MRS. REYES: Who answers this?
MRS. MORALES OTERO: Santa Morales Otero.
MR. FONT: I recognize by what you say that you were not at the
beginning of our talk. Only as a review, once we select the alternative finally,
after going through this public comments process and the record of decision is
issued...
I don't know... Can you hear me... ?
Okay. Thank you very much. Okay.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500266
-------
54
Once we complete this process of finally selecting the alternative,
once the process of public comments concludes and of public participation and
the record of decision is issued, we go on to a process of design of the remedy,
design how that remedy is to be implemented. Part of what Nancy was
explaining is that during this design process additional samples shall be taken in
some areas which include properties where there was no prior access ...or
access was impossible to take these samples.
After the remedy is designed then we go on to the implementation
of the remedy and the construction of this remedy. Right now we have no time
established for...of how long this is going to take, but certainly it is a process that
takes a couple of years before having the physical construction of the remedy.
Now then, with regard to the property tiles I want well only to
emphasize that the process of property titles is not part of the EPA's process.
EPA is not involved in this property title. Those are other —, well, that belong to
the Family Department and which are external to this process we are conducting
right now.
(Pause.)
MRS. REYES: Yes, she, excuse me. Excuse me. Nancy is
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500267
-------
55
going to say something.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I wanted to add that... Yes, the next step is the
detailed design obviously of the alternative selected, of the final alternative,
which is included in the record of the decision.
Once the record of the decision is published, if it is correct, we go
on to the design. But before that happens there is a legal part which is the one, at
times that brings a bit of uncertainty as to how long it takes between EPA and the
parties responsible for negotiation how it is going to happen, how we are going to
move the participation of the parties responsible in the part of the design and
implementation. And this could delay the process a bit, because a short
negotiation could occur, and perhaps not. And once it is negotiated, once that
legal document is signed, it is then that the responsible parties start the design.
And then we shall be finalizing the details and have a ...let's say a better
estimate of when, then, we would be starting the work.
MRS. REYES: The gentleman has requested a turn.
Remember to state your name and surname.
MR. GUTIERREZ JAIME: My name is Disrael Gutierrez Jaime and I live
in Villa Pinares and I regret having arrived a bit late to this presentation. I was
unable to hear it all, but I read the four alternatives I have here, in... in...here
present. And I have one concern. Because first I heard, in
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500268
-------
56
part of the statements of...about the alternatives and I know that you are gong to
decide, but I am going to try to, as resident here, that the alternative chosen be
the one that is cost beneficial to the health. That is, the safest for the residents
who are going to remain here.
And I was looking like browsing and from my experience in Villa
Pinares, when it rains, this subsoil...I am not...My preparation is in philosophy.
But I have seen that the subsoil, the water it suctions. And was looking in some
of the alternatives, that if they remove the contaminated area, to leave it in the
same ... in situ, as they say in the same place, well, I know that... if whether... I
don't know if they are going to cover that with cement or something at any time,
with the water, that...that could percolate and affect the well that...mine, where I
take water is in Villa Pinares, in the...in the bottom and ...and only well I wanted
to state that, that the alternative chosen be the one ...that will be cost beneficial
to the health of the residents here.
MRS. REYES: Thank you very much.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: I am going to leave it there.
MRS. REYES: Nancy, you are going to answer him.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we wanted... I wanted well to tell you that we
are basically with you and we...one of the criteria...and basically, the first criteria
is that the alternative be...complies with the protection of human health and the
environment. We would not chose an
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500269
-------
57
alternative only based on costs, put the health at risk.
As I had mentioned, there are nine criteria. Cost is one of them.
But the same as you, we would not choose an alternative that was not protective.
Also, it is a collaborative effort. EPA does not impose the
alternative. Simply we state which is the one preferred and you, the community,
are part of the selection process. It is due to this that it is after the comments
period that the final decision is made as to the place. The same as the agency of
the state which is also a part of this selection process and of the approval of the
alternative.
MRS. REYES: Yes?
MR. PEREZ: Yes, well hello. I forgot an important point. How many of
you are without water with some frequency in Vega Baja?
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: All the time.
MR.PEREZ: However you...between Rio Indio according to Moe Nimelly
(phonetic) Freytes, between Rio Indio and Rio Grande of Manati, there is a
greater recharge of the aquifer of the north coast. That is, you are over the water
and you are left without water. That, with regard to a "codiferendo" which I forgot
to bring up, when in... between 2003 and 2005, we went to some public hearings
for a construction to be carried out in an area where it could not be constructed
according to Natural Resources, we found in the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500270
-------
58
Documents that... I don't remember the order, but Vega Baja and Manati, there
was being extracted from this aquifer between the sixty, on one side, in a
municipality and eighty percent in the other of just this aquifer.
Recently, in another place in which VIDAS intervened for a project
that... by... fact and law, should not have been given the permit, we have
certified letters form the Aqueduct Authority saying that no more than what is
being extracted can be taken out, in millions of gallons daily, from this...from this
aquifer, over which all of you live, over which all of us live here and precisely on
the land to the south of Villa Pinares, Vega Sereno, the project proposed that
they have just recently approved its location, despite having been detained two
years by our opposition grounded scientifically, they are lands which sink, that
which Disraeli point out, which is part of the group OCUPAS and VIDAS, is
scientifically correct.
That is, that is why the aquifer is reloaded because... and we have
images here, scientific about that and observations on the land, it is because the
soil are layers of sand. You know the sand when the waves come, it goes all
down and part goes back. That is what we have here. They are elastic soils
which expand and contract and underneath they have layers of sand rich in
silica, to the south of Villa Pinares.
What happens if we seal those lands?
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500271
-------
59
The aquifer is not reloaded that way, and there are seven sinkholes there, next to
Las Bolinas which they are going to seal.
At the same time, they are fifteen hundred houses extracting eighty
gallons daily per person, which is what Aqueduct estimates.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Is that the new development?
MR. PEREZ: Yes. What this means is that, if it is already saturated, no
more water can be provided, one of the issues mentioned by the gentleman is
complied, which would contaminate the water more.
And second, we would loose the capacity of reloading the aquifer,
which is already...there would be less than that available, but with more houses.
And third, do you know what happens when you...we extract more
water from the aquifer than what flows? It is like a river. If we take out the water,
then water form the sea comes in. And we have images here also showing the
point where it meets under the aquifer, the saline intrusion which in Barceloneta,
in 84, passed to the south of Road 2 and what we extracted was saltwater.
What happens if the aquifer becomes saline by all of this? Besides
the existing conditions to contaminate in the manner of creating cancer, would
be, for more than twenty years, if... if the aquifer is reloaded, it would take a long
time to expel the saline intrusion and we would not have water. Not sometimes,
but when it is drawn it was going to be saltwater. That is the importance of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500272
-------
60
the regulatory agency for the prevention of damages to the environment.
If the resources are good and give us service, like water, well then
to damage them for the benefit of any company or any development does not
benefit the common pie, as stated by the Constitution, Article 6, Section 19. That
in light of that constitutional mandate is that the organic laws of regulatory
agencies are created in Puerto Rico. And that is what we are appealing to.
That is, the conditions exist, yes, with the lead, to be carcinogenic
and toxic. The other conditions, if projects continue to be approved in this area,
so that there is a risk to public safety, that is another matter, I am not going to
continue elaborating because of the time, but I also want to vote, as Disraeli
Gutierrez indicates, that if the company was able to generate its private income
at the cost of damaging the environment, there is a federal law RCRA, whoever
soils must clean-up. And if they were good to it, its company, to generate the
income, it should be good to clean up what it soiled. Thank you very much.
MRS. REYES: Thank you for your statement.
Precisely the superfund program is designed so that whoever soils cleans-
up and the agency is empowered to recuperate the costs of the clean-up up to
three times, if necessary. And I appreciate well the statements. I know that some
- right?—are of jurisdiction of the state; the issue of permits which concerns
jurisdiction of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500273
-------
61
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its regulatory agencies, but I believe that in
many of its issues I believe that ...the must be taken, perhaps, to Natural
Resources.
MR. PEREZ: Yes, but I also spoke to...
MRS. REYES: Yes.
MR. PEREZ: ...Carl Soderberg and coincidentally...
MRS. REYES: Yes.
MR. PEREZ: Since this is recorded right? Greetings to Dr. Carl
Soderberg. I remember that when we went to the encounter of the federal Coral
Reef Task Force, that was held now, in 2009 at the Caribe Hilton, we talked
about this matter. Another person talked about this type of thing, of permit issue
"I don't have jurisdiction," with...he replied correctly, from EPA, for the use of
land. But it results that for water, yes. And in the measure that an action impacts
the water for human consumption, which is what we are raising here, the aquifer
becomes saline, a vital resource, nothing is more important than water - forget
about the light - there is no life without water.
Mr. Carl Soderberg, there is material here to have jurisdiction that
they do not seal the reloading zone of the aquifer and that they do not... and
there the use of the land does not have to enter into jurisdiction. Simply, all the
studies indicate since the 80s. That is why the Law was created to protect the
karst of 1999, Act No. 292, in 1984, 85, the protection of the caves, caverns and
sinkholes and they are
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500274
-------
62
Planning to fill them up and it is going to impact the water. They are laws of
Puerto Rico, but they are going to impact the water.
Well the Environmental Quality Board to take jurisdiction and EPA
who could assume jurisdiction, because if they make the water saltwater there is
no water available. That is the challenge. Thank you very much.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: We shall bring your issue to the attention of Mr.
Soderberg.
Ah and that the comment has been noted for the process, but we
shall bring your issue to engineer Soderberg.
Does anyone have any additional question about today's
presentation?
MRS. CALDER: My name is Avia Calder. When are you going to start?
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We can't hear.
MRS. CALDER: When are you going to start?
OK. When are you going to start the clean-up...eh...and how
long...and what happens with the houses that are not contaminated with —
(unintelligible - speaks without a microphone).
MRS. REYES: She wants to know what happens with the residences that
do not have all the land contaminated, but there are spots that are contaminated.
Nancy, you answer.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, basically well it takes us time because now well
we move to the record of decision and from the negotiation with the parties
responsible to the design of the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500275
-------
63
Place, that once we have the design and we have all ...the details of the... in the
... alternative which is selected, we would then be addressing you again to let
you know the details of...specifics, both of the entry, exist of trucks, all those
details, both of the specific areas where we are going to be excavating. But
these areas which basically have patches within the residences, basically, are
going to be excluded... it is going to be included in the part of the design.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: —(unintelligible; speaks without a microphone).
MRS. REYES: Well, I inform you that whenever we have a superfund site
like this one - and I have worked with Nancy in other cases also-, we inform the
community when we are going to start and we visit door to door, we distribute a
flyer, we always contact the community leaders and they are informed, in
advance, what is the manner in which the clean-up will proceed or the action
being carried out in the community. But we always let them know in advance.
So that you will have...you will see a flyer or we will knock on your
door.
Any question? Yes?
Remember to state your name.
MRS. GARCIA: Yes, my name is Nydia Garcia, Mrs.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500276
-------
64
Nydia Garcia. My question is for you what does long-term risk mean. When you
say long-term risk to the persons who live here, how many years does that mean
to you? Long-term.
MR. FONT: Yes, I see that this, this term always raises doubts and this is
not the exception. I mentioned it, when I made a brief introduction, before the
questions and answers, that there is imminent risk to the public health. That is
immediate. That is why, in these plac...in this neighborhood, we removed soil
contaminated at concentrations we understood were sufficiently high to represent
an immediate risk.
Now, when we look long-term, we look at thirty years. Normally, it
is the risk that could exist if the person is exposed... Allow me, allow me to
explain. If a person is exposed, throughout the years, to these concentrations.
And from there are obtained certain values of risks and we work back to
eliminate and take them to acceptable levels.
That is that when we talk long-term it is if you reside in your house,
we are ensuring that, from here onward and hereinafter, you must not suffer
adverse effects to public health, because we are looking long-term. At long-term.
At short-term it would be if I determine that the
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500277
-------
65
concentration is excessively high, perhaps I have to remove it, it is already too
high. Or I have to take action or remove soil. But here we are talking about
prospectively making sure that should you reside there for a long period, make
sure that you are not going to receive any adverse effect. And that is what we
are...that is what we mean.
And the clean-up is not at thirty years, they just...said here. The
clean-up is done immediately. These are engineering works, removal of soil,
consolidation....This does not take a long time. Perhaps, a negotiation. But
these actions are carried out with...with certain immediacy, that I don't believe it
is going to take long.
(Pause.)
MRS. GARCIA: Those lands that you plan to clean up now...
MRS. REYES: What is your name?
MRS. GARCIA: Nydia Garcia. The land you plan to clean now, because
they appear on the map like they are contaminated, there are persons who live
there, for more than fifty years, more or less, about that, because there are many
persons there... That is, these persons who have already been there, let's say
dealing with those lands since then, what would happen to those persons who
have been there for a long time with that contamination? Because little by little
the glass fills up.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500278
-------
66
MR. FONT: Yes, she ask... the... the issue of the neighbor is that there are
persons who have been living there for a long time and she is concerned,
legitimately, what could happen to them, who have been living there for a long
time.
Well look this matter of the risk studies provides certain
hypothetical scenarios. For example, when the risk is being evaluated, one goes
and seeks the highest concentration found in the whole neighborhood and one
assumes that every person who lives there is going to be exposed to that. Then,
one looks at that prospectively towards the future.
Therefore, what I am saying is they are conservative hypothetical
scenarios. They assume the worst of the situations for alls and each one of you
and based on that, decision are made. And those decisions are so to ensure that
the health is protected.
We go into this science of risk studies, which is pretty complicated.
It is not understood, but I am doing everything possible here to try to explain this
in a clear and precise manner so that we may effectively be well-grounded.
Any other question?
MRS. REYES: Come forward and tell us your name and surname for the
record.
MRS. PEREZ: Everyone here knows me.
MRS. REYES: But to record it, we need it.
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500279
-------
67
MRS. PEREZ: My name is Marta Perez. I have a concern... I have a
concern, because my lot, was cleaned, but by parts, because the neighbor well
started cleaning with a machine and it affected my...my lot. Then, there was the
obligation to clean my... my lot, but it was not completely...completely clean.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Let me see if I understand correctly. The neighbor
removed soil and deposited it on your lot.
MRS. PEREZ: No, no, no, no. No, no, no. He started to clean the lot on
the back. What happened? He brought a machine and then, he started to gather
up the waste. It affected my lot. It was obligatory to clean, because there was a
very high mountain. Then they cleaned part. The other, half, they did not clean it.
And they continue with they will be back.
MRS. REYES: Nancy or Ariel.
MR. FONT: Marta, I recommend if possible that you stay at the end of the
meeting, so that you meet with Nancy and go over the map, to see which is your
property specifically and discuss your particular situation one on one with Nancy,
about the problem, okay?
MRS. REYES: Thank you.
Any additional question?
Well then, if there is no additional question, I remember that there are
certain...
Yes, yes, you may approach here and see the map where
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500280
-------
68
all the lots and all the properties are here.
To conclude I thank you for your time, for being here. I know we all
have things to do and families to take care of. I remind you that the documents
are in Caribbean University here in Vega Baja, on Road 661 and intersection with
Road Number 2, in City Hall, on the second floor, in our EPA offices in San Juan,
in Santurce, on Ponce de Leon Avenue, where we will very gladly assist you.
They are also at the Environmental Quality Board and in EPA's office in New
York.
We greatly appreciate all your time...
You have...? Yes, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: —(unintelligible, speaks without a microphone).
MRS. REYES: Nancy, by Internet, whether the documents may be
accessed on the Internet.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: The documents are...eh...electronic they are going
to be available, but not...right now, they are not in...so that... I imagine that from
your home you may access them. We would have to work on that. They are in
Caribbean University, electronically, the same as in EPA, the Environmental
Quality Board, they are going to be electronically.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: The otherwas...
MRS. REYES: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: ... if there are co... .the copy that
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500281
-------
69
I got is in English and I understand it, but my wife is not here and she does not, if
there was a possibility to access something in Spanish.
MRS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes, we have...we distributed here an informative
flyer. It is a more resumed flyer as to the information of the proposed plan, but
the proposed plan in Spanish is going to be available in the repositories.
MRS. REYES: I remind you to sign the attendance sheet and well, if you
want to leave your e-mail and remember you have until August 29 to submit your
comments with regard to the proposed plan, of this superfund site.
Thank you very much. We appreciate the...
Yes? Yes? Tell me.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: Some years back, they tested the children, but
those children are no longer children. Those children have children. And fat ones.
And they are growing in the same place they grew up. And many of them...you
know, were not tested because they are outside of the age. But they are raising
their children here. So, what is going to be done with them, the new ones here?
(Pause.)
MR. FONT: Yes, the study to establish the risk for the concentrations of
lead in soil, the study which was
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500282
-------
70
made to establish the risk presented by the lead concentrations as was explained
by Nancy was a specific study in this place. And this study is a mathematical
equation that to put it simply, what it does is establish... it uses the concentrations
of lead in dust, the concentrations of lead in drinking water and the
concentrations of lead in soil to evaluate the probability that it exceeds the
acceptable levels of lead in the blood.
That is that the data for us to make the decision of the level of lead
which we are going to clean was based on the data of the dust in the residences
and the drinking water. From there, we extrapolate to see how much can be
accepted of the lead level in soil without it presenting a risk.
That is that indirectly the...the... .the mathematical formula provides
as a constant a number already given, which is the maximum level of lead which
should be allowed to a population to be acceptable and that does not present a
risk.
(Pause.)
MRS. REYES: Okay? I want to thank you for your time once again, as I
stated for having come tonight. Thank you very much.
(The proceedings are concluded.)
***************
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500283
-------
71
CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER
I, Luis Garcia, E.R. Reporter, member of FASYO Reporters, CERTIFY:
That the preceding constitutes the true and exact transcript of the
recording made during the public hearing held, in the place and on the date
indicated on page one of this transcript.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 20, 2010.
LUIS GARCIA
E.R. Reporter
FAYSO REPORTERS - English and Spanish
510 Octavio Marcano Street Urb. Roosevelt
San Juan PR 00918 (787) 767-593 447-8858
500284
------- |