FOURTH FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT FOR

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE

GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO

Prepared by

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region II

New York, New York

~G:2IJr------]l-:---~;(-~------------------

Pat Evangelista, Acting Director Date

Superfund and Emergency Management Division

2

Contents

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms................................................................................................. 3

I Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4

Site Background .......................................................................................................................... 4

II Response Action Summary ..................................................................................................... 5

Basis for Taking Action .............................................................................................................. 5

Response Action Summary ......................................................................................................... 7

Remedial Action Objectives ................................................................................................... 7

Selected Remedy ..................................................................................................................... 7

Status of Implementation ............................................................................................................ 8

Institutional Controls .............................................................................................................. 9

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................... 9

III Progress Since Last Five-Year Review ................................................................................. 10

IV Five-Year Review Process .................................................................................................... 11

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews ........................................................ 11

V Technical Assessment ........................................................................................................... 13

VI Issues/Recommendations ................................................................................................. 14

VII Protectiveness Statement ........................................................................................................ 15

VIII Next Review ........................................................................................................................ 15

3

List of Abbreviations & Acronyms

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act CIC Community Involvement Coordinator EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GPM Gallons per Minute MCL Maximum Contaminant Level μg/l Micrograms per Liter NCP National Contingency Plan NPL National Priorities List OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OU Operable Unit PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCE Tetrachloroethylene PRASA Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority RA Remedial Action RD Remedial Design RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Record of Decision RPM Remedial Project Manager SAMP Sampling, Analysis and Monitoring Plan SDA Soil Disposal Area TCE Trichloroethylene TI Technical Impracticability

4

I Introduction

The purpose of a five-year review (FYR) is to evaluate the implementation and performance of a remedy to determine if the remedy is and will continue to be protective of human health and the environment. The methods, findings, and conclusions of reviews are documented in FYR reports such as this one. In addition, FYR reports identify issues found during the review, if any, and document recommendations to address them.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing this FYR report pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Section 121, 42 U.S.C. §9621, consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Section 300.430(f)(4)(ii) and considering EPA policy.

This is the fourth FYR for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Superfund Site (Site), located in Guayama, Puerto Rico. The triggering action for this policy review is the completion date of the previous FYR on September 23, 2014. The FYR has been prepared due to the fact that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure (UU/UE). The Site consists of one operable unit (OU) that will be addressed in this FYR. This OU addresses the contaminated soil and groundwater.

This FYR for the Site was led by Adalberto Bosque, Remedial Project Manager (RPM), Kathryn Flynn, Hydrogeologist, Julie McPherson, Risk Assessor and Charles Nace, Risk Assessor, as well as the state agency representative, Amarilis Rodriguez, Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB). The Fibers Group, a group of potentially responsible parties at the Site, was notified of the initiation of the FYR. The review began on October 1, 2018.

Site Background

The Site is located approximately one mile southwest of Guayama in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Figure 1). The Site is situated along Highway 3 approximately two miles north of the Caribbean Sea. The total area of the Site encompasses about 540 acres, including a former fiber manufacturing plant, the Baxter facility, a former sugar cane field and five closed public water supply wells owned by the Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority (PRASA). Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Company currently operates a pharmaceutical packaging plant in the former fibers manufacturing plant.

In the past, agricultural, industrial, and institutional facilities were immediately surrounding the Site. An electrical substation and a government correctional facility operate near the Site. Residential development is limited in the area. The area south of the Site (on State Road PR No. 3) was historically a sugar cane field. There is no current business use of the property. This area is undeveloped and overgrown with weeds, grass and other vegetation. The current groundwater extraction and treatment system (GWETS) is located on this area of the Site. No specific future use is being contemplated at this time

Groundwater on the Site is currently used for industrial applications (equipment cooling) by the Baxter and AWPI manufacturing facilities. The production wells currently in use at these facilities

5

are located upgradient of the plumes. Groundwater from the former sugar cane field portion of the Site, once used by PRASA for drinking water, is not being used.

PRASA installed five public water supply wells south of PR Route No. 3 in 1966. Due to taste and odor complaints, the water was tested by PRASA, the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and EPA at various times and found to contain volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene (PCE). By 1983, four of the five PRASA wells were removed from service. The Site was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL) in September 1983 and finalized on the list in September 1984.

Five-Year Review Summary Form

II Response Action Summary

Basis for Taking Action

The five PRASA wells, which are located south of PR Route No. 3, were constructed in 1966 to provide drinking water to the residents of the Salinas-Guayama area and were constructed prior to

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site Name: Fibers Public Supply Wells Superfund Site

EPA ID: PRD980763783

Region: 2 State: PR City/County: Guayama

SITE STATUS

NPL Status: Final

Multiple OUs? No

Has the site achieved construction completion? Yes

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: EPA If “Other Federal Agency” was selected above, enter Agency name:

Author name (Federal or State Project Manager): Adalberto Bosque

Author affiliation: EPA

Review period: 2014-09-23 - 2019-08-23

Date of site inspection: 2019-06-07

Type of review: Policy

Review number: 4

Triggering action date: 2014-09-23

Due date (five years after triggering action date): 2019-09-23

6

the initiation of manufacturing at the FIC facility. Water samples obtained by the USGS in June 1982 and in January and February 1983, indicated that water from PRASA Well No. 2 contained three organic compounds above detection limits. The PRASA Wells were sampled by EPA in January and February 1983. Volatile organics were found in four of the wells at concentrations up to 2,100 μg/L and subsequently PRASA Well Nos. 2, 4 and 5 were also removed from service. PRASA Well No. 1, which was not found to be contaminated, was set as a backup for potable water use in the PRASA system, but eventually was closed as well. The nature and extent of the soil and groundwater contamination at the Site were assessed and documented in the October and November 1990 remedial investigation (RI) reports. The RIs found that soil and sediment samples collected from the former wastewater settling lagoons, former stormwater retention area, and Soil Disposal Area (SDA) contained low levels for VOCs, in particular, tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE). The SDA area was found to contain elevated levels of chromium, cadmium, PCBs, and asbestos. Groundwater samples collected and evaluated indicated that Sitewide groundwater was impacted by VOCs, including PCE, TCE, 1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,2,2 -tetrachloroethane, vinyl chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and trichlorofluoromethane. PCE, however, was the principal organic contaminant underlying and downgradient of the Site at concentrations ranging from 0.48 μg/L to 240 μg/L. Elevated metals were detected in unfiltered samples; however, based on monitoring well pumping history and high solid particulate content, these samples were not representative of aquifer conditions. Subsequent samples were filtered, and it was determined that metals in groundwater did not exceed their respective Federal/Commonwealth maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The Baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was conducted and the following exposure current and future use scenarios were evaluated: exposure to contaminants from ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact of contaminated surface soils at the SDA; and ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact exposure to contaminated groundwater beneath the Site as a source of potable water. The potentially exposed populations in all cases were the residents (adults and children) of the neighborhoods surrounding the Site and industrial workers within the study area. The HHRA concluded that ingestion of groundwater posed an unacceptable risk for carcinogens for future Site residents and future Site workers/employees. Risk analysis results for the SDA and lagoon soils indicated that adverse health effects are not anticipated for site workers or adolescent trespassers. Ecological risks were not evaluated as part of this RI/FS. In October of 1990, during the RI, Anaquest Caribe, Inc. (one of the PRPs) advised EPA that, Isoflurane and Enflurane were detected in a nearby downgradient facility wells at concentrations of up to 786 micrograms per Liter (µg/L). These chemicals are hazardous substances pursuant to CERCLA, belonging to the halogenated ether family. In addition, these hazardous substances were detected in Anaquest wells approximately 100 feet from the study area, in the same aquifer in which the solvents were detected. The source of haloethers was attributed to three sumps near the Anaquest Caribe, Inc., wastewater treatment system and actions were taken to remove the sumps and impacted soils.

7

Response Action Summary

The basis for EPA’s clean-up decision is documented in its September 30, 1991 ROD for the site.

Remedial Action Objectives

The goal of the cleanup action at the Site is to restore the groundwater to its beneficial uses (or health-based levels) within a reasonable timeframe. The remediation goals are to achieve MCLs. The ROD also states that, in the event that the remediation program indicates that reaching MCLs in the aquifer is technically impracticable, EPA may invoke a technical waiver of the groundwater ARARs.

Selected Remedy

The 1991 ROD selected the following remedy:

Groundwater remedy

• pumping groundwater from recovery wells;

• treatment of groundwater by air stripping and particulate/sediment filtration;

• discharge of treated groundwater to the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) irrigation canal or other beneficial use;

• long term groundwater monitoring;

• chloride monitoring to evaluate potential salt water intrusion; and

• treatment system monitoring program of influent and effluent.

Soil remedy

• air monitoring for dust control and worker health and safety;

• excavating soil and debris in the SDA;

• segregating soil and debris into stockpiles for asbestos containing material (ACM) and non-ACM material;

• transporting and disposing ACM at an authorized off-site landfill;

• post-excavation sampling;

• and restoration of the SDA.

8

Status of Implementation

In September 1992, potentially responsible parties, Anaquest Caribe, Inc., Phillips Petroleum Company, American Home Products Corporation, and Chevron Chemical Company, entered into a Consent Decree wherein they agreed to perform the cleanup selected by EPA and reimburse past and future expenses of the United States government. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the removal of the contaminated soils at the SDA was completed in January 1994.

After the issuance of the ROD, a separate release occurred at the Baxter Caribe facility. In 1998, elevated concentrations of acetone were detected in three monitoring wells that are part of the Site’s well network. Due to the detection of acetone in several monitoring wells, the deep recovery well and two shallow source control wells were not converted to extraction wells on the Baxter Caribe property. Instead, an Acetone Bioremediation System was installed to treat extracted groundwater at the Baxter Caribe facility. The Acetone Bioremediation System included groundwater extraction from two pumping wells and groundwater treatment in an air stripper, fixed film bioreactor, and diffused aerator tank. The Acetone Bioremediation System treated both haloether and acetone groundwater contaminants. Baxter Caribe received approval from the EPA on August 12, 2002 to shut down the bioremediation system, and to shut down the treatment facility on August 26, 2002.

Operation of the main groundwater pump and treat system, as per the ROD, initially commenced in May 1999. Groundwater was extracted from four wells (RW 1, RW 2, RW 3 and RW 4) at a combined rate of approximately 450 gallons per minute (gpm). The Preliminary Close Out Report was issued on September 1999 and, as such, construction completion was accomplished in FY 1999. The Interim Remedial Action Report was signed in September 2000, consequently a Remedial Action completion was accomplished in FY 2000.

The groundwater has been treated by air stripping and conveyed to the former discharge point of the previous Chevron Phillips Chemical Puerto Rico Core (CPCPRC) facility, known as the Phillips Ditch. Groundwater was pumped from four recovery wells, instead of the five recovery wells specified in the ROD, due to the operation of the Baxter Acetone Bioremediation System discussed above. After the shutdown of the Baxter Acetone Bioremediation System, a new extraction well was installed in June 2003 in the area with the highest haloether concentrations, in the vicinity of monitoring well PCMW 5, located downgradient of the former Baxter system. It was expected that the location of this well would provide more effective capture of haloethers in groundwater than the former recovery wells used with the Baxter system, MW 10-90 and MW 17-90. Three wells were operated as the extraction system until 2013. In May 2013, the extraction and treatment system was shut down due to detectable concentrations of VOCs and isoflurane in the system effluent samples. The EPA approved the Fibers Group’s proposal to replace the existing air stripper system in a letter dated January 27, 2014. The new treatment system was placed into service on September 30, 2015.

EPA has conducted two FYRs at the Site. Both reviews concluded that response actions at the Site are in accordance with the remedy selected by EPA and that the remedy continues to be protective of human health and the environment in the short term.

9

Institutional Controls

No institutional controls were identified in the ROD. At the time of the ROD, there were Commonwealth rules and regulations requiring a permit for the installation of wells. Consequently, there did not appear to be a risk that potable water wells would be installed during the period of remediation. The contaminated groundwater plume has been identified and is under control. All nearby water is provided by public water supply. The Commonwealth requirements concerning installation of wells remain in effect. There remains no need to include institutional controls as a component of the remedy at this Site.

Table: Summary of Implemented ICs

System Operations/Operation and Maintenance

Sitewide groundwater monitoring is performed semiannually according to the Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System Sampling, Analysis, and Monitoring Program (Arcadis, 2015). There are 68 monitoring wells and five extraction wells that are sampled. Analytes are VOCs and haloethers.

The EPA approved the Fibers Group’s proposal to replace the existing air stripper in a letter dated January 27, 2014. The Fibers Group worked with a Puerto Rico licensed Professional Engineer during the design and construction process. Such work included coordination with the EQB and the Puerto Rico Permits Management Office (“OGPe," by its Spanish acronym) to comply with the engineering requirements of the January 2014 letter. As part of the systems modification, efforts were made to upgrade other portions of the treatment system compound, including upgrades to electrical and controls systems and construction of a new effluent water pipeline to discharge into the Phillips Ditch. The new air stripper was designed to allow for simple maintenance, as the trays are removable for the cleaning of scale. New electrical instrumentation and controls installed on the system brought the system up to code and allow for remote monitoring with a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system.

Startup and shakedown of the new system was conducted in September 2015. The GWETS returned to service on September 30, 2015 with full system automated operation commencing on October 7, 2015. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the GWETS Operations, Maintenance and Monitoring (OM&M) Manual dated September 30, 2016 (see link to document below) describe the routine activities conducted by ARCADIS (the Fibers Group’s contractor). The frequency of OM&M

Media, engineered controls, and areas that do not support UU/UE based

on current conditions

ICs Needed

ICs Called for in the Decision

Documents

Impacted Parcel(s)

IC

Objective

Title of IC Instrument

Implemented and Date (or

planned)

Groundwater No No Fibers Site

The Commonwealth rules and regulations prohibit groundwater use from the impacted aquifer.

10

activity varies. At a minimum, OM&M includes monthly inspections (inspections are currently occurring on a semi-monthly basis to mitigate scaling issues. Recently, scale build-up in the GWETS and in the discharge pipe have required more frequent manual cleanings to maintain operation of the system. On September 5, 2017, the Fibers Group advised EPA that the system had been removed from service as a precautionary measure in advance of Hurricane Irma making landfall in Puerto Rico. In addition to shutting down the treatment system, ARCADIS secured all items not fastened to the ground inside the treatment compound, anchored down the storage shed, and removed critical instrumentation that could be affected by high wind.

While damage from Hurricane Irma was minimal, a voltage regulator (VR-1) was damaged and required that new parts be ordered from the manufacturer. The parts had to be shipped to the island to return the unit back to service. Prior to returning the GWETS to service, Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico on September 20, 2017. Because of the severe damage caused by Hurricane Maria to the island infrastructure, regional power was down for approximately 3 months. Replacing the voltage regulator required reliable power to be restored to the treatment compound before any repairs could be completed. The GWETS returned to regular service on December 5, 2017. Three groundwater extraction wells, RW-2, RW-4, and RW-5, are operating. Initially the system operated at 300-315 gpm, but the pumping rate in 2019 was 260-270 gpm due to effluent pipe scaling.

Potential site impacts from climate change have been assessed, and the performance of the remedy may be impacted by more frequent and severe hurricanes. The Fibers Group developed a comprehensive Hurricane Response Plan as related to the 2017 hurricanes. The Plan requires preparatory action at the start of each hurricane season, but also specific actions when severe weather watches/warnings have been issued for the island, along with post-weather damage assessments.

EPA is currently working with the PR government and the Fibers group to identify an alternative discharge option that would allow for beneficial use of the treated water.

III Progress Since Last Five-Year Review

The third FYR was completed in September 2014 and found that the remedy for the Site was in place and was protective of human health and the environment in the short-term.

Table: Protectiveness Determinations/Statements from the 2014 FYR

OU # Protectiveness Determination Protectiveness Statement

Sitewide Short-term Protective The remedy at the site currently protects human health and the environment because exposure to contaminated drinking water has been eliminated by providing residents with public water supply. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long-term, pumping activities need to be resumed at a rate that is

11

determined sufficient to inhibit the spread of groundwater contamination.

The following issues and recommendations were identified in the 2014 FYR.

Status of Recommendations from the 2014 FYR

OU # Issue Recommendations Current Status

Current Implementation Status Description

Completion Date (if

applicable)

1 The groundwater pump and treat system is not currently operational.

Resume pumping activities at a rate that is determined sufficient to inhibit the spread of groundwater contamination.

Completed GWETS resumed operation. 12/5/2017

As discussed in the previous section, since the last FYR, activities at the Site were focused on the replacement of the old treatment system with a new one. The previous FYR also indicated that haloethers may not be fully delineated and that the trend in RW4 should be followed for continued decreases. This data is discussed in more detail below.

IV Five-Year Review Process

Community Notification, Involvement & Site Interviews

On October 1, 2018, EPA Region 2 posted a notice on its website indicating that it would be reviewing site cleanups and remedies at 42 Superfund sites in New York and New Jersey, including the Fibers Public Supply Site. The announcement can be found at the following web address: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/fiscal-year-2019-five-year-reviews. Documents related to the Fibers Site can be found at the Site Profile Page at the following web address: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/fibers-public-wells

The administrative record file, which contains copies of the Proposed Plan and supporting documentation, is available at the following locations:

US Environmental Protection Agency, City View Plaza II- Suite 7000, #48 PR-165 Km. 1.2, Guaynabo, PR 00968-8069

12

U.S. EPA Records Center, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866 Town of Guayama Municipal Library located at Derkes Street West End,Guayama, Puerto Rico. No interviews were conducted regarding the remedy.

Data Review

The 68 monitoring wells and five extraction wells that are sampled are screened in the three hydrostratigraphic units at the Site: alluvium, partially weathered rock, and bedrock. The direction of groundwater flow is generally south but is toward the southwest on the Wyeth and Baxter properties.

The 2014 FYR showed that the PCE plume at the Site was delineated and stable, but some downgradient wells showed slightly increasing concentrations of PCE. The haloether plume was not fully delineated. In this review period, the PCE concentrations in many wells declined during the time the GWETS was not operating, from 2013 to 2015. This was possibly related to dechlorination in more reductive conditions, since oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) and dissolved oxygen (DO) declined. PCE concentrations increased in April 2016 after pumping resumed, but since then PCE results at all wells have been stable or decreasing. In the second monitoring event of 2017, the highest PCE concentrations were found at wells PCMW-2 and MW-1B-1BR in the former source area and at extraction well RW-5 (Figure 2). The maximum PCE concentration was an estimated 53.4 ug/l at MW-1B-BR. PCE in the alluvium is restricted to the source area but downgradient the plume extends to the lower units. The extent of the PCE plume is limited by the MW-4D wells on the south side that consistently showing PCE concentrations below 5 ug/l. TCE and cis-1,2-DCE were detected during this period, but no VOCs besides PCE exceeded the standard. The GWETS shutdown had mixed results with respect to the haloether contamination, with many wells exhibiting increased concentrations of haloether compounds and slightly more wells exhibiting decreased concentrations. Isoflurane and haloether 508 are the haloethers most frequently detected at the Site. The current default guideline values of 50 ug/l for an individual VOC and 100 ug/l for a total VOCs are assigned for haloethers. Isoflourane was stable or decreasing at most wells since the GWETS resumed. Well PCMW-5 had the maximum isoflurane concentration in the previous review and had declined below the standard in this period. However, isoflurane is elevated above 50 ug/l at the three operating extraction wells and increased to above 100 ug/l at FMW-4-20 and FMW-4-90 in 2017 (Figure 3). FMW-4-20 and FMW-4-90 are southwest of the extraction well RW-2 in the former cane field. Based on the recent data, the plume does not extend beyond the MW-4D wells on the south side of the site, but the extent to the southwest is unknown.

The highest haloether 508 concentrations occur in AN-1, FMW-5-90, OW-1, and the extraction wells (Figure 4). The maximum concentration at AN-1 during this period was 319 ug/l in 2014,

13

compared to 605 ug/l in the previous review. There are no elevated haloether 508 concentrations in the bedrock wells. Haloether 508 concentrations at most wells have been stable or decreasing since the GWETS resumed operation, with the exception of OW-1 and RW-2. The haloether 508 plume does appear to be fully delineated by existing wells showing concentrations below the standard.

The chloride monitoring data did not show saltwater intrusion during this period. The most recent result was 73.2 mg/l chloride at FMW-6-90 in January 2018. All concentrations in this period were below the 250 mg/l secondary drinking water standard. The operation of the extraction system did not seem to affect the observed chloride concentrations. Site Inspection

A site inspection was conducted on June 7, 2019 as part of this FYR. In attendance were Adalberto Bosque, EPA RPM, Omar Santiago, PREQB, Mariangely Alemán, PREQB and Joe Biss, Fibers Group. The purpose of the inspection was to evaluate the protectiveness of the remedy.

The site inspection revealed that the treatment system is fully operational.

V Technical Assessment

Question A: Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?

The remedy is functioning as intended by the ROD signed on September 30, 1991.

The groundwater data evaluated in this FYR shows that the PCE is decreasing. The haloether 508 and isoflurane concentrations are also decreasing, but the full extent of the isoflurane plume has not been determined. The GWETS shutdown from 2013-2015 appears to have contributed to lower PCE concentrations but did not have a conclusive effect on the haloether trends.

Question B: Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?

The exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives were reviewed in the previous FYR (2014) and were found to be valid. Based on the review of current data and Site conditions, the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action objectives are still valid. There are currently no completed exposure pathways for humans.

Groundwater: Groundwater use at the Site is not expected to change during the next five years. Commonwealth regulations prevent the installation of groundwater extraction wells without government approval. The land use considerations and potential exposure pathways considered in the baseline human health risk assessment are still valid. The ROD identified federal/state MCLs as cleanup levels for groundwater. For those contaminants that have MCLs, these cleanup levels are still appropriate.

14

c. Vapor Intrusion

There have been no changes in the conclusions from the previous FYR that further evaluation of vapor intrusion is not necessary at this point. This pathway should be evaluated during the next FYR to ensure that conditions, such as the construction of new buildings, have not changed.

d. Ecological Risk

No ecological risk assessment was conducted for the Site at the time the ROD was issued. However, through the course of the remedial actions taken at the Site, any potentially completed pathways have been interrupted and there are currently no completed pathways for ecological receptors. Given that the contaminated groundwater does not discharge to a surface water body and the contaminated soils were excavated and removed, the potential for exposure to ecological receptors has been eliminated. Since these actions have resulted in interrupting the exposure pathways for ecological receptors, the remedial action objectives used at the time of the remedy are still valid

Question C: Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness of the remedy?

Although the system had minor damage during hurricanes Irma and Maria and the regional electric power was down for approximately 3 months, groundwater data collected since that time does not provide any new information that would call into question the protectiveness of this remedy.

VI Issues/Recommendations

Issues/Recommendations

OU(s) without Issues/Recommendations Identified in the Five-Year Review:

OU(s): OU1 Issue Category: Remedy Performance

Issue: The haloether plume is not fully delineated. Recommendation: Investigate the extent of haloethers.

Affect Current Protectiveness

Affect Future Protectiveness

Party Responsible

Oversight Party Milestone Date

No Yes PRP EPA September 1, 2021

15

VII Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Statement(s)

Operable Unit: 01

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable): Click here to enter date.

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. In order to be protective in the long term, additional delineation of the haloether plume is needed.

Sitewide Protectiveness Statement

Protectiveness Determination: Short-term Protective

Addendum Due Date (if applicable): Click here to enter date.

Protectiveness Statement: The remedy at the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site is protective of human health and the environment in the short term. In order to be protective in the long term, additional delineation of the haloether plume is needed.

VIII Next Review

The next FYR for the Site will be completed by five years from the completion date of this review.

16

FIGURES

CORE PROD-3

CORE PROD-5

BAXTER PRODUCTION WELL

CORE PROD 4

RW-1

RW-2

PRASA NO. 5

PRASA NO. 4

PRASA NO. 3

AWPI-2

AWPI-4

AWPI-5

AWPI-3

RW-5

RW-3

RW-4

SKF-721

SKF-720

CORE PROD 2

CORE PROD 7

CORE DOM 2A

CORE PROD 1A

SKF-722

CORE PROD 6

PRASA NO. 2

AWPI-1

PART 3, CLUSTER A

PART 1, CLUSTER B

PART 1, CLUSTER D

PART 1, CLUSTER A

PART 2, CLUSTER C

PART 1, CLUSTER C

PART 4, CLUSTER B

PART 4, CLUSTER C

PART 4, CLUSTER D

HPT-24-GW

HPT-21-GW

HPT-20-GW

HPT-17

HPT-18-GW

HPT-16

HPT-15

HPT-14

HPT-3-GW

HPT-7-GW

HPT-23-GW

HPT-8-GW

HPT-22-GW

HPT-10-GW

HPT-19-GW

HPT-9-GW

HPT-11-GW

HPT-2

HPT-1-GW

HPT-4-GW

HPT-5-GW

AN-2

FMW-1-20

FMW-1-90

FMW-2-90

FMW-4-20FMW-4-90

FMW-5-90

MW-1

MW-2

MW-6-90

MW-7-20

MW-4-90

MW-3-20

MW-9-90

MW-11-20

MW-10-90

MW-15-90

MW-17-90

MW-19-90

USGS-TW-A2

USGS-TW-C1

USGS-TW-C2

MW-22-90

MW-21-20

FMW-6-90

PCMW-1

PCMW-2

AWPI-MW-1

ES-21

PCMW-4

MW-13-20

MW-BAXTER

MW-18-20

AN-1

PCMW-5

MW-5-90

ES-13

AWPI-MW-2

USGS-TW-A1

FMW-3-90

OW-1

MW-1-20

WH-1

ES-19

FORMER

CANE FIELD

BAXTER

INTERNATIONAL

INC

WYETH LLC

S

T

A

T

E

R

O

A

D

P

.R

N

o

. 3

M

U

N

IC

IP

A

L R

O

A

D

T

O

P

.R

N

o. 3

CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL

PUERTO RICO CORE

AES

FACILITY

TAPI PUERTO

RICO INC

PHILLIPS DITCH

PATILLAS CANAL

GROUNDWATER

TREATMENT SYSTEM

SITE MAP

LEGEND

2

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITE

GUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO

SECOND SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATER

MONITORING REPORT FOR 2017

SOURCES:

FIGURE

Figure 1

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITEGUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO

SECOND SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATERMONITORING REPORT FOR 2017

9

TETRACHLOROETHENE (PCE) IN GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS LOOKING NORTHWEST

(NOV. 2017 - JAN. 2018)FIGURE

LOWER HSU(BEDROCK)

TETRACHLOROETHENE (PCE)

UPPER HSU(ALLUVIUM)

MIDDLE HSU(PARTIALLY

WEATHEREDBEDROCK)

Location

Well Screen and Data Value

Well

NOTES:1. HSU = Hydrostratigraphic Unit2. μg/L = micrograms per liter3. Groundwater data (µg/L) displayed as tubes4. Non-detect data modeled at ½ the Reporting Limit5. Vertical Exaggeration = 20x6. Edge of modeled potentiometric surface shown as

purple line.

Facing Northwest

Groundwater surface

Figure 2

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITEGUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO

SECOND SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATERMONITORING REPORT FOR 2017

21

ISOFLURANE IN GROUNDWATERWELL LOCATIONS LOOKING NORTHWEST

(NOV. 2017 - JAN. 2018)FIGURE

ISOFLURANE

Location

Well Screen and Data Value

Well

Facing Northwest

NOTES:1. HSU = Hydrostratigraphic Unit2. μg/L = micrograms per liter3. Groundwater data (µg/L) displayed as tubes4. Non-detect data modeled at ½ the Reporting Limit5. Vertical Exaggeration = 20x6. Edge of modeled potentiometric surface shown as

purple line.

LOWER HSU(BEDROCK)

UPPER HSU(ALLUVIUM)

MIDDLE HSU(PARTIALLY

WEATHEREDBEDROCK)

Groundwater surface

Figure 3

FIBERS PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS SUPERFUND SITEGUAYAMA, PUERTO RICO

SECOND SEMI-ANNUAL GROUNDWATERMONITORING REPORT FOR 2017

27

HALOETHER 508 IN GROUNDWATER WELL LOCATIONS LOOKING NORTHWEST

(NOV. 2017 - JAN. 2018)FIGURE

HALOETHER 508

Location

Well Screen and Data Value

Well

Facing Northwest

NOTES:1. HSU = Hydrostratigraphic Unit2. μg/L = micrograms per liter3. Groundwater data (µg/L) displayed as tubes4. Non-detect data modeled at ½ the Reporting Limit5. Vertical Exaggeration = 20x6. Edge of modeled potentiometric surface shown as

purple line.

LOWER HSU(BEDROCK)

UPPER HSU(ALLUVIUM)

MIDDLE HSU(PARTIALLY

WEATHEREDBEDROCK)

Groundwater surface

Figure 4

17

Table 1 – Documents, Data, and Information Reviewed in Completing the Five-Year Review

Document Date(s) Record of Decision for the Fibers Public Supply Wells Site, EPA 1991 Fibers Public Supply Wells Superfund Site Third FYR September 23, 2014 First Semi-annual 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report August 28, 2014 Second Semi-annual 2014 Groundwater Monitoring Report February 17, 2015 First Semi-annual 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Report August 5, 2015 Second Semi-annual 2015 Groundwater Monitoring Report February 3, 2016

First Semi-annual 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report October 26, 2016

Second Semi-annual 2016 Groundwater Monitoring Report June 26, 2017

First Semi-annual 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Report January 03, 2018

Second Semi-annual 2017 Groundwater Monitoring Report August 9, 2018

RD/RA Monthly Reports (2015) January- December 2015

RD/RA Monthly Reports (2016) January- December 2016

RD/RA Monthly Reports (2017) January- December 2017

RD/RA Monthly Reports (2018) January- December 2018

RD/RA Monthly Reports (2019) January- May 2019