PUBLIC MEETING SUMMARYJUNCOS LANDFILL SITEJUNCOS, PUERTO RICOJUNCOS CITY HALL

JUNE 5, 1986

INTRODUCTIONThis public meeting summary describes a public meeting held at the City Hallin Juncos, Puerto R1co, on June 5, 1986. The meeting was held 1n two ses-sions. The first session was held from 2:50 p.m. to 4:10 p.m. for localpublic officials; the second session was conducted from 5:50 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.for the general public. The purpose of the meeting was to explain the natureof the site and the scope of remedial Investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)activities that will take place as outlined in the work plan.

SITE HISTORY

The Juncos Landfill 1s an Inactive municipal landfill located 1n theMundpallty of Juncos, Puerto R1co. The site Hes in the Interior of theIsland, approximately 50 kilometers southeast of San Juan.

According to file Information, the landfill was operated by the Municipalityof Juncos from 1957 to 1977. It was closed by the Environmental QualityBoard In 1981. Residential developments have been constructed Immediatelynorth of the site; according to 1984 estimates, approximately 200 homes havebeen constructed or are presently under construction. Domestic water issupplied by the Municipality distribution system; the municipal well field,which consists of 7 wells, 1s located about 3 kilometers from the site.

Although no records are available concerning the types and quantities ofwastes received at the facility, 1t 1s believed that commercial and domesticsolid wastes have been disposed. It 1s also suspected that Industrial wasteshave been disposed at the site, as numerous reports have been filed by thePuerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and the Puerto R1co Departmentof Health (DOH) concerning the alleged disposal of mercury thermometers by theBecton and Dickinson Company.

Under an Administrative Order on Consent issued by the EPA, the Becton andDickinson Company Implemented several corrective actions at the site: (1) thesite has been covered, (2) warning signs have been posted, and (3) a fence hasbeen erected around the site.

oo

ouoNJ•J

/~s PUBLIC MEETIH6 OVERVIEWThe first session of the public meeting was moderated by Mr. Carlos O'Nelll ofthe ERA Caribbean Field Office. The second session was moderated by Mr. PedroGelabert, Director of the ERA Caribbean Field Office. At both sessions, thefollowing Individuals were 1n attendance as part of the presentationconcerning site activities:

• Jose Font — Site Project Manager, EPAe Lillian Johnson -- Community Relations Coordinator, EPA• Anthony Hoppa — Community Relations Specialist, NUS Corporation

(EPA's consultant)t Salvatore Nolfo — Vice-President, VIcom, Inc. (subcontractor to NUS

Corporation)

PRIMARY AREAS OF QUESTIONING (SESSION ONE; PUBLIC OFFICIALS)

Upon Introduction by Mr. O'Nelll, Mr. Gelabert presented a summary of theactivities that have been conducted to date. Mr. Gelabert also explained theadministrative Issues which are Involved 1n site remediation, such as remedialaction funding.

Mr. O'Nelll then Introduced Ms. Johnson, who provided a brief overview of thecommunity relations process, and Mr. Font, who presented the historicalbackground of the landfill, the sampling activities conducted to date, and the*nature of the studies to be undertaken by the Becton and D1ck1nson Company

/—^ (the potentially responsible party). Following the presentation, Mr. Font andother representatives of the EPA answered questions posed by those 1n theaudience.

Responsibilities of Agencies and Parties Involved

Various questions were raised concerning the areas of responsibility for thegovernmental agencies (EPA, Puerto R1co Environmental Quality Board,Department of Housing, and Department of Natural Resources) and the privateparties (Becton and D1ck1nson Company and their technical consultant, Fred C.Hart Corporation) Involved In the project. The Department of NaturalResources suggested that they be consulted 1n regard to monitoring well dril-ling and the corresponding permitting process necessary for such drilling.The timetable and schedule of actlvltes was questioned. The Housing De-partment's projects and related studies on area development, as well as otherstudies and reports conducted by the Fred C. Hart Corporation, were alsoquestioned.

The EPA explained the responsibilities of both the agencies and the privateparties during the remedial Investigation and feasibility study and also aftera remedial alternative has been selected. EPA representatives also explainedthat communication between all Involved parties will be maintained. The atimetable for the remedial Investigation was briefly discussed. It wasannounced that the studies would begin at the end of the summer. The EPA gexpressed Interest 1n obtaining a copy of the report produced by the \>

/#MN Department of Housing and requested the names of Individuals who may be ableto provide Information about that report. °

fo00

" Similarities Between the Juncos Site and Cludad ChristianaQuestions were raised regarding comparisons between the problems at the JuncosSite and the problems at Cludad Christiana (the Frontera Creek Slte)--spedflcally, the new housing construction 1n an area that could be found tobe contaminated.

The EPA explained the role and purpose of community relations and the agency'scommittment to actively Inform Juncos residents of site Information and pro-ject status. The residents were notified that the community relations processfor the Juncos Site would be more effective than the community relationsprocess at Cludad Christiana, 1n that the EPA will be more available to Informcitizens of site activities and to solicit their comments about the project.In addition to explaining the community relations process, the EPA also ex-plained the site remediation process and how 1t occurs under the SuperfundAct.

Remedial Investigation StudiesOne question was raised concerning the sample collection process and whetherthe EPA verifies the samples taken by the Becton and Dickinson Company. Also,the schedule for the remedial Investigation studies was questioned. Anotherresident expressed concern regarding completion of the study 1f the Becton andDickinson Company moved its operation out of Juncos.

EPA personnel explained that the EPA's technical consultant would besupervising all field activities, Including the sampling performed by theBecton and Dickinson Company. The timetable for remedial Investigation activi-ties was discussed and the legal provisions of the Superfund Act weredeta1led--spec1fically, cost recovery. Residents were assured that the studywould be completed even if the Becton and Dickinson Company relocated toanother area.

A detailed transcript of all questions raised during this session can be foundin Attachment No. 1, which 1s appended to this summary.

PRIMARY AREAS OF QUESTIONING (SESSION TWO: GENERAL PUBLIC)

Mr. Pedro Gelabert introduced the mayor of Juncos, the Honorable GilbertoConde Roman; the other EPA representatives in attendance; and therepresentatives of the consultants assisting the EPA. The purpose of theremedial investigation was explained and the Superfund process was detailed.

Mr. Jose Font then proceeded to explain the nature of the site and previoussite investigation activities conducted by the EPA. The activities to beperformed under the remedial Investigation were outlined for the public. £{

.3

ooto

o00

Corauntty Relations ActivitiesQuestions were raised regarding whether the public meeting was publicized Inthe community near the site, whether the public received adequate notice toallow them to make the necessary schedule arrangements to attend the meeting,and whether the EPA will continue to Inform the people living In the vicinityof the site about the contamination problem.

The EPA explained that the meeting was publicized via a loudspeaker systemmounted on a car and through a door-to-door pamphlet distribution campaignconducted one week before the meeting. The EPA also stated that communitymeetings will be held as the remedial Investigation develops.

Extent and Magnitude of Mercury ContaminationSeveral questions were asked regarding the extent of the mercury contaminationat the site and the Impact on the health of residents living near the site.Specific concerns were expressed about the continued construction of new homesIn the area despite the confirmed presence of mercury. Additionally, oneresident was Interested 1n which areas of the site presented the greatest riskto residential areas.

The EPA explained that the agency previously collected air, soil, dust, andbiological samples at the site; the Center for Disease Control (CDC) InAtlanta evaluated the data from these samples and determined that the site didnot present a threat to the public health. EPA reprentatlves also clarifiedthe agency's role 1n assessing public health; the CDC makes the finalrecommendation regarding whether public health 1s 1n jeopardy and the EPA mustabide by the CDC's decision. Because there 1s no Immediate threat, the EPAcannot make any decisions about the housing construction situation; the agencywill perform a remedial Investigation to determine the extent and nature ofthe mercury contamination and, based on the data collected, determine thepotential for further contamination and health risks. The EPA will know whichareas of the site provide the greatest risk after the results of the Investi-gation are studied.

Previous Site InvestigationsSeveral questions were raised regarding previous site Investigations conductedby the EPA since 1981, when, at that time, the Environmental Quality Boardrequested that the EPA study the site. One resident Inquired why the EPA 1snot performing a health study. Another resident questioned why the EPA didn'tget Involved with the contamination problem sooner.

The EPA reviewed the history of the site and the Investigations that havetaken place to date. The actions that have been taken as a result of thoseInvestigations were also highlighted. The EPA explained that the residentsmust request a health study from the health department. In addition, the EPAsummarized the status of the Superfund reauthorlzatlon process.

OO

OU>U)O

InvoTvevent of the Becton and Dlcklnson CompanySeveral questions were asked regarding the Involvement of Becton and DlcklnsonIn the remedial Investigation and whether the ERA was supervising them. Also,residents Inquired about the current operating procedures of the company andwhether 1t Is responsible for the contamination of other sites. It was alsomentioned that the company 1s transferring Its operations 1n September; con-cern was expressed as to who will assist Juncos with the mercury contaminationproblem.

The EPA explained that Its technical consultant will be supervising the workconducted by Becton and Dlcklnson during the remedial Investigation. The EPAalso explained that Becton and Dlcklnson 1s, to the best of the agency'sknowledge, currently disposing wastes according to current regulations.Again, the EPA detailed the legal provisions under the Superfund Act andstated that a company transfer does not relieve that company of Its obliga-tions to clean up the site.

Scope of Work During the Remedial InvestigationSeveral questions were asked regarding technical studies to be performed andthe schedule for such studies.

The EPA explained that the Work Plan for the remedial Investigation wasavailable for public comment and that modifications 1n technical studies maybe made 1n the course of the Investigation. Such modifications could affectthe schedule by extending the completion date.

A detailed transcript of all questions raised during this session can be found1n Attachment No. 2, which 1s appended to this summary.

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE MEETING

The second meeting session was more active than the first, characterized by ahigher degree of audience participation. EPA representatives answered allquestions 1n a thorough and polite manner, at times having to answer the samequestion more than once. The slides used by Mr. Font during his presentationwere an effective visual aid which conveyed site-specific Information (sizeand location of the site, and housing construction 1n the proximity of thesite). A citizen comment revealed that future meetings would better suit theschedules of the public 1f such meetings were held on a Friday or Saturday,when the majority of people are not working.

a3

oo10

ot-0to

Attachment No. 1 June 5,86 (2:55-4:10 p.m.)Public Meeting Summary Juncos Landfill Site Juncos, Puerto Rico

An introduction to the. informal afternoon session. Thespeaker thanks the local authorities for all the helpoffered. He then introduced the Acting Mayor of Juncos, theHonorable Gilbert© Conde Roman.

The mayor welcomed everyone and let them know that heand the municipal government all share their concern for abetter environment.

»

The speaker then introduced Mr. Pedro Gelabert, Directorof the Caribbean Office of the Federal EnvironmentalProtection Board. Mr. Gelabert expressed his pleasure atbeing in Juncos and the EPA's concern for Juncos. He thenpresented a summary of what had been done up to then so that-everyone would be up to date on the investigation and thepossible remedies available. He explained the differentmethods for financing the work: use federal funds or throughthe private entity that would pay for all costs. If federalfunds are used, the federal government would provide 50% ofthe funds and the Puerto Rico government the other 50%.

The members of the group were then introduced.The Coordinator,Carlos O'Neill, introduced Lillian

Johnson, Super Fund Community Relations Coordinator for EPAout of New York.

Ms. Johnson explained what Community Relations are.She stated that this is a process by which the communitybecomes a part of the decision making process. This is doneby holding a meeting like the one being held in Juncos, todiscuss information at significant points of the project.Today they will discuss the tasks of the work plan that willbe conducted to prepare the remedial investigationfeasibility study for the Juncos Landfill Site. Inaddition, news releases were put out and a sound truck alsotoured the neighborhood to announce the meeting.

Ms. Johnson presented to the mayor a copy of a factsheet on mercury pollution.

The audience was asked to sign an attendance sheet sothat they might receive further informatin.

Jose Font, the Project Manager who works in the New YorkOffice, was then introduced. He explained that the remedialinvestigation defines the problem and its magnitude. Theresults are used to generate alternative solutions. At thispoint they meet with the community.

Mr. Font then gave a slide presentation of thehistorical background of the landfill site. The old JuncosLandfill(site is inactive at this time. It was operatedfrom 1957 to 1977 and later closed in 1981. In addition to Qsolid waste, the site also received some wastes containing amercury. The thermometers were allegedly deposited by the 3

Becton and Dickinson Company. In 1983, EPA carried out a ostudy to see if the houses next to the site were affected by o

owwN5

-2-

this mercury. Samples were taken of soil, air, escaped dustand fish. The results were evaluated by the Center forDisease in Atlanta and the conclusion was that thecontamination in that area did not present an immediatedanger for the residents. Nevertheless, since the houseswere next to the site and the thermometers were exposed andpeople could have access to the site, the EPA issued anadministrative order against Becton and Dickinson to carry •out corrective activities in the area: cover the site, putup signs warning of the contamination and fence off. thesite. The Company paid the costs of these activities.

In 1984, EPA issued an administrative order againstBecton and Dickinson to carry out a remedial study followed -by a feasibility study. This order stipulated that theCompany had to submit a work plan indicating the work to bedone in the landfill site. Copies are available to thepublic. These studies include geo-physical studies whichwill be used to obtain the best possible sites for the wellsthat will be used to sample underground water. Airmonitoring studies will also be made. Since the houses areso close to the site, during field Work, movements of thetrucks earring fill and removal of land, these particlescould easily enter the atmosphere and go into the houses.Surface water and sediments will also be taken in'the samesite. Underground water will also be analyzed to see if thelandfill site has had an impact on drinking water wells inthe area. These studies will be supervised both by the EPAand private consultant firms hired by the Agency.

Once all the results are obtained, they will be madepublic. Also during the investigation meeting's can be heldto keep the public informed. The data from thisinvestigation will be used to prepare a feasibility studywhich will analyze all the alternatives. We will be lookingnot only for mercury, but other contaminants as well; whatwe call "priority pollutants". We also have to watch thelixiviation juices that come out of the site.

QUESTION: (Diana Perez, Department of Natural Resources)You mentioned private consultants of the agency. To whatagency were you referring?

ANSWER: NUS Corporation.

QUESTION: This is actually a comment. You should consultthe Department of Natural Resources for the drilling ofthese wells since this requires a permit from this ^Department. a

5

ANSWER: Of course. Since in this case, the company has an 0administrative order, I think that before drilling any owells, it will communicate with the proper authorities to w

obtain the ecessary permits.

U)

-3-

QUESTION: It would be a good idea to know what company hasbeen designated by Becton and Dickinson to carry out thiswork since it will be a third party.

ANSWER: Becton and Dickinson has contracted the Fred c.Hart Corporation which in turn will be supervised by NUS,contracted by the EPA.

»

COMMENT: Diana, I understand that both Becton and Fred C.Hart will have to coordinate with all the state andmunicipal authorities since the site belongs to themunicipality.

QUESTION: (Delia Olivo, Department of Health) Have thesestudies begun yet?

ANSWER: No they will begin by the end of summer and will'last approximately a year. This could vary according to theresults obtained.

QUESTION: ( Mr. Bonilla, Assistant to Mayor of Juncos) Whowould be responsible for initiating any action necessaryafter the studies? For example, suppose the studies reveallevels of contamination above the accepted levels andremedial action must be taken. Which agency of thoserepresented here or which is dealing with the problem wouldimplement the remedy?

ANSWER: In this case, since one of the parties responsiblefor the contamination is known, once the alternative hasbeen chosen, then EPA will reinitiate negotiations toimplement this alternative.

QUESTION: Does the Puerto Rico Environmental QualityControl Board intervene?

ANSWER: Of course. The Environmental Board will beinvolved in all of this. Other state and federal agenciesare included. Our purpose of being here today is to makeyou all aware of what's happening step by step.

(Side Two)

ANSWER (continued): The important thing is to reach aconsensus because if there is no consensus the federalagency's determination prevails.

COMMENT: We just saw in the slides that CRUV is developing72 housing units. There is fear of contamination in the *"area. When Mayor Torres and I attended a meeting with theSecretary of Housing to express our concern about Juncos— 5because one of Juncos*s problems is housing and thatproject, which is now abandoned, existed at that time— othey asked us to give them a copy of any evidence or report oowe *•

-4-

might have. They tried to tell us that it wasn't validbecause Becton and Dickinson (Fred C. Hart) had carried outthe studies. They developed their own study and in fact,the municipality of Juncos doesn't have a copy of that studynor commentaries or analyses of the findings. It would be a(good idea to let the Department of Housing know what's goingon particularly if the final report shows that there is nocontamination. Or, on the contrary, they should also know *if there is contamination to take the corresponding steps.In addition to that, since the area belongs to us,, in thepast we had thought of developing a recreational area aslong as the recommendations made by the proper agencies arefollowed. Parts of the Ceiba Community are practicallyinside the dump area. There are newer parts, Jardines deCeiba Norte that are now occupied. Two hundred eighty-sixunits are being contemplated for construction next to the77 CRUV units. It would be a good idea if the Federalagency, together with the EPA, got in contact with them tofind out about the report.ANSWER: I've taken note of this because I'm interested inknowing the results of that study. I'd like to know if youknow of anyone who was involved with this so we might get intouch with that person.

fQUESTION: Is the Fred C. Hart approved by EPA? Did you seethis report, analyze it and accept it?

ANSWER: We have to go into the legal aspect of this alittle. When the environmental movement began in the UnitedStates in 1970, Congress began to issue environmental lawsand a new phenomenon began to occur: to require theindustry itself to make the analyses and studies on which wewill base compliance. Previously a state, municipal orfederal agency carried out these studies. Nevertheless, anew procedure was introduced: the industry itself samples,anlyzes and submitts. Of course, EPA is given instructionsto establish standards, programs of quality assurance andquality control which will insure that the informationgenerated by the person holding the permit is valid. In1980 a phenomenon was identified in the nation: there wereinnumerable sites in the nation that were highlycontaminated, but no one was doing anything to remedy thesituation. But they were, at least potentially, affectingthe population. These were things that were hidden butwhich could cause a problem in the future. Congressrealized that there was no legal mechanism nor funds to deal cjwith this problem. As a result, Super Fund was created. §This Fund is used to identify those sites and find out whocreated the problem and force that person to make thestudies, certain determinations in the site and implementthe mitigating, remedial or clean-up alternative. Super

otsi

oU)U)

-5-

* — % Fund also provides funds in case the responsible partydoesnot have sufficient funds or if the responsible party isnot found.

In the case of Juncos, we did identify the responsibleparty, we confronted them and under the federal regulationsand procedures, we forced them to pay for all the studiesand activities in the area. We entered in a legalagreement. The first meeting was held here in Juncos. WEdivided the order into two parts. First of all, theemergency part. A study was developed to see the effect inthe biota and the air. That was the Fred C. Hart study andit was sanctioned by EPA. The company was also required to-put up signs and cover up any exposed points. The nextstudies to be followed involves the drilling of wells. Wehave found that there has not been any lateral extension ofthe contamination. We're now going to examine theunderground effects. Both the field and study activitiesare sanctioned by the Federal Agency. We also invite stateand municipal agencies to participate in that supervision.All of this will be made public.

QUESTION: My concern is due what recently happened inCiudad Cristiana, the environmental contamination- problem is -in style now. I'm afraid we might be victims of somethingsimilar. We, our municipality, needs space for housing and

/*••% the expansion of the town is moving in that direction. I'mafraid that there will be a discrepancy in the findingsamong the different agencies. I think we should all learnfrom the Ciudad Cristiana incident.

COMMENTS: (Lillian Johnson) What we want to do here, whichperhaps we didn't do there [Ciudad Cristiana] was to get thepeople involved. Here we want to make sure you are informedand involved in the whole process. Unfortunately we didn'tdo that in the other community. I appreciate your concern,but I feel that with the methods we have established here,we won't run into the same problem.

QUESTION: But our concern is genuine. ,

ANSWER: In this case, we have involved the municipalityfrom the beginning and we will continue todo so. You are apart of this project.

COMMENT:' (Pedro Gelabert) There is some confusion abouttwo federal laws. The first is Resource, Recovery and aConservation Act of 1976 which regulates dangerous wastes. 3

The other is CERCLA of 1980 and is known as Super Fund.RECRA is the activity that is being carried out now, day by oday, while Super Fund is for sites that have been abandoned. w

^^ These are two totally different programs. In this case andi^~ in the case of Frontera Stream (Quebrada Frontera) , RECRA S

CPi

-6-

regulations did not exist nor did it exist when thethermometers were deposited. RECRA was approved in Novemberof 1980 at both the federal and state levels. There is noregulation for Super Fund in Puerto Rico; it is purelyfederal. When Puerto Rico requests areas to be included onthat list, they come under federal jurisdiction. Inclusionwas requested for both Juncos and Quebrada Frontera in 1981.From that time, they have been under federal jurisdiction.The final decision will be that of the federal agency. Ofcourse, you could request revision by a federal court.

We must first determine if there is an immediate andsignificant risk to health. Since EPA does not have thenecessary knowledge to reach that determination, .they mustdepend on the CDC. If CDC says there is a risk, we must actimmediately as if there were a risk. If they say there isno risk we are not justified in using federal funds.

In the introduction we mentioned that there were someproblems in Congress with the reauthorization of the federallaw. The federal government has tried to force the privateindustries that caused the contamination to pay for thecontamination. This is done in two ways: throughagreements or the federal government pays for the-^clean-upand then charges. This money then returns to the Fund. Inthe cases in Puerto Rico, we have been trying to make theindustries that caused the contamination pay so that neitherthe Puerto Rico government, the municipal government nor thefederal will have to pay those costs. Of course, thesestudies have to be studied and approved by the' Federalgovernment before implementing the clean-up plan. Theclean-up plan must be supervised by the federal governmentuntil we are satisfied that the area has been properlycleaned. At that time the industry is freed from theproblem.

COMMENTS: Studies carried out, and evaluated by the Centerfor Disease Control in Atlanta, show that there is noimmediate problem from the dump contamination. We are alsogoing to look into the other more than 160 contaminants.

QUESTION: Do you screen the samples taken by the company inthe initial investigation? Do you take a percent of thesamples to check the results?

ANSWER: 'l don't have the information for this case. But weusually divide the samples. The industry carries out somestudies on its own. For example, in this study that I'mpresenting the samples will be divided. We have consultantswho will be in the field supervising Becton and Dickinson.They will also take sample and divide the samples. Theywill be analyzed by us and the responsible party.

-7-

QUESTIOUt How long do you think these studies will take sothat thw municipality will be able to request that land forother purposes?ANSWER: As I said before, the studies will lastapproximately a year from the time they begin , at the end ofthis summer. Another stage will also be concluded. We'llhave a document presenting the problem and the alternatives.*

COMMENT: (Carlos) We won't be able to make any decisionsregarding this land until a final and firm determination ismade. Everything will depend on the findings andrecommendations from EPA which in turn would have received -recommendations from state, municipal or federal agencies.In the United States, once the majority of dumps are nolonger used as such, they are used for recreationalfacilities.

FURTHER COMMENT: Any data turned in to EPA by either ofthese consultants which proves to be false could be punishedas perjury, and even considered as a criminal case. Theseconsultants who are bona fide are not going to run the riskof lying to us to benefit the company. They have othercontracts and that would pre j udice them in the agency ' seyes .

QUESTION: If Becton and Dickinson leaves Juncos, who wouldbe responsible if the study has not been concluded?

ANSWER: The arm of the federal law is quite long and themain company is close to us in New Jersey. Negotiationshave been made with both companies — the Puerto Rico branchand the main office. Let's suppose that their economiccapacity disappears completely. We would then activate thesecond recourse of the law. But the problem would still bethere. The Super Fund Law was created especially to takecare of the problem one way or the other.

COMMENT: In Arecibo we have a similar case. TheEnvironmental Board passed the case on to us because thecompany, Puerto Rico Chemical, left the area. Nevertheless,Hooker Chemical, the owner of that company, passed the caseon to us so we could act on a national level.

ooto

oU)

-8-

COMMENTS: The company:is leaving Juncos, but during thelast day* they are going to bring a different product to thearea. They are also established in Canovanas and SanLorenzo. They're moving the Juncos thermometer plant toBrazil. So they will continue in Puerto Rico as a companywith other products.

QUESTION: We mentioned remedial activities for mercury.You also mentioned looking for other contaminants. In case*others are found, who will be responsible?

ANSWER: We are not only concerned with mercury. Super Fundwas created in such a way that all we need is one. That onewould pay for all the others. The Super Fund Law creates agreat incentive in that if the person does not assumeresponsibility, the government will clean up and then chargethree times the costs. This is a very interesting lawbecause it was aimed at eliminating court fights andimplementing action. The law says-O.K., if you don't wantto act voluntarily, we'll do it and then fight, but the sitehas been cleaned. As a matter of fact, the government'scosts are much higher than those of any industry.Government overhead is quite high. So this is quite anincentive. /»

The speaker once again thanked the Honorable Mayor ofJuncos, Gilberto Conde Roman, for his hospitality. He alsothanked Samuel Lopez for coordinating with the CaribbeanOffice.

QUESTION: (An Assemblyman excused himself for arriving lateand asked a question that had previously been discussedquite thoroughly.) There are so many conflicting commentson the old dump site. Is there or isn't there contaminationin the old Juncos dump site?

ANSWER: In summary, the studies you have seen were madeoutside the dump because they were aimed at seeing whetherthere is any dangerous to health. That's why we found thatthere is no health danger outside the dump site. Now we'regoing to go inside the dump to see what's going on. That'swhat we're announcing today.

COMMENT: I belong to the Health and Housing Commission andthis contamination problem in that area has caused manypolitica.1 problems; it also affects the population ingeneral. That area could be used for sports facilities andrecreation. So we're interested in having this settled as ^soon as possible. §

ANSWER: I'd like to add that when we talk of contamination, oNJ

-: OCOU>(o

—9—

there's nothing pure in this life, not even our souls.There is always contamination. The water is contaminated.We're not discussing the level of contamination per se.What level of contamination affects health? Up to now whatwe have found that health in that area has not beenaffected.

COMMENT: (Assemblyman) The contamination problem in PuertoRico has become a political question, but it affects thegeneral population. There are people who have houses in theaffected areas and they can neither live in their homes orrecuperate their money. I recently talked to a family thathas been moving from one public housing area to another for-almost a year because they have five children and none ofthese places has facilities for them. They finally got ahouse and then the contamination problem arose. This hascaused them social and economical hardship.

oOo

/Attachment No.2Public Meeting Summary Juncos Landfill Site, Juncos, Puerto RicoJune 5, 1986, 5:50 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

Pedro Antonio Gelabert, Director of the Caribbean Office ofthe Federal EPA introduced the first speaker, the HonorableGilberto Conde Roman, Mayor of Juncos. ,

Mayor: It is an honor to have with us here today variousofficials of the EPA to examine the problems presented bythe old Juncos Municipal Dump. Concerned citizens of thearea will be able to ask questions and make suggestions toimprove the area and create a better and healthierenvironment.Speaker): This will be an informal meeting.With us are EPArepresentatives from Region 2 of New York:

Lillian Johnson, Coordinator of Community Relations forthe Super Fund Program.

Engineer Jos6 Font, in charge of this Project and whowill give a presentation of the work being done inthe old dump and explain where we are going with theinvestigation.

Kevin Lynch from the New York RegionSalvatore Nolfo Consultant for Public RelationsAnd others ( Department of Natural Resources/" etc.)

We will be dealing particularly with contamination inthe area, both mercury and other contaminants.. We willalso talk about the status of the project. This project wascreated by a Federal law commonly known as the Super Fund.This law offers the opportunity to rehabilitate and clean upareas that have been contaminated in the past, but whichpreviously had no one to clean them. Once the personresponsible for the contamination is found the federalgovernment can bill them for the expenses. The governmentcharges three times the cost when using this mechanism.Nevertheless, before activating the Super Fund, thegovernment can negotiate with the company (the ResponsibleParty) and reach an agreement so that the company pays forthe clean-up. In order to use the Super Fund, it isnecessary to establish state matched funds, whether from thestate or municipal government. When the property involvedis private, the federal government provides 90% and thestate government, whether state or municipal, provides 10%.When the property is public, as in the case of the dump, thefederal government provides 50% and the state government the rother 5d%. a

3Engineer Font: I will give you some background about 0

the Juncos dump: I also have information about the studies omade and some pictures of the Dump for those of you who have "^not had the opportunity to visit it. 0

Slides: w1. Aerial view showing residential area £2. Residential area and old dump, an area of 12

cuerdas.

-2-

It is an inactive facility that began operations in1957 and ceased operations in 1977. This facilitynot only accepted solid wastes but also receivedthermometers containing small amounts of mercuryand which had been discarded by Becton andDickinson.

3. Residential area. Proximity of residential area toDump. Back yards practically form part of dump.

4. Closer view of dump. Streams that run parallel todump. Houses, yards, clearly indicating proximity.

5. Houses under construction.

What follows is the work plan that was developed, willsoon be approved and implemented.

In 1983 the EPA carried out a -preliminary investigationto determine whether the dump presented an immediate problemto the health of the residents who live near the dump.

The EPA took samplings of the soil, air and thelixiviation juices from the dump and particles of escapeddust inside the homes. The results of the study wereevaluated by the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta. Theconclusion was that the dump did not pose an immediateproblem for the residents.

Nevertheless, the EPA issued an administrative orderagainst Becton and Dickinson ordering them to carry outcorrective activities in the area:

1) Put up signs indicating mercury contamination2) Cover the areas of the dump where the mercury was

exposed (any person who might get into the dump areacould come in contact with the mercury) .

Becton and Dickinson complied with the order by putting upthe signs, covering the exposed areas and installing a fencearound the dump.

What do we propose to do? What is going to done in thedump? What studies are going to be made?

We are going' to carry out a remedial study, followed bya feasibility study to show the magnitude and extent of thecontamination problem in the dump.

To carry out these studies the EPA issued anadministrative order against the responsible party (Becton ^and Dickinson) . Becton and Dickinson has hired the aconsultant firm of Fred C. Harris to carry out these studies 3

under the close supervision of the EPA. The consultant 0firm, NUS Corporation, will supervise the study and check othe veracity of the results. ^

OOJ

to

-3-

The investigation will consist of the following :

1) Geo-physical studies to better locate the wells.That will furnish information on the quality of theunderground water, and evidence of whether the mercury inthe dump can migrate to the underground water and affect thewells used for drinking water in the area.

*

Samples will also be taken from surface water. Thestreams that run parallel to the dump will be sampled to seeif mercury could reach the surface water and contaminate thesediment and the streams.

Air samples will also be taken since some compounds canbe volatized or carried into the atmosphere.

We will be monitoring the air, taking continual airsamples. Soil samples will show how deep the contaminationgoes.

We will then define the nature and magnitude of thecontamination. Then we will meet with the community forcomments. After this, we will propose alternatives on howto solve the problem. These alternatives will be evaluatedfrom an environmental, public health and technical point ofview. They must also be economically feasible. >-

The administrative order by which Becton and Dickinsoncarried out these studies provides up to this point.

We, the company, will collect the data, propose thealternatives and select the alternative.

After this process, EPA would once again enter intonegotiations with the company to implement the most viablealternative. We don't know how long these negotiations willtake.

QUESTION: (Julio Juan Negr6n) - Was this Meeting publicizedin the community members neighboring the dump whom Iunderstand are the ones affected . Was this publicized inthe area around Becton and Dickinson among the employees andex-employees of the company some of whom have filed suitsagainst the company and won these suits.

ANSWER: Yes,the meeting was publicized. A car with aloudspeaker went around the area announcing the meeting andthe fact the representatives from EPA would be present toanswer questions. They were also told that a presentationof the work plan was going to be made and the investigationthat was going to be carried out on the old Juncos municipaldump.

oto

oUJ

-4-

QUESTION: My question was whether the people were givenenough time to make arrangements to take time off from work,etc.

ANSWER: I'm told that a leaflet announcing the meeting was,given out door to door last week.

QUESTION: Several years ago, what agency or federal entity *enumerated 11 points of the most severe contamination in theUnited States, including the old Juncos municipal dump?

ANSWER: The EPA (Super Fund Division) identifies theseabandoned places that have been contaminated and based onpreliminary studies carried out in these places they areincluded on a list of national priorities. Eight of theseplaces exist in Puerto Rico.

QUESTION: I understand that at the-time this was published,the Juncos dump was one of the most seriously affected areasin U.S. territory.I understand that at that time the houseshad not been turned over to their owners yet. They wereunder construction. I would like to know whether there wasany order or intention to paralyze the construction of those 'homes that were being affected in that area since" Iunderstand that there was already information on that zoneas a focal point for mercury contamination.(Pedro, do you have any comment on that?)

ANSWER: There is no order to paralyze the construction ofhomes and especially after the Center for Disease Control inAtlanta, of the Federal Department of Health, determinedthat there was no immediate or significant risk to thehealth of the members of the neighboring community. Sothere is no basis for discussion.

QUESTION: The leaflet, that is in English, I think you said,in Spanish, "immediate danger". I don't think that theleaflet doesn't use the word "immediate". You did mentionit. What I want to know is when there is a danger,immediate or not, what measures are or should be taken toallow construction in an area where there is known mercurycontamination. What do you mean by immediate...one year,two, ten, twenty, thirty. To what extent is it feasible tocontinue the construction of a residential area?

ANSWER:' We make a preliminary investigation where we Qgather this information on the food chain, for example. We ^sample fish, vegetables, air, escaped dust, soil and these ""data are evaluated by the Center for Disease Control in 0Atlanta. They make their evaluation from the public health °point of view. They stated that there was no immediate *°problem at that time. There was no public health problem 0involved in living in that area. w

-5-

QUESTION: At that time.

ANSWER: At that time. That is the only evidence thatexists at this time. That's why we carry out studiesbecause we make remedial and feasibility studies where wetry to find out the extent and potential for contamination.What is the probability that the contamination from the dumpcan migrate and contaminate the underground or surface wateror if this mercury can enter the food chain. All thesequestions are answered after this extensive study., At themoment we were concerned about people living near the dump.We did studies to see the immediate problem because todetermine a long term problem you have to make an extensive -study and that's where we're at now.

ANSWER: (New Speaker) Maybe I can help out a little.What happens is that the law requires that the Super Fund beactivated when there is an immediate and what happens isthat the law requires that the Super Fund be activated whenthere is an immediate and health problem. Otherwise, wewould not be here, because if there is no problem, we couldnot use the funds from the Super Fund to clean andrehabilitate the area. '

^

QUESTION: But my question is when an agency knows without adoubt that an area is contaminated with mercury, whetherthose risks are worthy of attention in terms of thedevelopment of a community. We're talking about thedevelopment of a community in an area that is known to becontaminated. My specific question is do yo'u let peoplelive there and then carry out the studies. There is noimmediate risk, but within the next 10-15 years you findthat that area is the most dangerous area in Puerto Rico andyou have allowed those people live there. That is myconcern and that should be your concern.

ANSWER: Contamination is relative. There is no such thingas a pure material. All material is contaminated. Theproblem here is whether the contamination here affectshealth or not. The area can be contaminated and not affecthealth. EPA does not make that determination. It leavesthat up to the Federal Health Department and they were theones who made that determination. When they did this, ourhands are practically tied. The only thing we can do iscontinue to study.

; • - . ' - •

QUESTION: (Isabel Castro - Juncos) My concern has existedsince 1979 because I received in a drawing and I would liketo know which part is the most affected, because the lot isin the Ceiba area and I put up a fence and behind the fencethere is a sign stating that there is contamination, orsomething like that. I don't live there now. But some

-6-

houses have been built back there. And I started to thinkthat he says, when he showed the picture, that the dump wasnext to this area. I want to know where the dump wasbefore.

ANSWER: There are some houses next to the dump and as amatter of fact their yard almost forms a part of the dump.But answering your question about which parts are mostaffected, I cannot answer that now because I don't have thenecessary information now. That's one of the questionswe'll answer after this investigation. After theinvestigation, I will be able to tell you exactly where thecontamination is located.

QUESTION: I understand that the investigation will be made,but I want to know if there is contaminatin in the Ceibasarea. I put up a fence and behind the fence there is asign. It's the last one, 299 and from there on there'scontamination. I put up a fence-because when there's a lotof rain the water ran into the area, even with the fence,and the water formed pools there. When I put a machine inthere, there were 4 feet of garbage, cars, etc. So that wasthe dump before?

/"

ANSWER: Could very well be.

QUESTION: I don't know whether it was the dump or not. Icame because, although I don't live there now, I'm planningto live there. I have two daughters, You know.

ANSWER: The majority of the houses aren't in the dump. Butthere is, in the last row, facing the mountain...

QUESTION: Well, I'm in the last row, 299.

ANSWER: There are some houses that are in the dump.

QUESTION: When I drew up that line, I said I was going to goa little further back. Then, when a man came there, myfather was building on the lot. I saw the sign there and Ithought that it could be a little this way or that way. Andthat is my concern. Although I'm going to keep up to dateon this because I plan to live there; I have two daughters.You know there are always comments. I was interested incoming here. But I was thinking that you gave more exactinformation and I was waiting for the opportunity.I'mconcerned because I'm building and when it rains there is 4 ^feet of garbage. My father is drilling a well and that area ^fills up like I was saying. o

oANSWER: Excuse me, what type of well? ^

-7-

QUESTION: He planned to make a well for the bathrooms.

ANSWER: A septic tank?

QUESTION: Uh huh. And it fills up with water so fast, evenwhen it's not raining and that surprised me. I old Daddy tostop the work there and find out what's going on. Then theother day my mother-in-law told me that there was something *that interested me, where they were going to talk about thedump. I went to the Environmental Office for informationand they said no. I read the newspapers. I always readthem when they say anything about mercury. Then what Iwanted to know was that this thing will follow a process butyou don't know anything for sure yet, right?

ANSWER: The studies are supposed to start at the end ofthe summer.

QUESTION (To Jos6 from another panel member): What has beendone with that last row of houses?

ANSWER: Preliminary studies were made in that area inSeptember 1983 where samples were made of soil, air andescaped dust in the houses. The food chain was studied. Bythe food chain we mean fish from the streams that runparallel to the dump as well as vegetables to see if themercury could reach the people through the food chain.These results were evaluated by an agency that deals withpublic health in the United States and their conclusion wasthat these houses were not being affected at that time.

QUESTION: (Isabel Castro) Yes because at thattime...everything I removed from my lot, I moved toward theback. Construction has been carried out there, they havedug in that area.

ANSWER: I would recommend that you don't go toward thedump because we still don't know what exists there. We'regoing to be studying this for about a year and we shouldhave a final report by next summer, but don't run the riskof going toward the back because, as far as I know, whereyou are there is.no problem. But don't continue invadingthe area of the dump because you could dig up somecontaminants. And of course, with the currents of water,the lixiviation juices from the dump could spread into thearea of your houses. There could then be contact with thepeople.

QUESTION: As a matter of fact, a woman next to my lot has cplanted a lot on the fence. A lot of these plants have -roots and banana plants are all covered with them, and I

/•""" don't know. I see kids that go into that place. In fact, I oput up the fence to keep people out. Because there's a grove |V)

-8-

of guava trees there and you know, kids will be kids. MyDad would call their attention to that and since then theydon't go in.

COMMENT: I was in that dump around 1977 and where thethermometers were at that time was alongside one of thestreams and the other stream. The trucks dumped thethermometers in that area. There were a lot of thermometers*that didn't have mercury because the mercury had beenrecovered, but some did.

QUESTION (Isabel Castro): But my concern is whether theyare going to continue informing the people there.

ANSWER: The purpose of this meeting is to keep you up todate with what we're finding. Up to now, let's say things,are O.K. We haven't found anything wrong; but, perhapstomorrow we'll find something wrong and then we'd have tomake an immediate decision.

COMMENT: As the investigation develops, we can meet withthe community to let them know what's happening.

QUESTION: (Estanislao Santiago Garcia)- I live near thatarea that is suspected of being contaminated. I also liveon the left side of the thermometer factory. It is said andyou can read in the newspapers that the Trujillo Alto Lakereceived contamination from Juncos. I live near. And atnight in my house, it seems that they opened some valves inthe factory and that stench reached my house and all theneighbors in the area. I think that if they've been talkingso much about the Becton and Dickinson contamination, thatthey took those residues to the old dump and it seems thatthey didn't emphasize the fact that that was dangerous,where some houses were being built and they would be lost,understand? Well, I think that if a doctor says that thepeople in a radius of one kilometer could be affected, and Ilive in that area. There are many sick people there andI've know them since I was born, we're contemporaries. Alot of them have died from sicknesses that no one knowswhere they come from. The doctors don't have any idea. So,Puerto Rico Public Health Service won't be able to doanything if they don't test the inhabitants who live nearby.

ANSWER: We still have to evaluate the area to see if thereis any danger in the part where these people live. We'vedone the studies that show that that area does not representa problem to the residents. These symptoms that the peoplefeel aren't necessarily from the dump. They could berelated to other things, such as occupational hazards. Wealso carried out environmental studies and health studieswhere epidemiological studies are made on the people to see

03

how they have been affected but that is not under ourjurisdiction. Another agency carries out this type ofstudy.

COMMENT (Estanislao Santiago Santiago Garcia): I believe ,that's the way it is, but you had to do this before becauseif the contamination already exists in you, what are yougoing to do?

ANSWER: Since we saw the people so close to the dump, wemade some studies to determine whether this could affectthe people who live there. We sampled everthing that mightaffect the people: mercury ,in the soil, in the air, in thefood chain, and the results were negative. We concluded, orthe agency that deals with this in the United States saidthere was no immediate problem. We can then do no more. Touse our funds there must be an immediate problem. But, wewill do a more extensive study to define the extent of thecontamination. We will then be In a better position to tellyou whether you will have long term effects or whether thereis any danger. But up to now, all our studies indicate thatthere is no problem. If there had been a problem we wouldhave carried out a series of activities. If the results had -been positive, we could use our money for activities tomitigate this problem.

FURTHER COMMENT: This federal legislation is relativelyrecent. It was approved in 1980. There was no regulationprior to this. In 1980, the law was approved and till theregulations are made, the Puerto Rican government requestedan investigation of these places. This was in 1981.Nationwide a list was made and we want to investigate that.Scores were given to all these places and the ones thatreceived the highest scores were put on that list (2000places in the U.S.). Eight 8 of these places were evaluatedin Puerto Rico and included on the list. The preliminaryinvestigation that we mentioned took place and the finalinvestigation will be next year and we want to be incontinual communication with you people because you livethere. How you feel, if you feel bad, etc. Let us know sowe can take this into consideration and give this morepriority or less priority because we are studying 8 placesin P.R. Also what is the priority for cleaning the areabecause it would be useless to take you people out of therebecause it is contaminated but that's the way it's going tostay forever. You have property that's worth money and it Qshould be restored with the guarantee that it won't affect §you in the future. This is what we want to do.

' . O

QUESTION (Sanchez): I have 5-6 questions for Pedro 5Gelabert. Why did the Federal Department of Health orderEPA to investigate the mercury contamination? <=>

I . _10_/**> ANSWER: It wasn't the Federal Health Department. It was

the Environmental Quality Board in 1981, that requested an| investigation of the area.iI QUESTION (Sanchez): The young man said that they knew more| or less where the contamination existed and the extent off the mercury contamination was.I| ANSWER: That will be determined in the study that is to be| made. If we knew that we wouldn't be involved in thisI stage.

jj QUESTION: Then you don't know?

| ANSWER: The extent of the contamination will be determinedI during this period.I| QUESTION: But you don't know where-the contamination starts| or stops?

I ANSWER: We know the source, but not the extent.

I QUESTION: Then, you previously stated that in 1983, EPAI carried out an investigation in the houses. Which housesI were used?

1 .****•• ANSWER: I don't have the information on which houses wereused.

QUESTION: Nor the place?

ANSWER: But we can get that information to you. I don'thave it here.

QUESTION: You don't know either where the investigation tookplace?

ANSWER: I can tell you what was sampled, but I don't havespecific information on places.

QUESTION: But could you say if it was in Valencia 1 orValencia 2, in Los Almendros, in Ceiba Norte? You can't saythat because you don't know.

ANSWER: No, I don't have that information now.

QUESTION: Then you said that since 1980 EPA has carried outstudies on mercury contamination. How many times has thatinvestigation been made since 1980?

ANSWER: First of all we have to identify the responsible-v party.

-11-COMMENT (Sanchez): But we know who the responsible partyis..Becton and Dickinson. There aren't any other companiesin Juncos that work with mercury.

ANSWER: I think that what he's asking is how many timesinvestigations were made.

COMMENT (Sanchez): It's from 1980 up to now. Somebodysaid, I don't know if it was Pedro Gelabert or you. I thinkit was Pedro who said that EPA has been investigating since1980. But, we're in 1986 now, how many times since 1980 hasEPA investigated the mercury contamination?

ANSWER: I said that the federal legislation was passed in1980.

QUESTION: O.K., since 1980, how many times?

ANSWER: In 1981, the Environmental Control Boardrequested EPA to investigate. EPA investigated in 1983.

COMMENT (Sanchez): Then there's 1984, 85, 86. Threeyears. Haven't there been any more investigations?

r

ANSWER: EPA has done nothing more.

QUESTION: Pedro said, and he was president of theEnvironmental Quality Control Board and I remember that whenwe went to several meetings. I was one of the people whowent to the dump with you and we showed you where thethermometers were. What did the Environmental Board do atthat time? When you were the director?

ANSWER: Well, it closed the dump,

QUESTION: Yes, it closed the dump but houses have been builtthere, there's a lot of stuff there. The Board didn'tintervene in that?

ANSWER: No, it didn't intervene.

QUESTION: Why? •

ANSWER: Because as I said, at that time the laws didn'texist. There was no jurisdiction.

QUESTION: O.K. Does EPA intervene with the water ...?

ANSWER: That is a program that is delegated to the PuertoRico Department of Health.

QUESTION: Yes, because we have evidence that the drinkingwater in Juncos is presently contaminated with mercury. And

-12-

we have a lot of things and we thought that these were goingto be hearings where we could present evidence.

ANSWER: You can

QUESTION: But what we're seeing is questions and answers.

ANSWER: No, later on we're going to sit down and talk.

QUESTION: O.K., we're going to sit down. Pedro, youremember that we went to look at the dump. In the areawhere the dump borders the Juncos River, that is the Rivercontinues towards Gurabo and extends in that direction, we •showed the members of the Environmental Quality ControlBoard numerous places where the area is completely black, soto speak, and when you put you hand in there you could takeout numerous thermometers, with mercury. In fact, I thinkthe Board took many of those thermometers. But, thatstopped there. How sure can we -be if we eat fish from therethat that water continues on to Gurabo and from Gurabo on toTrujillo Alto and we drink that water, how can we be sure wearen't contaminated with mercury?

ANSWER: At that time, I instructed the Board to- carry outan investigation. An investigation was made. We had thelegal problem in the sense that we had no authority fordangerous wastes since there was no regulation at that time(it didn't exist until 1980). I was told that the waterfrom the river did not have mercury at that time. TheEnvironmental Quality Control Board has periodically sampledthat water, with the Geological Survey.

QUESTION: But we have evidence that that water iscontaminated.

ANSWER: I'd like to see it.

QUESTION: It is at your disposal. Did the Board know, atthe time that you were president..in fact, you were one ofthe people who helped us the most...did the Board know aboutthe people who had mercury poisoning, the amount of peoplewho were suffering from mercury poisoning? Includingchildren, old people?

ANSWER: No, I don't think they knew.

QUESTION: O.K. That's what we have up to now and we are more c.than willing to show you the evidence we have. ^QUESTION (Miriam Col6n: I'm a resident of Juncos and for othe benefit of those who weren't here at the beginning, youexplained that the Super Fund is a federal law torehabilitate contaminated areas when the person responsible o

00U1NJ

ONJ

-13-

for the contamination is not known. If you hadinvestigated, you would have found out because Becton andDickinson is one of the companies that have contributed tothe contamination in the dump and they took on theresponsibility for rehabilitating the area. And asexplained, since September, 1983, the preliminaryinvestigation began. We're now in 1986 and I'd like toknow, up to now what has been done? The preliminaryinvestigation has been completed because the samples weremade. According to the first investigation there was no highlevel of contamination that could present a risk to health.What is Becton and Dickinson doing and how are yousupervising what they are doing in relation to thecontamination in that area?

ANSWER: Since September 1983 when these preliminaryinvestigations were made, the next step was anadministrative order against Becton and Dickinson to havetake corrective measures in the dump. This was to cover theareas where the mercury was exposed, put up signs indicatingcontamination and some fences. (Another voice - That was onMarch 15, 1984). After that we enterd into negotiationswith the responsible parties to that they would carry outthese investigations that we're presenting. They? throughan administrative order, agreed to provide the money andcarry out these investigations that we call remedialinvestigation and a feasibility study. For this, they haveto submit to the EPA a document that indicates the workplan, what they are going to do in the area. This has hasto go through rigorous process of quality control andquality assurance. To make sure that the data generatedthere is significant and in reality, that data is going todefine the problem in that area.

QUESTION: But my question is, are you supervising them whilethey are carrying out that investigation?

ANSWER: No, because..

QUESTION: No, but remember that you can put anything inwriting.

ANSWER: Excuse me, the date he's referring to is October9, 1984 when an agreement was reached wherein they would payfor the expenses of the investigation. A work plan is thendrawn up* and that's what we have here today and it isavailable to the public so they can study the work plan andmake any comments they'd like to make. We're going tosupervise that work plan.

QUESTION: So, in the long run, you are investigating theenvironmental and geo-physical matter. Couldn't you ask theHealth Department for their help and they could deal with

-14-

the health of those people who live so close and who couldbe receiving contamination in some way?

ANSWER: You have to go to the Health Department andpresent the complaint and evidence that you have beenaffected and they will carry out any public health study.

QUESTION: But, for example, this hearing ...the leafletswere handed out Saturday. Fortunately a letter to theresident and the brochure on mercury was put in my mailbox,but I think that the area near the dump should have receivedmore information because many of the people who live thereare ignorant of this and this is so important because it'srelated to health and the environment. They didn't know.

oo

-15-

Continuation of questions by Miriam Colon.

QUESTION: These are people are from a rather low socio-economic level and they really need help. You people fromthe government are the ones who could help. I don't livethere but I share their concerns.

ANSWER: We're coordinating with various government agenciesand one of them is the Department of Health, so we'll beable to take your concerns to them.

*

QUESTION: (Julio Juan Negron Perez) - I'm almost sure thatthe construction of homes began in 1983. It was stated thatdust samples were taken from some houses and I don't thinkthere were any houses there at that time. I was pleasedthat someone pointed out that some houses are actuallylocated on the dump site. I was also interested to hear thatBecton and Dickinson's studies will be supervised by you. Ibelong to a group from. Juncos who meet from time to time todeal with community problems. The last activity we held wasto talk about environmental contamination. We invited Dr.Neftali Garcia and some employees and ex-employees of Becton& Dickinson. One of the topics we discussed was mercurycontamination. It was mentioned that Becton & Dickinson isnot a factory to be trusted. It has endangered the lives ofhundreds of people who have dedicated their lives to thatfirm. I think Mr. Sanchez has reliable evidence about this.It was also said that Becton and Diskinson, although I don'thave proof of this, had bought doctors who make supposedlyprofessional diagnoses that later turn out to be false.These people swore not to contaminate inside or outside thefactory and they have come to Juncos to contaminate and takeaway millions in profits. I want this to go 6n record.Although I am grateful for your presence here today and Iwant to urge you not to let this cool down. This is veryimportant for our community. Many committees have beenformed to investigate and later nothing is done. I hopethat the word "immediate" danger, that the danger is not oneto life and health. Knowing the properties of mercury, Iunderstand that with time mercury forms volatiles, afterrains, years after...I hope that that mercury doesn't affectthe health of the community.

QUESTION: Is EPA presently supervising Becton andDickinson? To see if they are still discardingthermometers. Maybe in another dump, in the Gurabo or LasPiedras dumps, Humacao, or any other town.

ANSWER: ' That falls under another division which I don'trepresent.

ooro

oOJ

*"*'""

-16-

QUESTION: So EPA doesn't have anything to do with this?

ANSWER: Yes, EPA does. If the company is complying withthe regulations, it should. Because otherwise, the casewould have been referred to us to take action against them.

QUESTION: Then you're not sure whether you're supervisingBecton and Dickinson?

ANSWER: I must be in compliance...

QUESTION: But who's doing that?

ANSWER: Inspections are made at specific intervals. Ican't be on top of a company. I can inspect them today andtomorrow they do something else.

QUESTION: But is EPA doing it?

ANSWER: Up to now, it's complying with the law.

QUESTION: Who? EPA or Becton and Dickinson?

ANSWER: EPA.

QUESTION: Let's make it clear what law you're talkingabout? RECRA?

ANSWER: RECRA. Toxic Wastes. EPA has a contract with theEnvironmental Control Board and the Board is Working for EPAin the inspection of everthing to do with the disposal oftoxic wastes. Mercury is a toxic waste. A new federalposition has just been approved for the toxic waste programin P.R. since we don't have anyone now in our local office.The Board is presently sending the results to the Air andWaste Division in New York. That's probably why Josedoesn't know what the other Division is doing. There is anew regulation and the Board has to amend local regulationsbecause the federal ones were amended last year and they aremore restrictive. That is why the program is stillcontrolled by EPA. So, yes we are responsible.

QUESTION: But we're not absolutely sure whether Becton andDickinson is still depositing wastes in Juncos, Gurabo orHumacao.( EPA itself dpesn't know. When are we going toknow? '

COMMENT: I was in Becton and Dickinson in January of thisyear and they are disposing of these wastes according toregulations.

QUESTION: How were they doing this?

-17-T-

ANSWER: They stored the wastes in a facility approved forthe storage of these wastes.

QUESTION: What facility? Because we know about thefacilities, but we want to know if they're the same or not.

ANSWER: Calvario Services.

QUESTION: That was in January of 1983. But a little whileago you said that Becton and Dickinson hadn't been .investigated since '83.

ANSWER: Let me repeat. I don't work in that division. Ijust went because I'm working on this project and I wantedto observe what they were doing. It was't a formal EPAinspection.

QUESTION: O.K. Do you notify Becton and Dickinson of yourvisits?

ANSWER: In this case I let them know. But I'm not anofficial....

COMMENT: Visits are wade both wayst notifying and notnotifying.

ANSWER: Exactly, When you notify them, they take differentmeasures from the ones they use when you don't notify them.That's what happens. When this mercury contamination matterbegan, mercury wasn't collected there. But when the Houseof Representatives, or the Environmental Board or OSHA orEPA says they're going, everything is spick and span. Ifthe person is caught red-handed, we're going to find a lotof things that are being done incorrectly. As long as wecontinue to notify them, nothing is going to be found andthe people of Juncos will continue to get sick and die whichjust happen to have a relationship with mercurycontamination. The time will come when no one will live inJuncos because of the mercury contamination. We want toavoid this. I hope this problem is solved soon becausewe've been dealing with this since '66 and neither themunicipal nor the state or federal government has doneanything.

I have another question. Why did EPA take so long tobecome involved in the mercury contamination problem?

ANSWER: We accept that we're behind. There has been aproblem in Congress with the reauthorization of the ,'legislation, the Super Fund. Congress didn't approve thelegislation, the funds stopped flowing and the program cpractically came to a stand still for a time. That is the ^main problem we have had. This situation will be taken careof eventually and there will be funda, but for now we're o

OJ

-18-

working with a provisional legislation that kept personnelworking, but not on the total investigation and clean-up ofthe places.

QUESTION: Has EPA interviewed the residents of LosAlmendros, Valencia 1 or Los Chinos? The people who livenext to where the old dump was.

ANSWER: Not while I was in charge of the project.

QUESTION: Since when have you been in charge?

ANSWER: I have been assigned to the project since themiddle of '85.

QUESTION: Before that, did EPA do anything?

ANSWER: I don't know whether they met with the residents ornot. '

COMMENT: (Pedro Gelabert) I don't know but I caninvestigate. I suppose they met with them. But if theydidn't, it must be done.

QUESTION: We visited these people with a doctor and we maderecords of their symptoms. They are going to doctors inJuncos and the doctors say there's nothing wrong with them.But, it just so happens that these are symptoms of peoplesuffering from chronic mercury poisoning. Almost 99% of thepeople who live in Los Almendors, Valencia 2 and Los Chinosshow these symptoms. We feel that the time has come to stopthis and do something because the investigations lead tonothing. The Senate investigated, House of Representativesinvestigated, OSHA investigated. Becton and Dickinson hasstill done nothing. They're leaving in September and Juncosis going to be left useless.

ANSWER: But that doesn't relieve the company of itsresponsibility. Remember that EPA operated on a nationallevel and will continue to be responsible for the dump.

QUESTION: O.K. Someone said that BD took charge of theinvestigation. But, has EPA placed a bond [sic] on Bectonand Dickinson for what they did or are doing?

ANSWER: *No, you mean a penalty? None.

QUESTION: Do they intend to? ' a-3J

ANSWER: Not for the time being. Super Fund will not . 0stipulate a penalty at this time. Once the responsible oparty is identified, we try to negotiate the investigations. w

If the investigations are not carried out, then the 0

CO

penalty is imposed. We use money from our fund and then wego to the company and charge them three times the cost ofthose investigations.

QUESTION: You have investigated and we already know that BD,is responsible because they have taken charge of thisinvestigation.

k

ANSWER: We identified the responsible party and by anadministrative order they're going to finance the .investigation and they'll be supervised by the EnvironmentalAgency.

QUESTION: And what has Becton and Dickinson done since younegotiated the administrative order.

ANSWER: They have been in the process of submitting thedocuments to the EPA and for us revise them to make surethat they're complying with the 'stipulations.

QUESTION: What documents?

ANSWER: The work plan that we're presenting today. Copieswill be left in City Hall and the Library so that all of youhave access to them.

COMMENT: Our objective today is to make that work planavailable to all of you. Study it, make comments andrecommendations.

QUESTION: I still have an important doubt. Funds fromSuper Fund will be used in case of immediate danger. Willthe funds be used if there is no immediate danger?

ANSWER: If we had found any immediate danger in 1983, wewould have been able to use our money from Super Fund. Butif this condition doesn't exist, we can't justify the use offunds for immediate corrective action.

QUESTION: I understand that. My concern is, although Itrust you, how much will Becton and Dickinson manipulate theinvestigation so that the results favor them.

ANSWER: The only way we can make sure that theinvestigations have been done correctly is by supervisingthem. One of our consultants, NUS Corporation, willsupervise the investigation to make sure to make sure thatBecton and Dickinson does everything correctly.

QUESTION: Is there a reasonable period of time for mercuryparticles to penetrate x number of feet or meters and isthere a specific amount of rainfall that could carry thatcontamination to the streams?

Ul'.Q

-20-

ANSWER: That's what we'll be doing in this study becausethat depends on the properties of the soil. We'll presentthe results of this study to you as soon as we obtain them.

QUESTION: I repeat my question. Is there a reasonableperiod of time to obtain this information?

ANSWER: This study will take a year. The study will start*at the end of this summer, subject to the approval of thework plan.

QUESTION: When will the work plan begin?

ANSWER: Around the end of July.

QUESTION: So this would be finished around the end of July,1987.

ANSWER: This is the projected date, but there is always thepossibility of coming across problems.

COMMENT: And you can be sure you'll find them.

QUESTION: Is there any representative from Becton andDickinson here at the meeting, as far as you know? Iseveryone here an employee of EPA?(Members of the panel are presented)

QUESTION: Does EPA know if Becton and Dickinson plans tobuild another thermometer factory after it leaves Juncos, inP.R.

ANSWER: We don't know.

QUESTION: (Miriam Lugo) Will the studies be repeated duringdifferent seasons...the rainy seson, drought, etc.?

ANSWER: That's one of the things that has to be stipulatedin the work plan. That's why these studies take so long.

QUESTION: What laws exist to regulate contaminants in thenew dump?

ANSWER: The Environmental Quality Control Board has aregulation on dangerous and non-dangerous solid wastes. Allnon-dangerous solid wastes have been turned over to theEnvironmental Quality Control Board. As for the dangerouswastes, there is a double regulation; a Federal

-21-

regulation that EPA has not delegated to the Board and theregulation of the Board that is a State regulation(Resource, Recovery and Conservation Act is the Federalregulation).

QUESTIOH: So it's the municipality's duty to see that thedump isn't used for toxic waste.

ANSWER: Dangerous products can be toxic, abrasive, reactiveor inflammable. That dump is not to be used for thesematerials. And it has to be used as sanitary fill.

QUESTION: What happens if all of this shows that there isno contamination. As human beings we're going to ask whathappened 'cause there are problems. What would theprocedure be then?

ANSWER: One of the alternatives is: No Action. If there isno contamination according to the investigation that wouldbe the alternative. Then what? No plan is iraplemnentedbecause there is no contamination and the study would endthere.

QUESTION: Would the community be informed? •-

ANSWER: The community will be informed all along the way.At the end of the study the report becomes public and youcan make your comments. If you think any area is deficient,let us know and we'll go back to the company and tell themthat we can't approve a feasibility study because some areasweren't covered. We would then cover those areas. When theparties agree that the document truly represents theconditions of the area, we'll go on to the viability studyand choose the alternative to be implemented to solve theproblem.

QUESTION: The leaflet you distributed states that whenmercury is found in the ground together with other things acontaminate can be formed. If that's true and thethermometers contained mercury, why was the method usedsimply to cover up the mercury? We're simply compoundingthe problem.

ANSWER: No. When we said "cover them up" we meant thatthere were themometers out in the open and anyone whoobtained access to the dump could come in contact with thesethermometers. A mitigating action is to cover them whilethe investigation is being made.

QUESTION: How much cover was used?

ANSWER: That depends. From 6 inches to a foot. That isto eliminate direct contact.

-22-

QUESTION: That would be primary contact. But after aperiod of time you have a second occasion. That's what'shappening now. They were found, covered up and now we're atthis point. What's going to be done.

ANSWER: The study might indicate the need to excavate. Butwe mitigated the immediate problem.

•

QUESTION: If no contamination is found and the thermometersare stil there, everytime they come up we'd have to coverthem up because there is a stipulation and analysis thatsays there is no danger. One part says that contaminantscould be found as deep as 20 feet.

ANSWER: There are various ways of solving this. Metallicmercury is less dangerous as long as kept in that form. Butwe know that it does not stay that way, particularly inriver sediments that's why I was so worried about them beingin the river. Bacteria work in the sediment and metallizeit, and at that point they can enter water life andaccumulate there. We eat the fish and then we accumulatethe mercury. That is the most dangerous type of mercury.But when they're covered up with fill, they don'tnecessarily metallize. We shouldn't deceive ourselves. Onepossibility is to leave them where they are. Nothing iswrong there, or remove them from there and deposit them in a

' place that can accept that contaminant. But there isanother alternative called incapsulation which means to fixit in the place. For example, we put a concrete cover overthe complete area and we incapsulate it. But'we mustunderstand that if the law says that that alternative iseconomically viable, EPA cannot force them to remove it fromthe area. And that is a concern. We might want it removedfrom the area, but if we can't prove that it's economicallyviable, we might have to accept incapsulation. We have tomake sure that it doesn't migrate from the area.

QUESTION: How reliable will the analyses be? In thegeological study , for example. We know that that changesslowly. That type of analysis would be more extensive. Theair studies that depend on air currents would be shorter.The water study would depend on the amount of undergroundwater in the area and the erosion which could reach thenearest stream.

ANSWER: ' These studies always try to take representativesamples. I can't predict what will happen in the future,but I can assure you that I'll get the best data available.This process goes through extremely rigorous quality control <and quality reassurance. That's why they take so long. «

cu0ts.

-23-

QUESTION: But that's what happened with the houses, whenthey were built we were told there was no danger, but now,years later we're told it could be dangerous.

ANSWER: That's what this study hopes to do. We hope topresent solutions to the problem if it exists. We want tomake sure that this won't cause problems in the future.

QUESTION: Have you ever met with Senators orRepresentatives? Because I think you should request areport from the Senate on depositions we presented to theSenate and there is some good information there.

ANSWER: What commission carried out the investigation?Health?

QUESTION: Health. At that time Bobby Rexach presided thecommission. Neftali Rodriguez in the House. Both housesmade the investigation. You said you were going to assignsomeone to follow-up on the Becton-Dickinson investigation.

ANSWER: We have selected NUS Corporation.

QUESTION: I don't think you should leave the same personthere permanently, to prevent confabulation.

ANSWER: This is not a person, but a group that will beworking in the field, doing technical work. In addition,there will be personnel from the Caribbean Office tosupervise. I should also point out that any lies thatappear in the reports will be treated as perjury which is acriminal Federal offence.

QUESTION: Does Natural Resources have anything to do withthis investigation? And if so, to what extent?-NSWER: our documents are public and all public agencies**have access to our work.

COMMENT (from audience): We're here as observers.

QUESTION: Did Natural Resources previously know anythingabout the mercury contamination?

ANSWER: , Through the press.

QUESTION: Why wasn't this meeting held on a Friday orSaturday when people aren't working instead of a week daywhen everyone's working and tired?

ANSWER: From now on we could set amore convenient date toyou.

-24-

COMMENT: The problem is that they come from New York.They've met in Juana Diaz, Guayama and today in Juncos,three consecutive days. But if we plan ahead, I think wecould hold the meeting on a weekend.

QUESTION: Could you briefly explain what happened in VillaUniversitaria regarding the contradictory reports?

»

ANSWER: Who made the reports?

QUESTION: I think it was EPA. I'm sorry, Ciudad Cristiana.

ANSWER: I don't have any information on that. That'sanother project. I'm assigned to Juncos.

QUESTION: But that could happen in Juncos. Some say yes,others say no and you don't know who to believe.

ANSWER: This is a similar case.- All the data were given tothe Center for Disease Control and they made a decisionbased on the level of contamination in the ground andwhether this affects health. They reached the conclusionthat it wasn't and immediate and significant effect, justlike here. That is the controversy. But it's the CDC thatmakes that determination and not EPA.

QUESTION: You say there will be a series of activities onthe Island. Could you possibly go to Yabucoa since thecontamination problem there is really serious?

ANSWER: We prepared an agenda we have to follow. We havean authorized travel plan. We planned to meet and work onthe Guayama and Juana Diaz projects and Juncos today. Someof our colleagues leave this evening and others leavetomorrow. But if you could present the problem.

COMMENT: They're talking about the 8 dangerous waste sitesin P.R. that have been abandoned. While there we're talkingabout a program for air contamination that is delegated tothe Environmental Quality Control Board.

QUESTION: No, there's water contamination too.

ANSWER: We could hold a joint meeting with NaturalResources and the Environmental Quality Control Board.

QUESTION: Sunday I toured the countryside in Yabucoa with ajournalist who is extremely concerned since Yabucoa hassuffered 100% from acid rain and the farmers there arecomplaining a lot and I think they're going to go to theBoard or EPA to get help for the problem.

a*

-25-

COMMENT: Since many of our members have to leave tonightfor New York, we'll close the meeting now, but we'll keepyou informed on further meetings. Thank you very much.

A member of the community also thanked the panelists forgiving them the opportunity to participate in the hearing.The meeting was then turned over to the Mayor of Juncos whothanked everyone for coming. He informed the group thatCity Hall would keep in touch with all the EPA officials.

C!3

ooto