### Superfund Site Final Close-Out Report Barceloneta Landfill Site Barceloneta, Puerto Rico

August 2011
Prepared by



# u.s. Environmental Protection Agency Region IITABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Background Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study ROD Findings Design Criteria Remedial Construction Activities 

### III. MONITORING RESULTS IV. ATTAINMENT OF GROUNDWATER RESTORATION GOALS V. SUMMARY OFOPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED VI. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL VII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW VIII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY X. GROUNDWATER MONITORING RESULTS XI. SITE MAPI. INTRODUCTION This Final Close-Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined, in accordance with the Close-Out Proceduresfor National Priorities List Sites (OSWER Directive 9320.2-22), that all response actions at the Barceloneta Landfill have been successfully implemented in accordance with theJuly 5, 1996Record ofDecision (ROD). II. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS Background The Barceloneta Landfill, an inactive non-hazardous domestic and industrial waste disposal facility, is located inBarceloneta, Puerto Rico onthe north coast ofthe island, approximately 20 miles due west of San Juan. The landfill is about 4.5 kilometers south of the Town of Barceloneta in Florida Afuera Ward. The property which contains the Barceloneta Landfill is approximately 32.6 hectares (80.6 acres) in size and is owned by the Municipality of Barceloneta. The landfill is surrounded by a tropical forest. The Quebrada Cimarrona, a tributary ofthe Rio Grande de Manati, is located 0.8 kilometer north of the landfill. A small residential area of approximately 150residences in Barrio Bajura Adentro is located about one kilometer east ofthe landfill. Approximately two kilometers to the north, in an area with more gentle topographic reliet: there are a series ofmanufacturing facilities. The nearest village is Cruce Magueyes, located about two kilometers northwest ofthe landfill. The residences inthe area are served by apublic water supply system that uses groundwater as its source. The property contained three surface depressions which were used for waste disposal. These waste disposal areas areknown as thenorthern, southern, and southeastern disposal areas. Each disposal area was located in adepression or "sumidero" (sinkhole) that is surrounded by conical limestone hills referred to as "mogotes." The three waste disposal areas cover about 15 acres. The northern disposal area is separated into two sections by an access road. The southern disposal area was also known as the Superfund disposal area or El Superfondo. The northern and southern disposal areas were filled and inactive atthe time ofthe 1996 Record ofDecision. The southeastern disposal arearemained active until December 31, 1998. Although the southern disposal area was known as the Superfund disposal area, allthree disposal areas are covered by the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) site listing andwere addressed under CERCLA. The Barceloneta Landfill is located in abelt ofrugged karst topography that extends along the north coast from 30 kilometers (19 miles) east of San Juan to the west border ofthe island. In the vicinity ofthe site, this belt is located from about onekilometer south ofthe coast to about 20 kilometers (12 miles) inland. North (seaward) ofthis rugged karst region is abelt ofrelatively flat coastal plain sediments. South (landward), the rugged karst terrain transitions into the central mountainous core of the island. Features of this karst landscape include numerous sumideros, steep scarp cliffs onthemogotes and adjoining ridges which·surround the sumideros, and alack ofsurface streams ordrainage features associated with individual sumideros.

3The siteisunderlain bythe northern limestone province ofPuerto Rico which consists ofblanket deposits, the Ayrnamon Limestone, the Aguada Limestone, the Cibao Formation, and the Lares Formation. Groundwater exists under unconfined conditions in the Aymamon and Aguada Limestones and under confined conditions in the Cibao and Lares Formations. Groundwater flow istothenorth. Groundwater inthis area ofthenorthern province discharges to the Rio Grande de Manati (river) and the Cano Tiburones (wetlands) which are 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) north of the site. Groundwater also feedsthe Ojo de Guillo spring located 1kilometer (0.6mile) tothe northeast. The property onwhich the Barce10neta Landfill is located was purchased by the Municipality of Barceloneta during the early 1970s. Preparation ofthe property for landfill use began in April 1972, and landfill operations commenced in August 1973. Reportedly, the landfill was initially approved to receive both municipal and industrial waste, but was restricted to only municipal waste disposal in 1975. However, disposal ofindustrial wastes appears to have continued past 1975. Specific dates ofactive filling in each ofthe three disposal areas aredifficult to determine given the lack ofdetailed record keeping. The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has information which indicates that the landfill (all three disposal areas) was used in the late 1970s fordisposal ofwastes which contained hazardous substances. Personnel from EQB and the Department ofHealth conducted numerous inspections ofthe site and listed various violations. These violations included: insufficient cover material; allowing refuse to bum; the presence of flies, rats and mosquitoes; allowing unlimited access to the landfill; and, allowing people to inhabit structures on the landfill. The site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL in December 1982, and was subsequently approved and listed as anNPL site in September 1983. The site property consists mainly of forested areas which provide a habitat for various plant, insect and animal species. In order toprotect the landfill cap, trees will notbe allowed to grow on the capped area. However, grasses will be permitted to grow and it is expected that the landfill areas will be comparable to the surrounding ecology. No reuse is currently planned for the landfill portion oftheproperty. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study In 1984, a Remedial Action Master Plan (RAMP) was prepared by an EPA contractor for the site. Based on the RAMP, a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Work Plan was developed. In September 1990, a Consent Order was signed in which ten Settling Defendants (SDs) agreed toperform the RI/FS forthe site. Pursuant tothe Work Plan, sampling ofsubsurface soils, groundwater and surface water was completed. The first phase ofthe RIwas completed in 1992 and the second phase ofthe RI fieldwork completed inJanuary 1994. A final RI report was received by EPA in March 1995 and a streamlined Risk Assessment was completed in May 1995. An abbreviated Final FS was conducted in accordance with EPA's Presumptive Remedy approach andwas received by EPA in September 1995.
4Consistent with EPA's Presumptive Remedy approach, EPA conducted a streamlined baseline Risk Assessment by comparing the levels of contaminants in groundwater to Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). These levels were exceeded, indicating the landfill to be a source of contamination to the groundwater and, therefore, remedial measures would be necessary to protect human health and the environment. The contaminants that were found above MCLs and Safe Drinking Water Standards (SDWS) were l,l-Dichloroethene, Manganese, Mercury, Chromium and Nickel. EPA's Risk Assessment indicated that the levels ofcontaminants present in the groundwater pose arelatively low long-term threat to the human health. However, ifno action were to be taken with respect to the landfill, the continued release of contaminants into groundwater could potentially result in a greater risk at some point in the future. Therefore, based on the results ofthe Risk Assessment, itwas determined that actual orthreatened release of hazardous substances from the Barceloneta Landfill site presents a threat to public health, welfare, orthe environment. ROD Findings On July 5, 1996, theRegional Administrator signed aRecord ofDecision. The following remedial action objectives were established forthe site:
• toprevent direct contact with waste material;
• to reduce or eliminate the potential for the landfill disposal areas to release hazards substances to groundwater;
• toreduce oreliminate the potential formigration ofhazardous substances to groundwater downgradient ofthe landfill;
• toprevent the migration ofand control landfill gas; and
• to minimize any potential future impacts ofhazardous substances that may migrate into environmental media. The major components ofthe selected remedy are as follow:
• Installing a low-permeability cover system over the three landfill cells meeting the requirements ofthe RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulations Governing Landfill Closure. This cover system or landfill cap(s) would further reduce infiltration of precipitation water into the landfill and reduce leachate generation, thus mitigating impacts togroundwater.
• Regrading and installing storm water management improvements at the site to reduce infiltration ofstorm water into the landfill and reduce leachate generation.

• Conducting long-term groundwater and surface water monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe cover system. It is anticipated that monitoring would be conducted on a quarterly basis for the first year, semi-annually for the next four years, and then annually. Monitoring would include the eight existing monitoring wells. Initially, the wells would be sampled for abroad parameter list. The list has been developed based on constituents detected above Safe Drinking Water Act Maximum Contaminant Levels in the Remedial Investigation and on the requirements ofthe RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulation Governing Landfill Closure (RMNHSW). After the first five years, the
5parameter list would be reviewed and those parameters not detected above standards would be omitted. The exact long-term groundwater monitoring program would be further defined during remedial design (RD).
• Conducting alandfill gas survey during predesign to determine the necessity ofalandfill gas collection system. The appropriate type of system, if necessary, would be determining during RD.

• Implementing a long-term operation and maintenance program for the cover system to include inspection ofthe system andprovision forrepair.
• Recommending to appropriate authorities that institutional controls be established. Institutional controls were recommended in order to protect the integrity ofthe landfill cover system and to reduce potential exposure to landfill contents. The institutional controls would include zoning restrictions to limit future land use and a deed restriction to limit future land and groundwater use.
• Installing aperimeter fencewith signs torestrict access.
• Reevaluating site conditions atleast once every five years to determine the need for any modification ofthe selected remedy. Design Criteria A September 30, 1997 Consent Decree (CD) memorialized a settlement whereby ten parties agreed to implement theremedy selected inthe ROD. The SDs hired M&S Ingenieria yCiencia Asociados who prepared remedial design plans and specifications, which EPA approved on September 17, 1999. On December 16, 1999, EPA approved the Remedial Action Work Plan and M&S Ingenieria yCiencia Asociados astheremedial action contractor proposed bythe SDs. During the RD activities, a new area of waste disposal was discovered at the site outside the limits ofthe three waste cells delineated for closure in the ROD. The waste was located in a sinkhole which lies immediately to the east ofthe Superfund cell. In agreement with EPA & EQB, the SDs relocated this waste material and performed a clean closure. This waste was incorporated and capped with waste inthe Superfund disposal area. During the predesign phase, it was determined that an active gas collection system was not necessary but that a passive gas venting system should be incorporated into the landfill cap construction. The gas venting system was included inthelandfill cap design. The groundwater monitoring program was developed during the RD phase. The monitoring network included the eight monitoring wells sampled during the RIfFS. It was determined that groundwater sampling would be conducted quarterly forthe first year, semi-annually forthe next four years, and then conducted annually. Itwas also determined that thewells would be sampled for abroad parameter list developed based on contaminants detected above MCLs and SDWS in the RI. In addition, the parameters and contaminants monitored would also include those specified under the RCRA Subtitle D and Puerto Rico's Regulation Governing Landfill Closure requirements. This initial listofparameters included:

6• Volatile Organic Compounds ofConcern (VOCs). Only l,l-dichloroethane was detected above MCLs during the RI. However, a more conservative approach that included the complete EPAMethod Scan forvolatile organic compounds was implemented
. • Metals of Concern include mercury, chromium, manganese and nickel. These were detected above MCLs and SDWS during theRI. After the first five years, theparameter listwould bereviewed and those parameters not detected above standards would be omitted. The O&M Plan, dated March 28, 2000, and approved by EPA, establishes the criteria used to reevaluate and modify the number of wells and list of parameters sampled. Remedial Construction Activities EPA approved early Remedial Actions to be carried out prior to the final approval of the Remedial Design Report. These activities included the excavation and stockpiling of clay for landfill cap construction and the excavation and relocation ofwaste from the newly discovered waste area. These activities were initiated on September 7, 1999. The Remedial Action on-site construction started inJanuary 24,2000 andwas completed onAugust 30,2000. On September 5, 2000, EPA and the State conducted a prefinal inspection and notified the Settling Defendants toproceed with the development ofthe draft Remedial Action (RA) Report. Punch list items identified during the prefinal inspection were addressed and documented inthe final inspection. On September 27,2001, EPA approved the final RAReport. The Municipality of Barceloneta has implemented Institutional Controls at the site. The Institutional Controls, which include zoning restrictions for the landfill property and deed restrictions preventing ground water use beneath and downgradient ofthe landfill, are in place. These controls were established onFebruary 22,2010. The O&M Plan, dated March 28, 2000, and approved by EPA, establishes the criteria used to reevaluate and modify the number of wells and list ofparameters sampled per the long-term monitoring requirements developed during theRD. These criteria are: Criteria #1: Parameters identified below the MCLs for three consecutive monitoring events would be omitted fromtheparameter list; Criteria #2: Ifno MCL exceedances at MW-2, MW-3, MW-4 & MW-5 are observed for two consecutive monitoring events, these wells would be eliminated fromthemonitoring program; Criteria #3: If all volatile and metal parameters, and nitrate have been eliminated from the parameter list for an individual well, based on the procedures discussed above (i.e., item 1), then this well would be eliminated fromthemonitoring program; and

7Criteria #4: Ifincreasing trends are observed above MCLs, annual monitoring would continue including sampling for chloride, TDS, TSS, pH, specific conductance, turbidity, and temperature. At the end of the first year of monitoring and at the end of each five-year monitoring period, interpretation of the data from the previous events would be completed and the monitoring program modified perthese criteria. III. MONITORING RESULTS The ROD called for conducting long-term groundwater monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the cover system, ensure that the concentrations of contaminants in the groundwater are decreasing overtime, and monitor thenatural attenuation ofcontaminants within theplume. MW-3, has had only one parameter, 1,1-dichloroethene, exceeding MCLs during the two years of monitoring. However, on two consecutive monitoring periods (March 2003 and October 2003), the results for 1,1-dichloroethene were non-detect and 49 micrograms per liter (Ilg/l), respectively, and below the MCL of70 Ilg/l. Based on the June 2004 groundwater monitoring report for the site and according to the criteria in the O&M Plan, on September 2004, ground water monitoring was reduced to five ofthe original eight wells and tothe following parameters: mercury, chromium, manganese and nickel. Mercury and chromium aremonitored to ensure that levels remain below MCLs. Chromium was identified below the MCLs for three consecutive monitoring events (ending on August 8, 2007) and as aresult, chromium was omitted from the parameter list, consistent with the criteria established inthe O&M Plan, beginning with the April 2008 sampling event. In addition, since the ROD was signed, the MCL and MCLG were remanded for nickel. As a result, EPA no longer has an enforceable legal limit for nickel in drinking water. Therefore, mercury, nickel and manganese contaminant concentrations are still monitored but there is only an MCL threshold for mercury. The remaining five wells (MW-1, MW-4,MW-6, MW-7andMW-8) are currently sampled annually. IV. ATTAINMENT OF GROUNDWATER RESTORATION GOALS Forthe fiveremaining wells, theresults ofthe groundwater monitoring are summarized on awell by well basis below:

• MW-1,thebackground well, had concentrations below MCLs and SDWS formanganese, mercury andnickel during the Spring 2011 sampling event. These results showed similar concentrations totheprevious annual sampling eventinMarch 2010.

• MW-4, located in the middle ofthe site, had concentrations ofmercury below the MCL of 0.002 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (i.e., 0.00132 mg/L) during the Spring 2011 sampling event. These concentrations have decreased since 2004. Manganese and nickel were below SDWS during this sampling event.

8• MW-6, a downgradient well, had concentrations of mercury below the MCL of 0.002 mg/L during the Spring 2011 sampling event. These concentrations have been consistently below the MCL since 2004. Nickel was found at a concentration of 0.192 mg/L. Concentrations ofnickel atthis well continue to decrease compared to previous sampling events. Manganese was detected above the SDWS and shows concentrations similar totheMarch 2010 sampling event.

• MW-7, a downgradient well, had concentrations of mercury, nickel and manganese below MCLs and SDWS. The previous sampling event of March 2010 also showed concentrations similar tothis sampling event.

• MW-8, a downgradient well, had concentrations of mercury, nickel and manganese below MCLs and SDWS. The last two sampling events, October 2009 and March 2010, show allparameters below MCLs and SDWS. In summary, all wells monitored atthe site reveal contaminant levels below MCLs. Although nickel and manganese are present in the groundwater, these contaminants do not have an enforceable MCL andwill continue tobe monitored. V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIRED Currently, five groundwater monitoring wells are sampled and analyzed on an annually basis for mercury, manganese and nickel, and the results are compared to the Maximum Contaminant Levels or Secondary Drinking Water Standards identified in the Record of Decision. The five groundwater monitoring wells are designated MW-1, MW-4, MW-6, MW-7 and MW-8; they will continue to be monitored by annual inspections and the five-year review process. The results of the groundwater monitoring events will continue to be evaluated against the 2000 O&M plan monitoring criteria, and modified as appropriate. In addition, the gas venting system is monitored by the PRPs' contractor andresults reviewed by EPA. The landfill cap is regularly inspected andmaintained bythePRPs' contractor. VI. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL The cap over the three disposal areas has been constructed in amanner consistent with the ROD and the final design documents. A quality assurance and quality control (QNQC) program was used in the development of the RD and throughout the RA. The QA/QC program was in conformance with EPA and Commonwealth of Puerto Rico standards. The Operation and Maintenance and Post-Remedial Monitoring Manual were approved by EPA and the Commonwealth ofPuerto Rico.

9VII. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW Hazardous substances remain on the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure; therefore five-year reviews are required. On August 2005 and August 2010, respectively, two five-year reviews (FYRs) were conducted. In August 2010, the FYR concluded that the remedy at the Barceloneta Landfill currently protects human health and the environment in the short term because all remedy components are functioning as intended and institutional controls are inplace toprevent exposure to contaminated groundwater. However, in order for the remedy to be protective in the long term, itwas recommended that the

# 0 & M plan be reviewed to ensure that the appropriate monitoring wells are being sampled and the correct analytes arebeing reported. In addition, surface water should be sampled asrequired by the ROD. In response to the recommendations identified in the 2010 FYR, EPA requested the PRPs to review the

# 0& Mplan toensure that the appropriate monitoring wells arebeing sampled and the correct analytes reported. Itwas concluded that the correct monitoring wells arebeing sampled and the appropriate parameters arebeing evaluated and reported. The groundwater will continue to be monitored annually and the wells monitored and contaminants analyzed based on the criteria identified inthe 2000 O&M Plan. In addition, the ROD stated that surface water monitoring would be conducted. After the FYR was completed, it was concluded that surface water sampling would not be conducted because there were no surface waters present atthe site. The nearest surface water isthe Ojo de Guillo, a spring located 1 kilometer (0.6 mile) northeast ofthe site. Therefore, this recommendation was not implemented. VIII. SITE COMPLETION CRITERIA

Date Walter E. Mugdan, ffirector Emergency and Remedial Response Division This sitemeets allthe site completion requirements as specified in OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, Close-Out Proceduresfor National Priorities List Sites. All remedial activities attheBarceloneta Landfill are complete and the site poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the environment. The only remaining CERCLA activities tobeperformed atthe site are O&M and five-year reviews. Therefore, EPAhas determined thatno further response action is necessary at the Barce16heta Landfill Superfund Site.

10IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY Administrative Order on Consent, September 28, 1990 Remedial Investigation Report, May 1995 Feasibility Study Report, October 1995 Barceloneta Landfill Record ofDecision, EPA, July 5, 1996 Consent Decree (CD) forRemedial Design and Remedial Action, September 30, 1997 Remedial Design Work Plan, September 17, 1999 Remedial Action Work Plan, December 16, 1999 Operation 

### &Maintenance andPost-Remediation Monitoring Manual, February 26,2001 Remedial Action Completion Report, September 27,2001 First Five-Year Review Report, August 2005 Second Five-Year Review Report, August 2010 Groundwater Wells Location, Elevation 

### &Flow Direction Barceloneta Landfill Field Inspection and Maintenance Report, April 15,2011

11

## x. Groundwater Sampling Results Location Sample TSS TDS Mercury Chromium Manganese

Nickel Date (mg/l) (mg/l) (me:/l) (me:/l) (me:/l)

(mg/l) MW-l Sep-05 3 344 ND0.0509 0.187

0.136 Apr-06 3 326 ND0.15 0.037

0.147 Sep-06 3 358 ND0.123 0.0595

0.0787 Apr-07 ND 324 ND 0.616 0.095 Apr-08 11 304 ND--- 0.0223 0.0766 Oct-09 25.5

.. 325 NDNT0.557 0.281 Mar-lO ND 310 NDTND ND Mar-II ND 3258 NDT0.015 0.04 MW-4 Sep-05 

### ND 772 0.00777 0.248 0.0212

0.107 Apr-06 1 890 0.0024 .0125 0.124

0.125 Sep-06 ND 956 0.00104 0.0106 0.557

0.217 Apr-07 ND 902 0.088 0.517 0.0603 Apr-08 1020 0.0142 --- 0.0122 0.0573 Oct-09 ND 978 0.00465 T0.0297 0.0703 Mar-lO D 120 0.00615 NTND ND Mar-II D 712 0.00132 NT0.0233 ND MW-6 Sep-05 ND 364 ND0.043 1.27 0.485 Apr-06 21 330 ND.0322 1.04 0.41 Sep-06 4 362 ND0.0209 1.08 0.341 Apr-07 9 334 NDND0.535 0.226 Apr-08 22 316 ND--- 0.204 0.212 Oct-09 33.5 335 NDNT2.18 0.768 Mar-lO 7.50 325 NDNT0.365 0.24 Mar-II 6.50 340 NDNT0.434 0.192 MW-7 Sep-05 ND 514 ND0.0262 0.0138

0.0558 Apr-06 2 558 ND0.0186 ND

0.0351 Sep-06 4 574 ND0.0505 0.0413

0.0854 Apr-07 ND 534 ND 0.0147 0.0359 Apr-08 9 514 ND--- 0.0335 0.0502 Oct-09 ND 335 NDTND ND Mar-lO ND 460 NDT0.0154 0.0611 Mar-11 ND 445 NDT0.0191 0.0469 MW-8 Sep-05 ND 324 ND0.0295 0.0345

0.0538 Apr-06 2 358 ND0.0464 0.0268

0.0582 Sep-06 3 364 ND0.0228 0.0202

0.0464 Apr-07 ND 332 ND ND 0.018 Apr-08 21 318 ND--- 0.0442 0.0558 Oct-09 ND 340 NDTND ND Mar-lO ND 348 NDTND ND Mar-II ND 295 NDT0.0185 0.0665 PQL 1 1 0.001 0.01 0.01

0.02 MCL NONE --- 0.002 0.1NONE 0.1 SDWS NONE 500 --- --- 0.05 NONE

Notes: Bold values are above MCL or SDWS NT =Sample Not Collected ND =Not Detected mg/I =milligrams per liter Jlg/I=micrograms per liter MCL =Maximum Contaminant Level SDWS =Secondary Drinking Water Standard PQL =Practical Quantitation Limit
12

# El

+ MW-8 44.13 m ~ MW-7 45.39 m h;"'f••••. 1~l 50 m \\

~\

_

•. w{,..· :'\\

\ \ \ \

# I I I r. 1. ,I 

### I 

## I I I 

# I I I 

# I I I 

# I J I I I ;.I

I I I I 

# I I I 

# •
MW-6 55.68 m

' .••. 1 .~ ,. .,~ •• t••

!la .•

[., t~

••• \~, .lI~("lI r.:;-,.~,~-:,.j ,-"'0'''( "A"T:' •••• r I··
.
, . 1 j'::,/ :~';

f 

### Lt 

## '['

~-,~ ~' :.~ l'~H ~" F'~'~ L. /:.'

/ .- .. / / .#

ll~ 

### '* )\r~:-~.rf'u-:'l'_r'·:v .: ....•~

\I I 

### I I I f / 

### I .; 60m \ \

~ .... "'1".:, \ 

# * \ \ \ '+\ \



# \ \ \ 

## \ , ? t



# ' , " I ''t'

# '«, \,,, "" II 

# ' '\,,; " f' , , /..i\, ""/ 'frMW. 

## I



## " \'" ',,~'''''m 

# I '/'. ' , "'t,"'" '\ , ,

'-----'-----,,-, '\. I J' ,.~ 

## ".w~, "." , " " ~_ "':
... " ro,,, m '" \ "" " 

### ,#"'" '~"':

.... ~. \
.,t.-"'- ""
. ,~ . C:::-' !-,,.... "'ii;'
. - .•..•. '-
... "'.)c.•. ,. 

# I_,'." _.' "C~" '0 

### ",""<c'".

-

# r-",,$', .t. I • j~_
. 

# i :t"~-~::-'-""'I- 

### 't/ I .$;0

....-- (1 ,;'.t:?/ I )1\',,/ -'-:;.r~

__ -V :?" _."'. ~ 

### ',,,,, '.-- 'J 

## ~. - I MW-4 

## I 73.73 m / 

## / .J. 

# I J. f /. l 

### 'j I' '0. f f 70m



# t

XI. SITE MAP 

# "

"- "-

# "

"- "-

# "

# "

# "'.,

# "

# , \\ .MW-1 77.18m

~ 

### \\

### \\ 

## \

\\\

## \ .\

. -lOt\' 

## ,\ 80m