The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally proposed deleting the Corozal Well Superfund site from the National Priorities List (NPL). Located in the central mountain region of Puerto Rico, between the municipalities of Corozal and Naranjito, the site has long been under federal and Puerto Rican oversight due to several volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene (PCE), contaminating drinking water supplies.

EPA says that all cleanup goals have now been met—groundwater concentrations of PCE are now below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), long‑term protections are in place, and no additional remedial action under the federal Superfund law is required.

The deletion requires public comment, and the agency will issue a Notice of Intent to Delete, opening a 30‑day comment period.

What the EPA and Local Authorities Say: “Success Story”

• Restored Safe Drinking Water: The Corozal Well (also called the “Comunidad Santana well”) was contaminated in 2010. In response, Puerto Rico’s Department of Health shut the well and together with EPA supplied alternative sources of water, then in 2011 installed a granular‑activated carbon (GAC) filter to treat the water.
  
  
• Regulatory Standards Met: EPA reports that measured concentrations of PCE in the treated water are now below the MCL.
  
  
• Long‑Term Protections and Monitoring in Place: The site has undergone environmental and health assessments, with periodic reviews and oversight, ensuring that the remedy continues to protect residents.

Criticisms and Concerns: What Remains Unsettled

While many view the proposed deletion as a milestone, critics—health officials, local residents, environmental scientists—warn that some risks and unknowns remain. Key points of concern:

1. Unknown or Unidentified Contamination Sources: The groundwater plume that affected the site has no identified source(s), which raises questions about whether new contamination could emerge or old contamination migrate.
   
   
2. Data Gaps and Uncertain Past Exposure The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) noted in its public health assessment that data prior to 2010 are limited or missing. This makes it hard to assess past exposure levels, especially before remediation steps were in place.
   
   
3. Other Exposure Pathways While drinking water appears to be safe now, ATSDR and others have flagged concerns about other ways people might be exposed contaminated surface water or sediment in nearby creeks or vapor intrusion, especially where VOCs in groundwater can migrate through soil and enter indoor air in homes.
   
   
4. Long‑Term Assurance and Delisting Implications: Deletion from the NPL does not mean that all oversight ends. The EPA stresses that the site can be returned to the NPL if future conditions warrant. However, community groups sometimes worry that public attention and resources may drop once a site is labeled “clean,” even if monitoring is ongoing.
   
   
5. Health Impact Uncertainties: Even with current levels below federal thresholds, some community members express concern about whether “below MCL” truly means “safe,” particularly for sensitive populations such as children, pregnant women, or those with compromised health. These are the groups most vulnerable to low‑level, chronic exposure. (While not always documented specifically for Corozal, this type of concern is common in communities near former contamination sites.)

Approximately 200‑240 people rely on the Santana well for drinking water in the affected area. Local health agencies agree with EPA’s finding that present drinking water is safe, but many emphasize the need for continued monitoring and transparency. Comments on the proposed deletion are being accepted through October 14, 2025. EPA will review submitted comments, assess whether all protections are adequate, and decide whether to finalize the deletion. 

Bottom line: The proposed delisting of the Corozal Well site reflects a cleanup effort that has met regulatory benchmarks: safe drinking water, reduced contaminant levels, functioning remediation systems, and oversight. But for many residents, scientists, and health advocates, the decision is not a simple ending—it’s a test of sustained vigilance. The concerns over unknown contamination sources, potential exposure pathways beyond just drinking water, and historical exposures remain on many minds.