FORMER NAVAL STATION ROOSEVELT ROADS

Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Meeting Minutes

Club Cvico La Seyba, Ceiba, Puerto Rico Meeting No. 20 January 27, 2011

Note: This meeting summary is based on informal notes taken at the meeting. It is not intended as a verbatim transcript. Portions of some discussions may not have been captured. If comments or additional notes are provided within 30 days of distribution of these minutes, they will be added as an attachment to this summary.

I.

Welcome and Introductions

The meeting began at 6:15 p.m. Mark Davidson, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Navy Co-chair, welcomed the public and asked everyone to introduce themselves. (See Attachment 1, Meeting Attendees.) He announced that a community member, Naida Davila, has asked to speak at the end of the meeting.

II.
1.

Action Items from Last Meeting

Action Item
Let the Navy know about the interest in getting a Risk Assessment Workshop and propose a date Discuss organizing a visit to the dead mangroves location with Wilmarie Rivera Update on the Economic Development Conveyance Investigate allegation that contaminated soil was removed from the Base by the Army Obtain information on where within the Navy to go with concerns about the health of former Base employees

Lead
RAB members Ongoing

Status

2.

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Mark Davidson, Navy Mark Davidson, Navy Wilmarie Rivera, Environmental Quality Board Mark Davidson, David Criswell - Navy

Ongoing

4. 6.

Completed at this meeting Completed at this meeting

7.

Ongoing

III.

Property Transfer Update Mark Davidson (Navy)

Mark Davidson reported that the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) submitted new application for the Economic Development Conveyance (EDC). The LRA had asked the Navy to hold off transferring the sale parcels until the new application was submitted. Not much has changed from what we discussed last meeting. The LRA is asking to take ownership of Sale Parcel III, the Science Park parcel and University parcel (as designated in the original reuse plan), the bowling alley and base utilities. The fuel tanks will not transfer under the EDC, but will go to the Commonwealth under a Public Benefit Conveyance. An EDC is used to generate jobs and the
1

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

property is paid for. A PBC is a no-cost transfer and the use of the property is restricted, typically similar to the current use. Before transferring the tanks, the Navy will fill all the old fuel pipelines with grout so they cannot be used. This is a precautionary measure to prevent future leakage of fuel from the old pipes. The concern is that the old pipes may potentially have holes in them due to lack of maintenance since 2004, the year the base closed down. Mark showed the map of what the LRA is asking for (See Attachment 2, Presentations). The Navy will review this revised application. The LRA has included cost-benefit information for the new Caribbean Riviera concept, which will take awhile to review. Parcel 47 will be transferred to the Puerto Rico National Guard. There is one site within this parcel 47, SWMU 76. This is one of the few parcels that the Navy will transfer the cleanup responsibility of a SWMU along with the property. . The Army will have to get their own permit with EPA to do the cleanup. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was concerned about what might have come out of the back and front side of the maintenance bay. (See photo in Attachment 2.) Discussion points: Jose Benitez (community member) Why grout the pipelines? Mark Davidson Because the Navy doesnt have confidence in those fuel lines. They are too old and not in good condition. The Navy will fill the pipes so they cant be used. The LRA can still use the fuel tanks, which are in good shape and can be inspected, but they will need to put in new lines. William Lourido (RAB Member) Instead of grouting, can you take the pipes out? Mark Thats a lot more costly. When you pump grout through in liquid form it solidifies and the pipe cant be used. The LRA could run a new pipeline next to an old one, or just remove it if they dont want to use a particular line. Mark Tallmadge (community member) What public benefit is provided by the tanks? Mark Davidson Since the fire in San Juan near Fort Buchanan destroyed some fuel tanks, the LRA has asked on behalf of the Puerto Rico Electric and Power Authority (PREPA) if they could use these tanks. PREPA will use the tanks to store fuel oil to be used to generate electricity for Ceiba. Ismael Velzquez (RAB member) Is that whole system going to be removed, all the valves, or what will be done? Mark Davidson There are no plans for the Navy to remove them. Ismael Velzquez If the Navy makes all the piping useless, then the process of new piping must be done by Puerto Rico, from the pier? Mark Davidson - Yes. If the LRA used the old pipelines and they started leaking, they could call Navy and ask for a cleanup for their own fuel spill. Navy couldnt prove the contamination was new and not from an earlier leak. Navy needs to get out of that risk. Ismael Velzquez How deep are the pipelines? Pedro Ruiz (Navy) and Mark Kimes (Baker) It varies from 2 feet up to 7 feet deep and some are 20-30 feet deep; the pipelines run for many miles.
2

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

Jose Benitez Has the Navy investigated contamination from pipeline leaks? Mark Davidson - Yes, that is SWMU 74, which we will talk about tonight. The pipelines were cleaned out after the Navy stopped using them.

William Lourido If the land cant be used for anything else while pipes are there, why not just take them out? Puerto Rico will have to remove old the piping again. Navy should give back the land the same way it was. Mark Davidson We dont have an endless cleanup budget and that is not really an environmental cost. This (grouting the pipeline) is common practice. The LRA could run a new pipe right next to the old one. There is no need to remove the old one. Ismael Velzquez I dont see the sense. If the piping is not going to be used, they will have to make a ditch for new piping; why not remove the old pipe, so the new pipe can go in the old ditch, which is already contaminated. William Lourido Years ago, we didnt have same technology. Its a matter of money to the Navy. There were no pipes when Navy got the land; if the pipes are no good now, you should remove them and leave the land as it was; its only fair. Mark I hear you, its a point well taken, but this is a common practice when abandoning old pipelines and transferring property.

IV.

Follow-up on Soil Removed from Army Property Mark Davidson (Navy)

At the last meeting, Luis Velzquez (RAB member) raised a concern that soil had been removed from Army (Moscrip) property and the soil was dumped on a property in Naguabo. He speculated that it might have come from a contaminated area near where the Army is building. Luis provided a picture of the piles of soil that were dumped offsite to Mark Davidson during the last meeting. The Navy visited the Armys construction site, to make sure that soil did not come from SWMU 73, which cannot be disturbed under a land use control. Pedro Ruiz (Navy) took a photo of the Armys construction site from an airplane on November 13, which shows the land use control area was not disturbed. We verified that in the site visit. (See photos in Attachment 2.) Wilmarie Rivera added: The Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has contacted the Armys person at Fort Buchanan who is in charge of environmental work and asked for information about contractors, to know where the soil came from (but it was during the Christmas vacation period). The Armys contractor will get that information to EQB, then EQB will meet with the Army. We already know the soil did not come from SWMU 73. If its normal construction practices, then we just need to ensure they are doing what they should. Mark Davidson Unless Wilmarie finds out differently, this matter is closed. I appreciate Luis bringing this question to our attention.

Discussion Points: Susana Struve (CH2M HILL, facilitator) This is how A RAB should work. If you have concerns, bring it up here to Navy and regulators. This was a good example of following up on a concern raised by a RAB member.
3

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

Jose Benitez- What kind of guarantee is there against removing anything from the base and dumping it off the base? Mark Davidson They cannot touch the SWMUs (environmental sites); anywhere there is a land use control, they cant dig up any soil. Anywhere else that has not been determined to be a site, it is considered to be clean soil and the Navy and regulators have no control over it.

V. Recent and Upcoming Sampling Investigations Mark Kimes (Baker Environmental)

Mark Kimes presented information about a recent investigation on the base in January 2011 and some upcoming investigations. We will be doing a lot of field work in 2011, at SWMUs 62, 70, 71, 74 and 78. (See Attachment 2 for details). SWMU 74 is the old contamination from fuel pipelines that Mark Davidson was talking about earlier.

Recent work
At SWMU 9, we found some areas where previous work did not completely delineate contamination, so we asked the regulators not to finalize the report until we did more sampling. Slide 28 shows sampling grids, areas where sampling was done to be sure where the total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH) contamination was coming from and where it was going to. We collected 75 soil and wetland sediment samples and submitted them to be analyzed for diesel fuel. Some will also be analyzed for lead, vanadium, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and other chemicals associated with fuel. Slide 33 shows the Tank 214 area at the high point of the site; from there, everything flows down. We installed four new monitoring wells and collected groundwater samples.

Work coming up:

SWMU 62 (Former Bundy disposal area): We will start field work when EPA and EQB approve the work plan. We will analyze soil samples for metals. The sampling slide shows the area identified from aerial analysis where we will collect additional samples. SMUW 70 (Disposal area NW of landfill): We are awaiting regulatory approval of the work plan. We will collect soil samples from upland, sediment samples from wetlands, and groundwater samples to better understand groundwater flow at the site. The green dots on the sampling map show where the new samples will be. (See Attachment 2, slide 43.) If we find surface water while collecting sediment samples, we will also take water samples. SWMU 71(Quarry Disposal Site): We are awaiting regulatory approval of the work plan. Objectives of the investigation are to define the area contaminated with PAHs and metals and where the contamination is coming from. We will collect a lot of samples and will install five new monitoring wells to sample groundwater. Well be sampling in two areas: the lower area by Langley Drive and the upper area where the quarry operated. SWMU 74 (Fuel pipelines and hydrant pits): The aerial photograph (see Attachment 2) shows SWMU 74 covers a large area of the base, from the fuel tanks to several areas, including above-ground storage tank at the airfield and hydrants used to fuel jets. There are many miles of pipeline. During Phase I in 2008, we did soil borings every 100 feet along the pipelines, with two borings and one groundwater monitoring well at each valve pit. We sampled groundwater every 1000 feet; if we found any indication of contamination, we collected more samples every 100 feet. Phase II is to zoom in on the areas where Phase I found contamination, delineate the contaminated areas, collect information
4

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

needed for the corrective measure study (where to clean soil) and do risk assessments. We are awaiting regulatory approval of the work plan. Well be analyzing samples for fuel related compounds. Its a very large area, so it was broken down into 5 areas to be more manageable: 1. Airfield Areas: Phase I found 3 contaminated areas to investigate further. On the sampling figure, the blue/red/green dots are where samples of soil/groundwater/or both were taken during Phase I (Attachment 2, slide 56). The next three figures (slides 57-59) show the new sampling locations. Segment B, the Day Tank Area, is the above-ground storage tank mentioned earlier). 2. SWMU 9 Area A/B: On the sampling location figure (slide 1), the purple dots show where new samples will be taken, lots of new samples here. 3. JP-5 Hill and DFM area: this area is divided in 2 segments, JP-5 Hill Area and DFM Area; again the purple dots show new sampling locations. 4. SWMU 9 Area C: On the sampling location figure (slide 66), the purple boxes show new sample locations 5. Fueling Piers Area: (slide 68) the purple dots at lower right of the figure are new soil sampling locations and the groundwater well that will be sampled is shown at the upper right corner. Discussion Points: Jose Benitez Does it show on these slides where the pipeline grouting will take place? At junctions, are there voids and a chance of gases collecting? Mark Davidson We will be grouting the entire pipeline, so there will be no voids; it will be solid. Mark Kimes The Navy cleaned out all of the pipelines and Bulk Storage Tanks earlier and put in nitrogen to flush out the petroleum vapors. Ismael Velzquez I didnt know pipes ran through all three piers. This is the parking lot near my office, where 23-story building will be. How long will it take to monitor and eliminate all the contamination? This is an area where LRA wants transferred now. Nothing can be handed over until its cleaned. Can you explain that better? Mark Kimes Slide 68 shows the area where Phase I found no contamination in soils or groundwater; contamination was only found in limited area by the berthing pier, where the new samples will be collected. Ismael Velzquez Is Building 2300 is where monitoring wells are? Mark Kimes The building is to the west of the monitoring area. Ismael Velzquez Navy is transferring the most contaminated, area; how quickly will it be cleaned so it can be turned over? This is new to me. Mark Kimes Keep in mind that SWMU 7/8 is also near there and has been under investigation for a long time, with lots of monitoring wells, although the corrective measure is not in place yet. Thats the Tow Way fuel farm, which is not part of the SWMU 74 investigation. We know from the
5

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

Phase I investigation that the soil and groundwater are clean along the line near the building you mentioned. We are focusing now on area to the southeast of there, where there is possibly benzo(a)anthracene in groundwater (at the upper right of slide 68). We expect approval of the work plan soon and to start the Phase II investigation in the next few months, then the corrective measures study (CMS) could be in next 18 months. Ismael Velzquez So there would be no construction in that area the entire time? Mark Davidson Navy will only transfer what is clean. We have asked the LRA for an overlay map of what they propose to do, so we know where in relation to SWMU 74 they want to build; if its near the site, theyll have to wait. Mark Tallmadge I had a conversation with Tito Colorado years ago, who said the LRA wanted to work with Navy to turn over the property with no work done. I dont believe the tanks are for PREPA. There is no one here from the LRA to answer these questions. Luis Velzquez (RAB member) I worked at Pier 3 and the entire waterfront with my cousin when the Navy built the waterfront parking area. I cant believe there is no contamination there (upper left of slide 68). There was a broken valve at the pipeline there, a spout rose 30 feet into the air and thousands of gallons fuel went into the soil. I cant believe that fuel disappeared. Mark Kimes That area is part of SWMU 7/8, so its not part of this investigation. That area is undergoing cleanup already. SWMU 78 (Pole Yard): We are awaiting approval of the work plan. We will analyze soil samples for metals and will analyze some for fuel-related chemicals. The area is at a high elevation with lots of rock. If we find groundwater, we will also sample and analyze that. The purple dots (slide 72) show where Phase I samples were collected, the green dots show the new sample locations. We showed photos of the contaminated soil area that was cleaned up at an earlier RAB meeting. Discussion Points: Ismael Velzquez In the airport area, I noticed a lot of work to be done. Doesnt that conflict with airfield operations? Why was it not done before transfer? Mark Davidson The Airport was prime property, so the Commonwealth wanted it fast. Most airfields have fuel contamination. It wont affect their operations. Mark Tallmadge I have not seen any investigation results; when will the community see them? Mark Kimes We have placed documents in the public library and made them available on the Internet (http://nsrr-ir.org/) and have summarized them in the newsletters. On the Web site, click on the link for Administrative Record; you can sort or search by any SMWU. The Web site also has all the RAB minutes, calendar, and Web pages about all the sites. Please go on the Web site and look up all the information you want, its there for public knowledge. Jose Benitez I would like to see if, when soil is removed for construction, you could designate a place to store soil in the area, so that nothing leaves the base. Mark Davidson Before removing any contaminated soil, they would have to get a manifest and take it to a licensed landfill.

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

Jose Benitez But if clean soil is stored onsite, there would be no worries about it and it could be used elsewhere. Mark Davidson Thats a good idea, we could suggest it to the Army. It could be an issue for runoff and stormwater quality, though. Luis Velzquez I want to know about soil removed by the Army Reserve. I didnt see any report from EQB. The responsibility is the Navys, no matter who purchases the property. Mark Davidson I know you came in late, Luis; we did cover that earlier. If you want to talk to me in the break, I will brief you. We investigated and confirmed that the soil did not come from SWMU 73. Luis Velzquez Then thats a worse offense, you have no control over contamination on base. You should take samples from the trucks exiting the base with excavated material and ensure it cant be used elsewhere. Wilmarie Rivera (EQB) - At beginning of the meeting, as Mark explained, no soil was removed from SWMU 73. We have spoken with someone from Army environmental at Fort Buchanan, who will have their contractor confirm that no soil was taken from an area of concern around there. EQB does not have the budget to sample everything. You need to contact EQB immediately if you see something. Luis Velzquez This evening I want to make an accusation against Puerto Rico agencies. There should be someone there every day on the base. You give us reports, but we dont know what youre doing. What you are doing is filling a file to say the public was informed that contamination was dealt with. If there is contamination and soil was removed from there, if EQB doesnt intervene, they are failing us. I am accusing you of removing contamination from the base. Ismael Velzquez Luis, I was in the area. I can attest that nothing was removed from the area where there was contamination. Originally the other area where I thought there was contamination, there is none. I thought it was because they would dump branches from palm trees, but trees dont have any contamination. They dug there to make foundations, but I can attest it was not contaminated. Luis Velzquez Navy used this area to dump scrap metal from base for four years, air conditioners, refrigerators, from all over the base. The problem is that we are talking here, but we are not allowed into the base. What can I see? EQB should have someone there every day to oversee anyone removing soil from anywhere.

VI. Other Questions/Comments from the Public

Naida Davila (community member representing APRODEC) I wanted to bring up a matter of vital importance to APRODEC. Sale Parcel I, where an important site exists, has been put up for sale. We would ask if it could possibly be transferred to a private entity. The site is of incalculable value to Ceiba and all of eastern Puerto Rico. We would like you to sleep on this, because we intend to rescue these areas for historical and archeological value. I have APRODEC members here tonight, including our vice president who is an archeologist. We want to establish alliances with federal and state agencies to rescue the site. Thuane Fielding (Navy BRAC Program Management) has promised at least to try to discuss and reach an agreement somehow to rescue this site, which is so important for historical
7

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

research. We would need Navy authorization to go there with an archeologist and biologist to do research. Community member, pointing to parcel 25 on slide 6 All this area is a wetland, which should have been separated and set up as a trust, as they did the other wetlands. Here there is an archeological site, which might be the most important of all Puerto Rico. Its a stone 18 feet wide with petroglyphs carved into it. Oral history says this site is where all the chieftains would gather to pray for success in fishing good weather, etc. When the Taino Indians marked a rock like this, it practically became a god for them. It would be unfortunate for a developer to take that parcel and ignore all the laws that protect the rock. It would be easier to set this area aside, put it into a trust or give it to Ceiba. Whoever buys the area around it cannot do anything there anyway. Community member I was born next to that rock. I remember that people would come in canoes to look at it. Its very smooth as if smoothed by hand. Luis put paint on it so you can see the carvings. There are rocks placed around it, like an amphitheater. Its called the Indians Rock and its about the height of this ceiling. When I was 12 years old, I went there because you could fish, collect crab and octopus there; the ocean still came up there then. It should be placed in a trust. The area there is all mangroves anyway, so you cant build anything there except a marina. Behind it is a ditch, which is behind where a hotel was; it was a dump. You havent done anything there yet. There was another dump behind the commissary. You havent taken any samples there. Mark Kimes That is SWMU 1, which has been under investigation since 1976. We have already begun to remove metal debris from there and found some munitions, which are being dealt with now. The other site you mention is SMWU 2, which is also investigated; its an interim removal area. I want to assure you this area is being taken care of. Ismael Velzquez I believe there is confusion here. As you clean up, if you bring the group there like you did before to see, then people wouldnt be asking these questions. Those of us who work there are aware of whats being done, but others dont know. Luis Velzquez Since we started holding these meetings, Ive been talking about the Indian Rock in Sale Parcel 1, also the queens house and the tunnels in Puerto Rey Baha Puerca, where the Indian Rock is dwarf mangroves, also. The big plan says that the property goes 100 feet into the sea, an imaginary line. Its in the 300-page book from the first sale attempt. By selling this land, you are telling the people of Puerto Rico that they can continue doing whatever they want with mangroves. If I have a lake, I will do whatever I want. In San Juan next to the El Caribe Hilton hotel, some historic ruins disappeared. The same thing will happen to the Indian Rock. If you sell this, you are giving the buyer the opportunity to do what they are doing next to El Caribe Hilton. The Indian Rock is a treasure for Puerto Rico. We are asking you to delete that from the parcel. Its all in your hands. Mark Davidson Yes, its in the Sale Parcel 1. The Indian Rock has been identified as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, so there will be protection on the Indian Rock. There will be a conservation easement in the deed, so the new owner legally cant do anything with the rock without dealing with the Puerto Rico State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Naida Davila The thing is that, in Puerto Rico, this is like no-mans land. Its already happened; there is precedent where buyers have ignored the laws completely. In Humacao and other places, they built on historic sites. There is nothing you can do when the sites are gone. That is why it is so important we come to agreement so the mayor, the legislative assembly, can all agree how to protect this. Please lets set aside a portion of that parcel for the municipality of Ceiba to save a place of such importance.
8

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

Jose Benitiz Have any archeological studies been done in that area? Mark Davidson Yes. Our archeologist, Darrell Gundrum in NAVFAC Southeast, is working with someone in the SHPOs office, Mike Bonini, to set up the boundary of the cultural sensitive areas for conservation easement. It will be surveyed, so the boundaries can be recorded in the deed. Luis Velzquez Its just the facts here in PR. When a hearing on Puerto Rey was held, they said they would leave a beach for public. Nothing was done. The Camino de la Reina, the road was used when the queen came here, was supposed to be preserved. The owner may preserve the Indian Rock, but the owner will not allow passage through his land for people to see it. I think the Puerto Rico Conservation Trust should be in charge of this parcel, so the people can enjoy what was theirs before the Navy got here. Thuane Fielding I suggested that Naida contact the SHPO to express APRODECs concerns, so that as we work on the deed to transfer the property, the SHPO can include language to protect the property as the community wants. The RAB is separate entity from property disposal. I appreciate Mark including property disposal on the RAB agenda, since you are concerned that the LRA is not holding meetings. You dont want to hold up the environmental restoration process with these issues.

VII. CLOSURE
Susana Struve (facilitator) This has been a very interesting meeting; some very good new points were brought up for discussion. Weve heard from several people including Ismael Velzquez that the RAB meetings are getting boring. So, Mark Davidson would like to offer to make the next RAB meeting a visit to the base, to see the environmental sites weve been talking about, SMU 78 or whatever. At other times, in between RAB meeting, the base commander can organize a tour with enough advance notice. RAB members, what would you like to do? The next RAB meeting is scheduled for March 17, 2011, as a base visit for RAB members. I would encourage people who visit RAB meetings all the time to come, too, but please not the whole town; it would not be productive. Please let us know what sites (aside from Indian Rock) you would like to go see. Agree among yourselves and contact Ramon Figueroa (RAB Community Co-chair) so he can tell the Navy. Also tell us what time is good for you morning or afternoon?

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

ATTACHMENT 1 Meeting Attendees January 27, 2010

RAB Community Members Present Lus A. Velzquez Rivera Ismael Velzquez William Lourido Michael Dalton Samuel Caraballo Agustn Velazquez

RAB Community Members Absent Ramn D. Figueroa, Community Co-Chair Jorge Fernndez Porto Lirio Marquez DAcunti Debra McWhirter Ramn M. Ros

Community Members Visiting Marc Tallmadge Naida Davila Hiram Rivera Antonio Avila Manuel Martinez M. Flores Jos Benitez Juan Solis Pedro Tejada Ivette Hernandez Marilyn del Manzano C. Cosme RAB Agency Representatives Mark Davidson, Navy Co-Chair, BRAC Environmental Coordinator Tim Gordon (absent) Wilmarie Rivera Gloria M. Toro Agrait Santiago Oliver (representative) Neida Pumarejo Cintrn (absent) Other Agency Representatives Erwin Kiess (absent) Freddy de Jess (absent) Thuane Fielding Commander Daniel Kalal Director, Local Reuse Authority (LRA) LRA BRAC Program Management Office Southeast Naval Activity Puerto Rico Support Staff Susana Struve Pedro Ruiz Mark Kimes Ginny Farris CH2M HILL, Inc. (Navy contractor meeting facilitator) Naval Facility Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Baker Environmental, Inc. (Navy contractor Installation Restoration Program) CH2M HILL (Navy contractor)
10

Navy - BRAC Program Management Office Southeast EPA, Region 2 EQB, Federal Facilities Coordinator EQB, Hazardous Waste Permit Division Puerto Rico Conservation Trust

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.

ATTACHMENT 2 Presentation

11

Note: This summary is presented in English and Spanish for the convenience of the reader. Every effort has been made for the translations to be as accurate as reasonably possible. However, readers should be aware that the English version of the text is the official version.