1. Streamlined Clean-up and Property Sale/Transfer at former Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, now Naval Activity Puerto Rico (NAPR), located in Ceiba, Puerto Rico

2. 2 Presentors: Timothy R. Gordon Remedial Project Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 RCRA Programs Branch 290 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Phone: 212-637-4167 Gordon.timothy@epa.gov David Criswell, P.E. Deputy Base Closure Manager Navy BRAC Program Management Office Southeast 4130 Faber Place Drive, Suite 202 North Charleston, SC 29405 Phone: (843) 743-2130 david.criswell@navy.mil

3. 3 Overview : Tim Gordon The facility is a large, closed military base located on the east coast of Puerto Rico. It was formerly known as Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, but ceased operations on March 31, 2004, at which point it was designated Naval Activity Puerto Rico (NAPR). The facility is classified as a High Priority facility under EPA’s Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) Universe. A Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) permit had been issued in 1994 for continued operation of hazardous waste container storage units at the facility. The 1994 RCRA permit also addressed corrective action requirements for solid waste management units (SWMUs) throughout the facility.

4. 4 Overview (continued) The entire facility covers approximately 8,828 acres, and is bordered by the Caribbean Sea/Atlantic Ocean on the east and the municipalities of Ceiba to the west and north, and Naguabo to the southwest. It had been in use as a military base since 1941. Approximately 3000 acres of the facility are classified as wetlands. The facility includes a port facility and a major airfield complex. The facility also includes two adjacent, unpopulated offshore islands, Pineros and Cabeza de Perro, previously used for small arms weapons training exercises (but no “crew-served” weapons, i.e. artillery, etc.). The facility contains small arms ranges, but no bombing ranges. Three abandoned open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) pits are reportedly located where the active small arms range is; however, these were never operated as hazardous waste units. Since this small arms range is expected to be transferred to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and continue to be utilized, investigations and any required clean- ups are being deferred until the small arms range is closed.

5. 5 Issue: Tim Gordon With the closure of the facility in 2004 and the planned cessation of hazardous waste management (storage) activities there, EPA and the Navy began negotiations to develop a corrective action Order, pursuant to Section 7003 of RCRA, to replace the facility’s 1994 hazardous waste permit as the document controlling completion of clean-up of SWMUs and closure of the hazardous waste storage units. Since hazardous waste management activities were ceasing at the facility, a RCRA permit would no longer be required. Continuation of the RCRA permit only for the purposes of controlling clean-up of SWMUs was seen as an impediment to subdividing the property (i.e., “parceling”) for sale or transfer, which would facilitate redevelopment.

6. 6 Advantages of completing clean-up utilizing a Corrective Action Order, rather than continuing the RCRA Permit A RCRA permit would make it more difficult to sell or transfer “clean” areas, since under RCRA regulations, a permit must apply to the entire “facility”; Many regulatory requirements of a permit (such as release reporting, contingency plans, personnel training, etc) must apply, even when the facility no longer operates hazardous waste management units; Under RCRA regulations, corrective action under a Permit must address releases at SWMUs throughout the entire “facility”; whereas a RCRA Corrective Action Order does not have to apply to the entire “facility”; Continuation of the RCRA Permit would inhibit subdividing the property into “parcels” and transferring clean-up responsibilities for those parcels to third parties Issuance of a RCRA permit requires that there must be, or have been, a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal (TSD) unit present at the “facility”. Thus, the requirements of a RCRA permit might not be applicable to a parcel carved-out from the “facility”, if that parcel never contained a hazardous waste TSD unit, even though that parcel might contain SWMUs still requiring corrective action. Parceling is facilitated using a RCRA Section 7003 Order, since its requirements could apply to any parcel acquired by a third party, including: a) parcels where no hazardous waste TSD unit was ever present; and/or b) parcels where no hazardous wastes were even generated, as long as solid wastes had been generated or managed at that parcel.

7. 7 Issue (continued) It was the Navy’s intention to sell or transfer the property in various “parcels”, prior to completing all required clean-ups on those parcels, and to have the acquiring party (parties) assume responsibility for completion of any remaining clean-ups. In order to proceed with the approach of terminating the RCRA permit and then allowing the Navy to sell or transfer “parcels” with remaining corrective action requirements, EPA required that the Navy enter into a RCRA Corrective Action Order addressing all remaining corrective action and closure requirements at the facility. The proposed Order would include a requirement that, prior to the Navy transferring responsibility for implementing any clean-up or closure requirements to a non-Navy entity (including other Federal agencies), the acquiring entity must enter into a separate corrective action Order with EPA, to address any remaining clean-up requirements for the parcel to be acquired.

8. 8 Streamlined Approaches: Tim Gordon In addition to terminating the RCRA Permit and issuing a RCRA Order to address completion of corrective action at this facility, the following approaches have been utilized to expedite completion of corrective action/clean-up for SWMUs and closure of hazardous waste units at the facility: Completion of remaining closure activities for hazardous waste storage units under the Corrective Action Order, allowing termination of the RCRA permit prior to completion of all closure activities; Use of “Phase I” (a/k/a “Release Assessments”) RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) to determine whether or not to proceed to a “Full RFI”, i.e. full site characterization and full characterization of nature and extent of any releases; Usage of the Local Reuse Authority Master Plan as basis to define future site-usage; Usage of non-deed, land-use controls (“LUCs”) as part of final remedy determinations for SWMUs where unrestricted (i.e. residential) clean-ups were not performed; Usage of site-specific risk-based standards for corrective action clean-up and hazardous waste unit closure, based on SWMU-specific or hazardous waste unit-specific “LUC” restrictions;

9. 9 Streamlined Approaches (continued) Use of facility-wide inorganic background concentrations, rather than SWMU- specific background levels, for screening inorganic constituents and/or defining inorganic constituent clean-up levels; Use of facility-wide “Master” Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs), etc. Use of streamlined Corrective Measure Studies (CMSs) rather than full evaluation of all remedial alternatives; Allowance for submission and review of electronic draft work plans, reports, response to comments, etc., until agreement reached on an acceptable document. Acceptance of prior work implemented pursuant to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and/or Navy requirements, if it is determined to generally satisfy RCRA/EPA requirements; Allowance for issuance of “Third Party Orders” to allow the Navy to transfer clean- up responsibilities to non-Navy entities, for parcels sold or transferred prior to completion of clean-up. (However, that approach has not yet been utilized, to date.)

10. 10 RCRA Section 7003 Administrative Order on Consent (the Consent Order) between EPA and the Navy became effective in January 2007 As provided for in the Consent Order, third-party entities that acquire parcels still requiring cleanup would either assume responsibility for completing the required cleanup, or the Navy would retain that responsibility. Before any transfer of clean-up responsibility to third parties occurs, the third party acquirer must agree to enter into a separate Order with EPA for completing any remaining corrective action on the portion of the facility it acquires. (However, that approach has not yet been utilized, to date.) Once an acceptable Order has been executed between EPA and the third party, EPA could then suspend most of the Navy’s obligations for completing the clean-up responsibilities which are being assumed by the third party for a specified part of the facility. However, under other Federal requirements (CERCLA) and the Consent Order itself, the Navy is ultimately responsible for completion of all clean-ups at the Facility, should a third party not acceptably complete those requirements.

11. 11 Property Transfer and Redevelopment Plans: David Criswell Conservation Parcels Public Benefit Conveyances “Fed to Fed Transfers” Public Sale Process and Parcels

12. 12 Lessons Learned – Impediments to Expedited Property Transfer and Redevelopment: David Criswell