… to know that, you know what I mean? it’s useless information, in a sense. That conversation is what’s going on and what we need to be engaged in. And that’s where we need to sit down and be serious about this. You know, what is it… you know we are… what is it we are looking at? Because the cost of clean-up is very real… you know, it’s not just una palabra, un saying. You know… how much is… you know…
PREGUNTA:
Te iba a preguntar la cuestión que me comentabas sobre Puerto Rican Trench, toda la cuestión de los desperdicios tóxicos, cómo se ha utilizado a Vieques para…
STACEY NOTINE:
Sí, sí, sí, como la historia, I mean, you have to look, I think… just to put it in very simple terms, how is it that the government used Puerto Rico, the federal use… Vieques, specifically the east side. They’ve used it as hazardous waste dump and to this day… and that use went on for decades, many decades, where they were even importing waste and they were training people on how to… you know, explode, you know, EODs, explosive ordnance disposal, you know, this was going on for many, many decades. There is no inventory, we are told, of this. EPA certainly doesn’t have an inventory of all that was done. But the point being that Puerto Rico is going to inherit that. Puerto Rico has inherited that in terms of the health cost. -Environmental costs…
And the environmental cost, in as much as we know, under RCRA and CERCLA, we, after all these years and after this twenty some thousand dollars of investigations, they are denying, essentially, that anything… of the heavy metals, they are saying it’s natural background, and of the explosives, we haven’t even gotten to the beginning. I mean EPA is fighting tooth and nail and they are being ignored totally to get explosives. And in the end, what is the EPA saying? The EPA is saying the technology doesn’t exist to identify the explosives. Well, if the technology doesn’t exist to identify the explosives, in terms of the study, investigation of the level of contamination, how are you going to clean it up if you don’t have the lab technology, you know, to identify it as a contaminant, how are you going to not identify it as a being sufficiently…? You know… All of this are the arguments that we should be there talking about.
PREGUNTA:
And that conversation is not taking place…
STACEY NOTINE:
Not, not, no… I mean, I’ll say it, but that’s not a conversation. That is what, you know, is this community interested in this? I think they are. But how do you get them engaged in asking that question?
PREGUNTA:
And that’s something that hasn’t happened yet in the community…
STACEY NOTINE:
Right… well, now you are saying, you bring up your conversation about Reyes, about Rubén. You know, those are very valid questions. How contaminated is this place? That’s exactly, that’s what we need to know. You know, those are the questions we need to be asking. Those are the actions we need to be taking.
PREGUNTA:
And do you think that sometimes… sometimes there is a lot of public relations coming out of different organizations saying like “we have to clean up, we have to clean up, we have to clean up”, but it’s a very abstract kind of idealistic call. But in terms of the measures to pursue that, sometimes you think… -Perdón…
No te preocupes… Sometimes from the idea of cleaning up to the more… to pursuing some of the questions, some of the starting points, how do you see that balance?
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, so far, again… we’ve been… I’ve been in dialogue with the military, with EPA, y la Junta on this. Since before, you know, the TRC was formed. You know, this is not happening, you know, with these groups. The Junta has come, and come, and come to talk to people, and… -Junta de Calidad Ambiental…
Yeah. Chemists from the Junta came saying, you know, how under the Rosselló administration they were told to do the sampling, to do this, this analysis using a method they refused to use. You know, and all this… you know, that it was the wrong method, they didn’t want to use it, you know, and saying, you know, offering their assistance. Did anybody pursue that?
PREGUNTA:
Who didn’t…
STACEY NOTINE:
Nobody wanted to… it was a fabulous presentation to an auditorium of people. Did anybody follow up on it? Those are tools, you know, that you use. Do you understand? Like, Pilar should use… you know, this is exactly, you know, the kind of thing that you use as a tool. I think, in my perception. You know, what I see is that people want to be in charge. I don’t understand what that means. Everybody keeps saying: “I’ve got to get control of this thing, I want to be in charge.” You know, the Comité wants to be in charge, the Alianza wants to be in charge… of what? You know, what is it that you want to be in charge of? You know, that’s what I don’t under… Do you know what I mean? I don’t understand. Because meanwhile while they are doing all this, again, as you see, all this is going on, all of this, the “no further action”, all these decrees, all this, all these millions are being spent, which is absurd, you know.
PREGUNTA:
All these millions that in a way are…
STACEY NOTINE:
Are useless information, in a way… not totally useless, but…
PREGUNTA:
… useless because there’s not going to be a measure like… this information will… won’t lead to a process of cleaning up or even…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, no, under RCRA, under CERCLA, under any of that, yes, you know, yes. You know, certain areas have been analyzed, you know, to what degree that analysis has been so manipulated by the nuances of the military looking at this aside. They have identified, you know, they say: “This is what we are looking at, we know this is there…” What specifically, what health ailments does this cause, how pervasive is this, you know, what are the methods that are available?
For the most part, this is one of the problems throughout the United States that, again, should be part of our lucha, la lucha igual que… you know, all of these communities everywhere. You know, people have to start becoming aware of this throughout the United States. You know, people don’t wake up in the morning brushing their teeth saying: “Oh, I wonder how the military toxics problem in my neighborhood is, you know, being resolved.” And that’s what we need to do. It’s a tremendous, yeah, it’s a tremendous, you know, fight. But, you know, ignoring it is not going to go away. Achievements have been made, again, Massachusetts has safe drinking water.
You learn from this. Why, why do I see as a point, a source of education, a source of inspiration? Why do I see EQB’s commentaries on this investigation as a source of inspiration and dialogue and another person doesn’t? Mainly, I think, because they are not even reading them. I think they are lying in saying they are reading them. Or, you know, because I just can’t… I’ve never been engaged with any of these members of the TRC about this. They go: “Oh, Stacy, you read the documents,” you know…
And what… what’s different, you know, again, this goes back… what’s the difference between me and… it must be… you know, they say “oh, it’s overwhelming”… you know, it’s… you got to start somewhere, you know, life is overwhelm… I don’t know, I don’t know how to answer that, you know.
PREGUNTA:
Could you explain a little bit… well, going back to the question of like… there was like a… some scientists were involved in commenting the study of the killing, they mentioned “oh, we should be part of the investigation or we should be taken into account for further investigation,” meaning that some of the Puerto Rican scientists should be contracted and get involved and get…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, personally I think this would be a good idea. This was something… actually, Edwin Hernández, quite a while back, I gave information that I had received about the killing and the report the Navy had done, in the hope of his becoming involved, but of course, you know, what he wants is the community. It can’t be just Stacey saying it. And so, I went to the Alianza, I mentioned to them “Edwin is interested, would you be willing?” Because they have sources of income, you know, to… you know, to… to… fund this… “Yes, yes, yes…”
It really never came to fruition and I think mainly because no one really wanted to pursue it. And, again, I’m not going to… I’m not going to pursue on my, you know, on my own… For one, I’m not going to raise money… I’m not going to do that. It needs to be of the community… because it’s useless for me, you know? It does not make sense. Because then I’m just isolated and continuing to isolate myself. I even suggested to EQB getting in touch… with Edwin… I don’t think that ever happened. But, in specific to the killing, there were in a way, I would say in place, parameters or boundaries in place. Simply because this had been brought up at the time that Rosselló had said he was going to… take legal action. And in this much he then pulled out, suspended all of that. But the government of Puerto Rico under Calderón went into legal… into litigation. So there were certain parameters in place of this discussion, and of that study, in terms of EPA and both governments.
Now, can it be expanded upon? Absolutely. Should we be doing that? Absolutely. We don’t necessarily need the governments’ permission. Certainly I’d say yes. Can we get it? Fish and Wildlife have said to me: “Do you want to go out there?” They have endorsed Edwin. Go out there. If something were to stop us on that, then we go to court, we find out. “What do you mean you are going to stop us?”, you know. These are the steps that need to be taken. Hopefully, you know, maybe they will come into that conversation with Pratts, who I have been in touch with. He, again, was very much very helpful in continuing this. But, again, if there’s a lack of dialogue, it’s really the community’s fault, that lack of dialogue in between.
PREGUNTA:
Do you think that the lack of dialogue is also an effect of the fight for a scientific criteria or political criteria?
STACEY NOTINE:
Ay, claro que sí, claro, claro…
PREGUNTA:
Como que ya sea, bueno, la situación del colonialismo, el inglés, el español, pero también de que “ah, ¿por qué no científicos puertorriqueños?, o ¿por qué no este método en vez del otro?”
STACEY NOTINE:
You know, again, I think you need to separate, you know, you need to separate, you know, you know, your personality problem, your ego problem. I mean, it’s just like raising a child in that sense. You know, you need to be flexible enough to say, you know, as a parent “Am I doing the right thing?”, you know. And if you have a doubt, you know, seek help. You know, I would, you know. Or if, you know, if your child is sick, I’m not going to say: “Oh, I’m not going to go because it’s in the United States or it’s in France”, you know, where this particular cure that someone… you know, it’s been indicated, you know, exists… Now, I… you know, that’s ridiculous, you know, I… you know. Again, that, for me was I think something that I felt, the tension that I felt with the Independence Party in a sense, you know. I personally felt, you know, what Kennedy did, per say, in pursuing a legal suit. That really should have been done years ago.
-In Vieques…
Yes!
You know, and… you know, hasta qué punto… that I’m not going to… you know, I’m not going to say “Oh, I wasn’t born in Vieques, so I don’t have… a right…” I mean, I can’t even… begin to see that that is sensible. You know, that’s not sensible in terms of, you know, your perception of life, your perception of community, your perception of well-being. You know, we… you know, the Viequenses have to be sacrificed as Guinea pigs to an ideology? You know, their health? I mean, this is what’s still going on. And we are being sacrificed as Guinea pigs to an argument between the EPA and the Navy that is not going to be resolved.
And you’ll say “oh, well, you know, I’m going to look at this on (no se entiende)”, you know, with the political or ideological point of view, stay out of it. But then again, you know, we are being used as Guinea pigs, and I think that’s wrong. I… I… wrong isn’t the only… that’s absurd. You know, the value of human life, is that political? You know, and it’s keeping us from asking all of these questions that need to be asked, that do have answers. If it means to go out there and seek them on our own, then that’s what we need to do. But to sit back and deal with these abstracts, I… you know, this is a major problem.
And, and… you know, how do we approach, how do we resolve that? You know, it’s something to be considered. You know, I do, you know, so I think the next meeting to walk in and say: “We are doing nothing. What are we doing?” You know, how do I approach that. At this point, I really would like to sit with somebody and say: “Okey, how can we really do this and follow it through.” Because we need to. We have got to start making actual advances in this. And not just posturing.
PREGUNTA:
And one of your bases would be pushing for legal action on the part of the Commonwealth government or from the municipality?
STACEY NOTINE:
All of this, you know, this kind of thing would be, you know, I think legally where it is right now or where it would have to be is a civil suit, what’s available under… what’s available, you know, is known. That can easily be found out. I’m not immediately thinking: “A lawsuit”. Immediately, I’m thinking, you know: “What are we really going to do?” This is, you know, we see that this avenue has its limitations. Are we satisfied with these limitations? That really is not up to us. That, for me, is what we need to take to the broader community, you know.
I would think, obviously, if we are thinking about “there’s a threat here to our health,” which is what we are talking about, then, you know, we can, you know, we don’t have to wait for a survey to be taken. You know, we do want to find out how contaminated something is. So, immediately my suggestion is: we need to go in and on our own start sampling and finding out, and just go from there, discuss that with lawyers, in particular, with scientists, obviously…
PREGUNTA:
With the municipalities, you can get some support or…?
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I think that would have to be done with them knowing about it and see what happens, you know… what, what, what, if any… is going to come to that, both in terms of access to the land and in terms of analysis? Are we going to have trouble finding a lab?, etcetera, etcetera. How legally are we then going to be able to use this information first, how are we going to be able to get it properly analyzed?, if there’s going to be problem. You know, those… we need to find out. From there, you know, obviously you have to get into a discussion with the governments, and those… they would come, you know, just from the fact of doing this. Once you get the ball rolling, all the rest will follow. All of that… terms of jurisdiction, all those questions of jurisdiction. You know, this is a very naïve kind of approach, but that’s how I see it. You have to begin the conversation. You know, and so what? In a sense, you know, I’ve been doing is saying: you know, come, come, be patient.
But on the other hand, on the other hand, I really… especially when I hear people being outright dishonest about what’s going on, that scares me. Then I get… then I go: no, this is not good, this is not good. You know, we are not going to get… you know, this is not going anywhere… you know, people say: “Oh, we sit here in this TRC and we examine all these things and we examine all these things.” We never do that. We don’t do any of that. We don’t have the discussions amongst ourselves or… you know…
PREGUNTA:
What do you do instead?
STACEY NOTINE:
We only go to the meetings. When there’s a meeting, we go to it. Do we meet otherwise, really, ever, and review any of these documents? No. And discuss them? No. The very things, you know, that I’m talking about that needs to be done. Is that happening? No.
PREGUNTA:
So, what happens in those meetings?
STACEY NOTINE:
(no se entiende) has an agenda and presents what can be in the agenda. Typically, in the past few meetings, people have become more engaged, like Jorge is there now. He feels more comfortable (no se entiende) in conversing, and he will bring up situations that may or may not have to do with the agenda. I will, as well. We seem to be the two that speak the most. But in terms of continuity, there’s no continuity whatsoever, really, within this.
I think Jorge commented on a “no further action” when there were public hearings. Also, Jorge Colón commented. I have never been given the written document to see. I did a review from listening to it, you know. I thought this was… they were both very good commentaries. But in the whole of… we have not discussed the whole of that process, really. There were meetings with… Jorge presented what he was going to say… to the… to some members of the community that only came through an invitation of the Alianza. It was a very small… it wasn’t by any means informing the community.
And it was, it was, you know, it wasn’t a discourse. It was a form of telling people what he was going to do… other… you know… this kind of thing. It was a presentation, you know. I’ve never been yet in a discourse about… or seen any of that take place. Some discourse is beginning to happen between Juan Cruz Pérez and, and, and Jorge. But it’s all very fragmented without continuity. You know, “be patient”. You know, I… too much is going on… I, you know, I’ve really sort of given up on the patience idea (no se entiende).
There’s just too much happening. And again, the real, you know, the real problem “Okay, let’s identify what’s out there,” which shouldn’t be that difficult. And if it is going to be that difficult, let’s find out what these difficulties are. You know, that, that to me is the most important thing now… -And it’s not…
And it’s not happening. We are not going to get that from this. We are going to get more of the same. And is it worth doing this, and arguing, and pressuring for more? Because, yes, in terms of, you know, within government, you know, format here.
But the one thing… you know, without participating and really asking these questions, if that never happens, you know, without saying: “Look, you know, we don’t trust this to be sufficient, to be enough information. We really…” you know… if you don’t say it, you know, you are not going to get an answer, you know.
PREGUNTA:
But, I also was going to ask you about… but if you say it like in the press, like going…
STACEY NOTINE:
You know, I get, you know, I was very glad for the opportunity to talk to some press. San Juan Star more than anybody. I had great meetings with John Moreno. He’s very, very devoted. Really incredibly devoted to trying to get his hands around all of this, and really follows through with… I really have great admiration for… John McFall, John Resno, to a degree…
PREGUNTA:
In a way, the forum for raising those questions is not necessarily the press, but…
STACEY NOTINE:
Oh, no… exactly…
PREGUNTA:
… the people that the U.S. Navy is paying for doing this, and telling them, you know, “I’m looking at what you are doing, I’m looking at the decisions you are making, and it’s going to affect us, and we are very concerned..” That type of thing is what you see is not going on from the… -Exactly…
… o getting the scientific community interested in the solidarity with Vieques and things like that.
STACEY NOTINE:
And that’s where… to a degree it is… you know, I keep saying… it’s… it only helps to understand a little bit more about this process, you know. Because, yes, within this… we are within this process, you… where can we take advantage of this process that we are not is one question. There may well be (no se entiende) there, that we can. And we haven’t done it. Is it totally… is there no avenue in this process that’s advantageous to us. We need to make that, you know, we need to understand that. We need to be able to define that. My tendency is to believe there isn’t. Except under the Safe Drinking Water Act, where we are going around in circles here. However, that dialogue has not even been had, so I’m not going to be totally defiant about that.
PREGUNTA:
Could you tell me more of the questions that are still, you know, that should be considered in order to enter this process or to leave the room in a wrap or TRC or whatever? What questions do you think should be asked?
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, you know, if you were to say, you know, just to say, you know, EPA left, we know, in the late 90’s, you know, for one, you know, to condense it. For one, late 90’s, for the first time, what happened in Massachusetts happened. Not only asked the military to stop training, which that was a first, nobody ever told the military what to do, certainly not the EPA, but you also ordered those studies. And this was through dialogue, and I will show you the… I’ll show you the letters, I have the letters of the people, you know, who helped develop this dialogue with the EPA and the military, and the senators, and the governor there and all. Then these studies were done under the Safe Water Act and then administrated, which is then an enforcement order, was administered by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, whereas here in Vieques, in parallel time, we get it under RCRA, you know, an order by consent which the Navy doesn’t even recognize, for the most part, to a large degree.
But anyway, to get back to it, so what was discovered under this, these studies? Essentially, collapsed all of this that is put forth in these studies under RCRA and CERCLA. Because, lo and behold, all of these estimates and may be there it isn’t there, were definitely found in the ground water and the surface soil, etcetera. You know, there’s no difference between ground water and surface… so, they were nothing that great, and in the air there, than here in Puerto Rico.
At the same time, you have half of the United States attorneys general writing to the Office of Management and Budget about the severe limitations of this military approach, installation restoration program, and how its numbers came, and how in fact there are very serious problems, then, that arose, you know, health and environmental problems. You know, pleading that the EPA, the state representatives, the EQB’s, the state boards should be more involved, and have stay on what’s going on and (no se entiende) litigation. These are the states that are having to put up with the health effects, etcetera, etcetera. You have incredible amount of evidence of the failures of investigations. Not only that, you have them within these investigations specific to Vieques themselves, where the Navy is making a mockery right there, in black and white, of EPA, of public health, of this entire process.
You know, so just in that area, you don’t have to go into the science, you know, it doesn’t work. Why is it… you know, you know, what are we going to get out of this, realistically? You know, when our concern is health. So, very rightly, you know, the administration of Calderón has turned around at the Department of Health, has been doing, pursuing these studies. Now, again, there’s a lack of communication and discourse in the community about this, which is an absurdity. They should be hand in hand with these other groups, this TRC and all of this.
And also within the people who are in these groups. On these committees they argue and… you know… they don’t seem to meet except by the TRC, except when, you know, the Department of Health comes around. You know, it’s a lack of continuity, a lack of discourse, all of this, you know. If we didn’t have that, we could say to EPA, well we have these problems of health. You know, how severe are they, really? You know, how much is perception, how much is reality here?
You know, it seems very apparent to me the Department of Health was open to that dialogue. I have not seen it being furthered to our advantage. You know, those kinds of dialogues you use then with the EPA, with the EQB, all of this together. With Fish and Wildlife. Fish and Wildlife, you want to talk about commentaries and whether they are seeing all the faults in these investigations, they are stronger than EPA. You know, you know, find… you know, again, the question is what’s your objective here. And then, follow through on it, you know, not just sort of making press statements and, you know…
PREGUNTA:
But with the dialogue in terms of Fish and Wildlife, some of the strategies of some of the movements is not on what Fish and Wildlife could offer and the studies and all that to help the situation of Vieques, but the fact that they have law enforcement bothering the community…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, there are all these… you know… you know… yes, all of these are va… you know, legitimate concerns that need to be resolved. But that… I think you are getting on the point, you know, do people want to resolve this or just talk… you know… and that’s the difference. I think to a large degree people just want to complain. You know, keep up the perception of a problem, that maybe isn’t as great as the larger problem. Which could be, if you have a really ignorant political party in power or a very corrupt, morally corrupt… you know, terrible things could happen here.
You know, and we need to be smart enough, and that could take… you know, we need, we need to be taking care of this place, not just taking care of our slogans, of our political groups or, you know… and you have to be, you know, you have to be, you know, keeping an eye on things, you have to be engaged. And that’s where, you know, that’s where I don’t get it. In that sense then I say they are anarchistic. They don’t believe in governments. Well… well, okay, you know.
PREGUNTA:
And, Stacey, now that we’ve been traveling through the whole, you know, like it’s a very complex political picture and also environmental and all that. There are a lot of strategies going on, conversations, and all that. When one sees the big picture, what we were discussing about the Puerto Rican Trench… -Aha, if you go…
How these…. What are the dangers of not having some of the conversations, why don’t we have a bigger picture that relates to Washington, relates to the way which the U.S. might be using Puerto Rico in the future, things like that… -Well, yeah, again…
What were you thinking…?
STACEY NOTINE:
Specifically… the Puerto Rican Trench is the second deepest submerged trench, oceanic trench in the world and, you know, as I said, the other is in the Mariana Islands. Now, how is it, you know, you just say “well, what is it that, you know, how does the federal government view that?” Well, the Department of Defense calls that their Department of Defense dumping grounds.
The Puerto Rican government is very well aware. Probably you were too young, but a few years ago, not that long ago, there were very heated discussions about depositing nuclear waste there. Policies being what they are in the United States, concerning the environment, you know, the United States has a very poor record in terms of the environment. Puerto Rico, it’s hard to say what their record is because they don’t have the ability to enforce, to enforce, in many instances, because you are talking about federal jurisdiction, and in other instances, specific to what my concern is with hazardous waste, in Puerto Rico you don’t have a hazardous waste landfill, you don’t have that kind of permit. Puerto Rico is sort of working that way, unfortunately, towards that landfill. However, those landfills do exist. Just Vieques is a landfill, is a dump, is a hazardous toxic waste dump. You do have the Puerto Rican Trench, which is being used, has been used by the military, and has also been used in terms of oil spills…
PREGUNTA:
And diseases are being documented or not…?
STACEY NOTINE:
Oh, yes. Oh, yes. Oh, yes. In terms of the Puerto Rican Trench. In terms of oil, in terms of certain arguments that’s been in the paper about nuclear dumping. Now, what nuclear dumping has the military done? I don’t know. I certainly would imagine that has happened, that has happened. And that it will continue to happen. And this is the kind of thing where I do become very concerned. This is a dump. It’s not going to change…
PREGUNTA:
When you say “this is a dump”, you are referring to Vieques…
STACEY NOTINE:
To Vieques. This eastern part of Vieques, that hasn’t, you know, that’s what it is. We are looking at the kind of so-called clean up that the military is talking about, which is essentially just, you know… they were very, very cynical and the mocking way they are referring to all this. Now, what they are talking about is the continuing operation of it. While they are continuing the operation of it, in this way that they are talking about their so-called clean-up, what is to stop anyone else in the military to use it, under, especially, the Bush regime? You know, this is a major concern for me.
This whole idea of a bridge between here and Ceiba, Naguabo, you know, Homeland Security maintaining lands in the eastern part of Puerto Rico, in Roosevelt Roads. You know, many people say, “oh, maybe they are getting a little far-fetched here”. I don’t think it’s so far-fetched, you know. You know, I think you’d be really naïve not to be aware of this and keep an eye on toxic waste. It’s very expensive to get rid of toxic waste in the United States, where states are demanding that you do it according to laws.
If you stay in this fight here. If you stay without defining what can and cannot be done here, and that battle I think would take a very long time. We need to keep an eye on that. I think the Calderón administration is doing what they can to meet those challenges. You know, we don’t know what would happen, you know, when they are gone. And what questions are not being asked. You know, again, it’s just representative of where we need to be at that table, and not, not limit it by political ideology. You know, we need to know what, you know, what our legal rights are, what, you know, what… We need to be in conversations with the Puerto Rican government as well as the federal government.
PREGUNTA:
In regards to the bridge, do you think that would be a…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I just look at what’s going on in the United States. In the United States, right now, they are talking about moving toxic, you know, nuclear waste by road, which… you know… is horrifying, but this is already happening. And states having to put up with it. I’m forgetting… taking it from Utah, and taking it where? I’m trying to remember the state where… again, it’s Yucca Mountain… I can’t remember where they want to deposit it. And the state is fighting it under the Bush administration, under the Cheney energy program. You know, it remains to be seen that, you know, the environmental side will have any say for quite a while to come. Because we have to undo all this problem that Cheney and Bush are putting in place in terms of energy, energy waste.
Again, what has Puerto Rico, what has Vieques been used for? It’s been used for this, you know, so it’s not, you know, it’s ridiculous to ignore that. That’s what it’s been used for. And in effect, in the way the Navy right now cynically is approaching this so-called clean-up investigation, it’s still under operation. And that is a major concern. Again, and if it’s Roosevelt Roads, Roosevelt Roads never officially closed. It’s just a matter of distributing the different lands that will go to different uses. Homeland Security is to be one of them in, you know, in any industrial waste. Question: when you keep an area in production, in productivity, in operation, well, you are not going to be doing some of the studies, you know, that need to be done in terms of closure. Because it’s in production, it’s in operation.
PREGUNTA:
And you think that is happening in Vieques…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I know that’s happening in Vieques.
PREGUNTA:
Not in regards, necessarily to keeping the construction…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I mean in terms…
PREGUNTA:
… destruction…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, it could be imported in. I don’t, you know, there, again, you know… that, that was done, you know, that was done… that, has not been concluded well enough for me. You know, there are certain things that have come up in these documents that give me an idea: we really need to pursue this better to understand, you know, what rights we have. What rights Puerto Rico has, in terms of the jurisdiction, that as far as I know, Puerto Rico does not have, you know, a good strong foothold in terms of jurisdiction over that. And this needs to be understood, you know, how limited it is or not.
PREGUNTA:
Going back to the question of the bridge… so, you are suggesting that since Vieques has been used as a toxic dump, the bridge might opening a… an avenue for the future use of the eastern lands… Is that what…? -Yeah.
No es que yo quiera impulsarte a que digas eso, pero que me… -How is that chronologically happening…
No, pero qué tú piensas del puente, qué tú piensas del puente, así como…
STACEY NOTINE:
You know, first of all, it’s a horrifying idea in terms of just the amount of people that would then have access, you know, to Vieques. That’s a terrifying thought. You know, the cars, etcetera, etcetera. But specific, you know, that this conversation came out of, this idea of the bridge and this whole… with the 40 million dollars, and these conversations about roads, and “yes, you know, the bridge is a great idea” with certain politicos having this discourse… and will even “we’ll do what we can to help with the funds, with the highway, you know, that you would need…” And a red flag is going off: “Oh, this is a great idea,” so just keep continuing using Vieques, the military, as they have been using it, which is transporting from Roosevelt Roads, transporting by land and sea, by land from, you know, la parte oeste, you know, by land, and by sea, from Roosevelt Roads. You know, and if you now have, you know, this under Bush, where at the same time this was happening, this whole thing of Yucca Mountain and nuclear waste, and deciding to kick the state where they want to impose it on that state and the state is struggling now with what jurisdiction it has, if any, to… to stop this from happening.
PREGUNTA:
The land transport, the ground transport…
STACEY NOTINE:
The ground transport, yes, and having to accept it. And I’m looking at this and thinking, you know, we’d better be very careful here. We’d better keep an eye on this. We’d better… you know, especially, again, there too… Look at the Trench… you know… I think it’s very wise, everybody should look at the Department of Commerce map of Vieques and Puerto Rico and the perception and you notice throughout it all the dumping areas in the water…
This… you know, just an account, a woman wrote an account on the Berman, the oil spill in Puerto Rico, which already all the refuse from that was dumped in the Puerto Rican Trench, and this is how then I learned of the way that the Defense Department refers to it, as the Defense dumping grounds. You know, so what unrecorded dumping is there? Then, when you get into the idea of, regionally, what has this area been used for? Well, you know. Does it make more sense to keep using that area for that, you know, for that purpose? You know, these are… questions are not being asked or answered, you know.
PREGUNTA:
For example…
STACEY NOTINE:
And it’s not that far-fetched, I mean, you know, people would not think “oh, you know, you would not use the depleted uranium without letting people know.” They do it all the time. They do it every day, you know, with their soldiers, their own soldiers, you know, training grounds in the United States. You know, I’ve seen, they do atrocious things. You know, and you cannot, you know, you have to be… you know, it goes back to that, I guess, that helicopter. You know, they would have killed us. We meant nothing to them. You know, that perception of meaning nothing. You know, yes, you need, you know, God… absolutely you need to talk about that and discuss this.
But, on the other side of it, too, you know, this discussion should not be excluded as a result. You know, I don’t think, you know, I think we are foolish to victimize ourselves. I think that’s what we are doing by doing that. You know, we are really, you know… -By not…
By not engaging in conversation. By not… you know, by not being at that table… and not only not being at that table, but understand, you know, each person has a different perception and, you know, but our reason for being there is not just to talk politics. Our reason for being there is to see to what degree this is valid, this information, and what’s missing. What’s good about it, what’s… you know, what’s not good about it. What, what more do we need to do within the legislation of Puerto Rico, within the laws of Puerto Rico, within the laws that exist in the United States…
PREGUNTA:
And then, when you see that movement of discussing the complexities of the law, the insufficiencies, as political as it is, discussing the protocols… because I think both are political in their own way, not only the protocol, but the specifics. Once you have accepted the… even a protocol that might be insufficient, because it’s colonial, speaking about language, for example, or science, even when those quotes might be already biased or… discussing whatever those quotes want to support in their own terms is political as well…
STACEY NOTINE:
But there again, there again, what I think is important to understand: this is not just happening in Vieques. It’s happening among states in the United States. It’s happening among nations in the world. Again, and you know, and… to me, that represents a tool use. Unify with these people. Your voice gets stronger. Your voice gets heard. You know, use it as a tool. Don’t… you know… that’s what… you know, there, again… you know, don’t… you know, “oh, we are being colonized”… yes, we are being colonized. You know, and there are horrible things going on throughout the world as a result of this attitude. In, you know, you know, to make comparisons… I don’t even like to think of that, but if you are going to say, you know, ten thousand people dying in a day, yes, that has happened in places, chemical factories, you know, for money, for the United States. Yes, you know, within two weeks, you know, ten thousand people dead. Governments lying about it. That happens.
Do you put your head in the sand and say “oh, I don’t…”, you know, I don’t think so. You know, if we truly… I think, you know, one thing I think is that… the United States has a lot to learn from Puerto Rico, really has a lot to learn… no puedo… it’s hard.
You know? And this, again, it’s something, the perception, I personally feel with the Calderón administration, and particularly, I felt there was a recognition of that. Though, the sense of fight, the sense of her standing up and standing, you know, not willing to negotiate, not willing to… not, not, not that it wasn’t not willing to negotiate, but in a way she was very firm in her protection, her stance on the protection, on being protective of the Viequenses and of the people of Puerto Rico.
And I think, you know, again, I think there’s a great deal that can be learned from, from the Puerto Rican culture. You know, the United States has a great deal to learn about it that can be very beneficial to our cause, that will come out in these dialogues. You know, if we would just engage in them. And, again, you know, as I was saying with puertorriqueños now more and more in the United States, that, this… you know, we are not alone. In the sense that… you know, that maybe we were, there. And there’s more to be learned and exchanged. And to help us, you know. You know, it just has to begin and that’s…
PREGUNTA:
¿Y cómo empezarías, quizás, ya hablando de toda la masa de documentos y demás, qué cosas se han hecho con la juventud, con la comunidad aquí en Vieques en términos de ambiente, cómo los niños responden? Yo entrevisté a unos nenes y me hablaban de reciclaje…
STACEY NOTINE:
Yeah, I’ve talked, I’ve talked with, yeah… mainly in a very, in a very… because, you know, like Julián, todos los amigos de mi hijo de gente que viene a la casa, you know, they see all these papers, so through the years, you know, we talk about it, en este sentido de, you know… what can be done on a day to day basis. You know, the idea of recycling, the idea of picking up trash. The idea of, you know, not using… my son’s friend, not using Clorox to get fish, you know, this kind of thing, talking about waste water from their house, you know, you know, sewage, this kind of… and the contamination of the military, you know.
PREGUNTA:
And do you think, in terms of environmental education, political… how do you see the political education on one side and the environmental education? Do you think they are going hand in hand or…?
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I think within the schools I’m not that familiar. You know, the Environmental Quality Board is, you know, you know, they have approached the schools. My own approach with the schools has really just been… you know, as a friend of, you know, teachers, talking, you know, just in general. Not specifically contamination, just in general, stewardship of the environment. But the EQB has put out… I think… they weren’t being political, I mean, you know, you know, in presenting this coloring book, you know. Are you familiar with any of the materials? You know, there, what I asked was that we have more follow up with the Alianza de Mujeres, for instance, you know, to keep on a constant basis. This has not been done. Again, you know, where do I see it? Because they have, I guess, a political problem with the EQB, I don’t know, you know.
PREGUNTA:
EQB is the company that…
STACEY NOTINE:
No, EQB es la Junta de Calidad Ambiental. Tú sabes, and they were there and they’ve done it, and they could have come back and… but the community didn’t engage enough… Ah… and that, you know… okay, so that happened. Fish and Wildlife has been going in. They are really great kids. I’ve talked with the kids that are working on the program and Fish and Wildlife putting it together. I haven’t seen all of their material, but the conversations were really, you know, they’ve got great ideas and I think it’ll be very beneficial.
PREGUNTA:
Do you think antagonizing with Fish and Wildlife, with not being politically… do you think sometimes this attitude of antagonizing with Fish and Wildlife would be beneficial in the long run for a clean-up, for rescuing the lands or…?
STACEY NOTINE:
You know, I know there are people that say that, you know, I cannot… I mean, to me… To me, I say, you know, I wouldn’t be surprised, I mean, you’ve got very small-minded people in the Congress and in the… anywhere… in any country, in politics, and mean-spirited people. But more than that, I do… again, I truly believe in the people here. You know, I truly believe in the value, the strength of… of the people in Puerto Rico. And of the youth that we, that we… that this dream can be pursued and achieved. And is it going to be a miserable… is it going to be really difficult? Yes, none of it is going to be easy. But that it can be done, absolutely. I mean, what… there’s nothing that tells me, I mean, I’m crazy to, to, to believe that. You know, the military is out of here. That happened, you know.
PREGUNTA:
Did you think you were going to live to see that?
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, I guess, you know, I’m one of these people that actually, I’m not so sure that it wasn’t sort of coming, the more and more I look at these documents that it wasn’t sort of like… yeah, you know, prior to that you were looking to opening all these things up… no, yeah, no, I… the thought of their leaving. I thought we had a good chance for getting the lands on the west side, but there what scared me was: what would they be used for? You know, under Rosselló and Carlos Romero Barceló it was pretty terrifying to know what was going to happen over there. But I must say, with all this stuff from the central government, because the local groups are so political, you know, I think, you know, we still have the same problem. Because we are not dialoguing with the municipality and all that.
I think small efforts are being made, but I don’t see them coming to fruition. I mean, maybe you have knowledge of meetings that I don’t… you know, pretty much aware of all the different meetings going on, and so far I don’t know of any where it’s really meshing, where people are really working together. And, you know, again, which is part of what this whole conversation is about. And then, I think, yeah, it’s a generational thing. And more conversation does need to be had with the youth of Vieques, to learn, you know, how to take control of their land.
PREGUNTA:
And between the organizations?
STACEY NOTINE:
Yes, if that can be done. You know, I just, I get a little pessimistic now, it’s so many years. But this kind of thing… you know, my son is always: “oh, just calm down, just wait.” On the other hand he also says: “Nobody gives a damn about any of this.” Which I think is true. To watch everybody sort of worry about everyday life.
PREGUNTA:
Bueno, pues, muchas gracias, Stacey. Ha sido larguísima la entrevista, pero muy buena, y espero que, nada, que podamos, este…
Estábamos hablando de la combatividad y eso me parece interesante. A veces yo digo que esta etapa quizás no es tan combativa y requiere un esfuerzo distinto…
STACEY NOTINE:
Well, that’s where, again, I think, too, that you know, that the youth of Vieques, my faith is there. My fear is “do we have enough time?”, you know, is, that is my fear, that is my greatest, but I think, I don’t know how much of an opportunity you’ve had to meet the youth here, but they are tremendous people. They are, you know, they truly are tremendous people. If we can just get the education that we need. And I think they will.
PREGUNTA:
Pero la cuestión de la combatividad y los documentos no es montarse en una lancha y hacer desobediencia civil, es otro tipo de combatividad.
STACEY NOTINE:
Yeah, well, I think you have, you have… you know, you have faith in… you are angry, you know, you want, you want to speak out against the absurdity of this lack of respect, you know. And there, and there’s nothing that’s going to stop you. I mean, you are not saying, you are not thinking “oh…” You know, I went through this period of my phone being fooled with and constantly couldn’t hook up computers to it, and very, very frustrating.
You know, you don’t… you know, you are not going to… I mean that’s not going to jail, but, you know, when you believe in something, you, you… there’s a great deal of courage that comes from that.
JUAN CARLOS:
-Bueno, pues, muchas gracias.
Stacey muestra las pilas de documentos:
STACEY NOTINE:
These are the actual… can you see them there? The, the… investigations of the military… you know, you have a draft and then the final stage. Typically… One of the ways to understand, because I’m not a lawyer, I’m not a scientist, to get a handle, both on, you know, on both EQB and EPA, what their authority is, what they actually can achieve, what they feel they are not achieving… Then what I do is the… is look at the correspondence between the military and the… and the EPA about these investigations, so that’s also what a lot of this is. And that’s the kind of thing that should be shared with the science community and the legal community so that they understand, you know, they understand the process. This is more for the scientists who have not been involved in, say, RCRA, CERCLA kind of clean-up. To what degree does that process affect the science.
PREGUNTA:
So when is your novel coming out?
STACEY NOTINE:
Yeah, that’s what, you know, sometimes I think maybe that’s what I should do. Is that what you think I should do?
JUAN CARLOS:
It’s a lot of material you have for…
STACEY NOTINE:
It’s a lot of repetition, a lot of it. You’d be amazed how much is… you know, and then, you know… some of it EPA sends me I think to give me hope, like, you know, keep talking kind of thing… like this. Sounds good, right? “Improved Science-Based Environmental Stakeholder Processes”… What do you think as, just through this experience, what do you think of me being engaged in this? What is your perception?
JUAN CARLOS:
Of you being engaged in this?
STACEY NOTINE:
Of anybody being engaged in this?
JUAN CARLOS:
Of anybody being engaged in this?
STACEY NOTINE:
You know…
JUAN CARLOS:
I think that while keeping a sensibility towards going over the problem and all that…
STACEY NOTINE:
You have no problem but of seeing that throughout these documents, they are in black and white…
JUAN CARLOS:
I think it’s… there’s no other avenue right now. I think you have to keep the battle on all fronts… FIN.-