receive and in the end make the best decision for cleaning up or remediating parcel e-2. what is the preferred alternative? excavate and dispose of soil hot spot areas. install underground barriers to limit contaminated groundwater. and i am going to show pictures that you will get a visual of what some of the stuff looks like. remove and treat landfill gas. build a rockwall. build new wetlands. so we will have some natural shore line areas. monitor and maintain and monitor and maintain the areas open space. i mentioned before that this is

supposed to be a park and open space. when we are all done we have to monitor and maintain it. along with this goes with institutional controls, a fancy name for land use controls, meaning people will not be allowed to dig or install a well and drink the groundwater. there will be limitations. this is a picture of the soil cover that we installed on another portion of the shipyard. all right. really quickly, these are a lot of the hot spots we have already dug and a few new ones up here in this area. they are all hot spots that will be excavated or moved off the base.

this is an overall view. you can see the landfill gas extraction wells that are proposed. this is what is proposed. our fresh water wetlands. we have, i think it is 1. over an acre of fresh water wetlands we are proposing. we have tidal wetlands. you will design ours to meet up thru for a very large wet land area. here is the picture of what it looks like today. candlestick is right here.

the point of the picture is to show you what it looks like today is similar to what it looks like in the future. vegetated, maintained open space. just really quickly it is just to illustrate the debris. the landfill. up to 5 feet. two feet of soil replaced in 1974 when the navy closed the landfill. they put out two feet. another two feet was placed in 2000. we have material that's been testeded and cleaned and safe for reuse. i have to point out that is a minimum of two feet. in many places it will be much, much deeper. >> it looks like the contaminated landfill waste is

at least six feet below the ground surface. >> yeah. >> how thick is the liner material? >> the liner material is a couple of inches thick. it is called hdpe. >> it is made of high density plastic? >> yes. high density plastic. the bottom is a solid. then it will have a drainage layer so that water will come down through the soil cover into your hdpe and drain off and get collected and diverted into the appropriate place. >> what happens if there is seismic activity? >> that is a good question. it is designed for that. we absolutely design our remedy for earthquakes. i looked at a study that we did

and they looked at an earthquake up to 7.9, 1 kilometers away. they expected how much the ground could move. i think up to five feet and some settlement. this is all stuff that can easily be engineered into the cover so that it is very protective. you have to remember that the navy does not walk away. there will be what is called operation and maintenance. they will be out doing probably at first monthly and maybe quarterly inspections and then yearly inspections to make sure the remedy is operating properly and successfully. and then in the case of seismic activity like if there is an earthquake over a certain magnitude there will be requirements for immediate inspections after earthquakes.

it is a clay mixture. a thick, wet clay that is put verticly so you have an excavator dig a trench. you can see here. here is our landfill. here is the trench. it is dug down below or to the bottom of the waste and it is filled with this material. this is mixed with a sand mixture. it does not prevent the groundwater but it slows it down. ok. and here are some other pictures, when i say rockwall or shore line you will see that it is big bolders. this is actually a picture of another section of the shipyard that we finished earlier this

year. and then the wetlands. this is a picture of wetlands in the east bay. you know, this is the type of site -- you know this is what it could look like in the future after we build our wetlands. ok. why is this the preferred alternative. the navy feels because this landfill can be contained very safely, the landfill is very similar to other closed military landfills around the bay. this is not the first time that it has been done. we have things people are concerned about. radio active waste. the nature of what we have can be safely managed and placed. they were painted with radium paint so they glowed in the dark and were put on submarines or ships.

that is the type of low level radioactive waste that we have. thirdly the groundwater, like i was telling you, does not pose a major risk. closure and place is consistent with e.p.a. policy. there is an e.p.a. policy that says landfills of this nature and of this size for 2 acres can be easily closed in place. ok. so, why was the preferred alternative identified instead of full excavation. i am sure everybody is wondering that. leaving it in place or closing it properly in place reduces the short-term risks sooner. would remove the soil hot spots that prevent the most risk. the areas with the biggest

potential to impact people or wildlife, we are taking them out. they are not staying behind. we will safely contain the landfill with proven technology. landfills are closed all the time with this technology. it will prevent fewer short-term risks to workers and the local community. another thing i should point out is that digging up the landfill would result in numerous years of hauling contaminated materials through the community. it would be noisy and smelly and a lot of traffic. what are the next steps? after the public comments are received on november 21st the navy will look at all of the comments and take them into

account and respond to them in what is called a responsiveness summary. that is a written response and our document called the record of decision. it is the document that will select the final remedy. we will design and build starting in 2013. if anybody wants to provide comments they need to provide written comments at this address. his information is on that comment card that i brought. here are our regulators that the supervisor mentioned. this is just their contact information. they will speak to you after this. and if you want additional information or if anybody would like to get additional information on supporting documents or about liquid faction study, that is all in the information repository.

these are the locations for those. a lot of the information can also be found on the navy's website. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am an environmental engineer with the san francisco health department. as you are aware i have been working on this project for the past 18 years. i have been reviewing with the assistance of the scientists and the engineers of our consultants the information that the navy has just presented as well as the data and analysis for other areas of the shipyard. i wanted to remind everyone

that the navy and regulatory agencies that oversee the navy's work determined parcel a, the parcel that's already been transferred and is under development since 2005, under the oversite of my department it was determined safe to do that, including the fact that it is adjacent to this area. the navy and the regulatory agencies determined that all of the other parcels the navy still owns are safe in their current condition. that will be part of the entire development. as stated in our comment letter

on which you all received a copy, we believe that the navy has quickly studied and understands the nature and extent of contamination and the range of alternatives are feasible and follow accepted scientific practice. we support the process by the navy and encourage the navy to give substantial consideration to the input that they receive from the public and from all stakeholders. thank you. >> once a site gets on the

list, the national priority list epa is obligated to insure the investigation and clean up actions and long-term monitoring of human health and the environment. we monitor protectiveness of the clean up actions every step of the way. in accordance to the super fund law, the navy is the lead agency and e.p.a. is the lead regulatory agency to make sure that the navy is following the law and making sure that every action that the navy takes is protective of human health and the environment. in addition to myself, e.p.a. has many people staffed to monitor the navy's actions, we have human health risk assessors to make sure that the clean up levels, those types of in-points the navy is seeking to is protective of the local residents. we have an expert in reed logical clean up, a community

involvement coordinator to make sure the navy reaches out and engages, an attorney to make sure of all of the legal issues are monitored and an engineering contractor with more than 15 years of experience at the shipyard. with respect to parcel e-2, epa is overseeing the navy's 15-year study of this parcel. all parts of the shipyard we regulators stay deeply involved in the testing and the design and the construction step. a lot of people do not understand that all of the points laura talked about where soils were tested and groundwater were tested, that is done via a work plan sent to epa and the state first. we review it. we approve it. and then the navy implements it only after epa approves that.

because of the extensive testing program we believe the navy has quickly identified the type, location and the depth of contamination in parcel e-. based on all of the data about the contamination the navy evaluated a number of alternatives and epa supports the preferred remedy for the same reasons that laura described. it is protective of the local community and the ecology of san francisco bay, uses the best technologies and is consistent with the future land use. so, now we are interested. we are in the public comment period. we are interested in what the public suggestions are about how to clean up parcel e-2. final decision hasn't been made on how to clean up parcel e-2.

that decision will be made jointly between epa and the state and the navy only after careful consideration of all of the departments. in case there is a disagreement, epa does have ultimate authority to make the final decision on the remedy. so, epa and the state will continue to regulate the navy's actions. once a final remedy is decided on it is really important that the navy send us design, work plans on how to carry out the hot spot removals, if the landfill is going to be capped, how to design that capping remedy. and in other words we will stay involved through the design and through the remedy construction process. and even after the navy transfers interest in the property epa stays involved at the shipyard and we will continue to montar all of the actions at the shipyard to

insure the local community is protected. thank you for your time. >> thank you. ryan. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am a senior hazard assistance scientist for dtsc. the california department of toxic substances control has been involved with the hunters point shipyard since 1991 and the state of california's lead environmental oversight agency responsible for coordinating with other state agencies and insure that all characterization activities are conducted in accordance with california's applicable and relevant regulations. so, for parcel e-2, other state agency involved included the regional water quality control board, the california department of fish and game,

the california department of resources, recycling and recovery and the california department of public health. so, we have reviewed the navy's plan and determined that the remedies that are currently proposed for this parcel would be protective of public health and the environment. thank you very much. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am an engineer and geeolgist with the california regional water quality control board, aka, the water board. within the hunters point super fund program the regulatory role includes the protection of human health and the

environment with a focus on water quality, such as the protection of san francisco bay, groundwater and state wetlands. the water board also serves as the lead agency for the clean up of petroleum pollution. we reviewed the proposed plan and considered the navy's preferred remedy in concept is quickly protective of human health and the environment. the elements of the plan for the landfill are consistent with the management of closed military and municipal landfills in the region. our agency, along with the other regulatory agencies will continue to review and provide input during design, implementation and long-term management to insure that the final adopted plan results in a protective solution. thank you.

>> i don't think we have any further reports from the agencies. we will now open it up for public comment. >> i am glad to hear that they support the remedies that the navy has put together. we, the community do not support what they plan to do. and i don't want you all to forget in the year 2000, the voters of san francisco voted 87% of the voters voted that none of that land would be transferred to the city until it was cleaned to residential standards. you heard from the navy

already, you won't be able to dig in the dirt. if you want to plant flowers or anything of that nature. now, i requested several times since 2001. here we are in 2011. when congress was spending $10 billion per month to fight a war in another country, i requested the city and the navy to come together along with the community to request that they would set aside, congress would set a side a one-time, $10 billion to clean up that shipyard. nothing was done. all i hear is they want to cap. we do not want that area capped. we want it clean. we want the people that go out there to the shipyard to work to have all of the proper clothing because they have not been safe for the people going

out there on that base. that is a super fund site. i hope i can say it right quick. those officials that came before you and lied to you about that shipyard, guess what happened? they have left the city. i am talking about michael coin and i am talking about the head of the health department that was representing the health department. now you have blackwells that left and gone back to oakland. they came before you and lied. you have not listened to those of us from the community. thank you. >> today when i first entered city hall, i went to the clerk of the board and inspected the package regarding this hearing. nothing. just a one-page thing with no

material in it. right from the beginning of this hearing there has been a way to deceive the public. having said that, you heard the navy's presentation, but let me point out a few things. depleted uranium. radiated animals were brought and buried all over hunters point. radials, i worked for the army. if you read the final assessment report there are over 140 radiological elements in this area. stop lying to us. in the year 2000 there was a fire that lasted for two months. just a little methane gas the woman was talking about. the barrier broke in the year

2004 entering the jurisdiction where you -- ucsf has their labs on the shipyard. now you hear that the land can be transferred, the state park can be used for development, this land can be used for a park and then homes can be built. when the homes are built you will not be able to enter your backyard and dig the dirt. you will be able to go by the shore line but you will not be able to swim. finally the bay, it is contaminated with radiological elements. i rest my case.

>> i am glad we were at least able to hold this hearing. but this has been a fight going on for a long time. and it seems that san francisco is not worth the help of the people here in this city is not worth a little over $300 million. and actually they have already spent enough money to remove it. and as a matter of fact the epa asked them to deal with parcel e first and they refused to. they never intended to remove it. now they removed in canada a site up there, removed it and

things worked out fine. and it can be removed. if it don't cost $300 million i think it will cost more than that. but the navy is refusing to spend the money that it takes to clean up that. the people supposed to be able to say to the degree they want that shipyard cleaned up, it wasn't just the surrounding community. it was the whole city. we need to hold them to that and look, this is san francisco. that land out there was pristine land they screwed up and they should have to pay for it. not just because the area out there is 92% people of color. i don't want nobody living out

there. it is just a fraud that they are trying to perpetrate out there that they are going to build all of these houses and people going to be suing. it will cost more to try to protect the people that are going to sue about what is happening out there. i hope people really seep -- see. right now the people living around there is 25% high death rates than the rest of the city. and that is happening now. do we want it to keep happening? or do we want to fix it once and for all. 100 years from now, we will still have people living on top of this? it does not make sense. i feel we should clean it up and get it out of there and it can be done. thank you.

>> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. two minutes is not enough for this issue. what i am here -- hopefully what we leave with is when the initial resolution, why we are here today is because in the initial resolution it was stated that whatever the navy planned to do for their rod that they would have to have a hearing. we would have been rough