place to have office space? i would lean on the side of no. i appreciate this and moving forward. but i'm cognizant of people owning property. i look forward to supporting you in that. >> supervisor peskin: through the chair, to supervisor safai, thank you for that, and i want to throw out one statistic. a very recent study for 2016, showed that union square generates approximately 37% of the san francisco's sales tax and general consumer goods which is a remarkable figure. so there -- we also have financial interests in making sure that the retail vibrancy continues unabated and so i wanted to make sure we don't end up regretting decisions to convert to office space where if we were creative -- even if we had some pdr and manufacturing uses that actually used to exist

at union square, that it might be the right thing as supervisor safai said in terms of looking forward. manufacturing spaces becoming hot and we should try to incent things like that as well. if a member of the committee wants to move the aforementioned and circulated amendment and send this to the full board with recommendation, i would be delighted. >> so moved. >> supervisor tang: we have motion for amendment without objection. and if we can get a motion. >> make a motion to send this the full board with positive recommendations with amendment. >> we'll do that without objection. thank you, supervisor peskin. item 3. >> hearing on the cleanup time line and disputes between federal regulators and the united states navy on the percentage of parcel g to be retested and the methodology of

retesting soil at hunters point shipyard. >> i'm going to turn it over to supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for attending today's highly anticipated hearing. first things first. i want to just acknowledge at the chair's request we will be limiting public comment to one minute per speaker to ensure everyone has an opportunity to speak. the department of toxic substance control, the environmental protection agency and u.s. navy, along with their cleanup contractor about the cleanup time line and methodology of cleanup at the hunters point's shipyard. in particular, we're here to discuss the accusations of echo fraud, falsified tests, cleanup methodology and the percentage of parcel g that will be retested following renewed public discussion of the level of which fraudulent testing took

place at the shipyard. while this most recent iteration of intrigue and speculation on the cleanup process arose as an outcome of a letter from john chestnut, who is a manager of the epa local super fund division, it was obtained by an advocacy group called public employees for environmental responsibility, also known as peer. conversations about the cleanup have been happening for over 30 years. given the renewed skepticism about the cleanup, the renewed skepticism about the methodology, individuals and families living on parcel a, all have reached out to me with their concerns. i have expectant families contacting my office about

giving birth and raising children on what is widely p perceived to be toxic land. some want to know how they might get out of their leases. and this is not new. this is not new. these are not new questions being raised. for years, i have heard very real fears from the community and very little appropriate response from the navy, or any other federal agency about their work. i want to say on the record, unequivocally, that i want the united states navy to commit to testing parcel a. [applause] >> supervisor cohen: thank you, this has been decades -- a decade's long cleanup process and no end in sight. this has been eroded by the

process. the navy needs to commit to doing the right thing and that begins with scanning parcel a for hazardous materials. i've called on my -- excuse me -- i'll called on my congressional delegation for help because we need the attention of our federal representatives. we need them to coordinate the piece of this work that is outside of the san francisco jurisdiction and focus on this matter, because it's a question of environmental injustice. we need them to coordinate and work with us. we need them to coordinate this piece of work that is outside of the jurisdiction, to help rectify the environmental justice. just this morning, congresswoman pelosi joined me in the call for testing parcel a, what she has described as an abundance of caution. we have copies of this letter for members of the public. i don't have one for every member of the public.

committee persons, there should be a letter on your desk. i printed copies and the clerk will have copies to make the letter available. i would like to see that the money she secured be directed in part toward the scanning of parcel a. when it comes to accountability, we're grateful that the doj is doing their job and has sent in supervisors, but we want more. we need more assurances. if there was any wrongdoing, we will need to find it and hold the people accountable for their actions. again, today's hearing is focused on the retesting of parcel g where is falsified tests have been confirmed. i want to let the public know we would never take contaminated land and knowingly put people in danger. i also think this is a pivotal moment to all of the community advocates for years that have

been claiming and crying out for retesting. we have heard you. and now is your moment. thank you for your continued advocacy. to date i have no reviewed documents that have led me to believe that the hazardous materials were ever stored on parcel a. but at this point, i'm not willing to take the navy's word for it at face value. i think we must continue to demand the best -- what is the in the best interest of our residents living in parcel a and those who lived in, around and worked on the shipyard. some may have asked me if i trust the navy and if i trust tetra tech and for me, it's not a question of about tests or trust. really, it's a matter of ensuring that enough objective and people are overseeing the work, ensuring that the navy and the epa are doing their job.

we need assurances before attempt to transfer land to the city of san francisco. i haven't learned anything new that would give me faith in the process, being any different now from the process that was used in the past to test the land from the shipyard. i want to emphasize that cleanup and remediating the situation is in the hands of the federal area, the navy, dtsc and epa. despite what they put in the media, tetra tech messed up big time. this has been a decade long cleanup process and at some point, corners were cut under the tetra tech supervision, landing us in the situation we have today. finally to the public, i want you to know, we hear you and take your concerns seriously. have been and always will.

i'm holding this hearing with the hope that all those involved can work toward the same goal and that's frankly to end the era of toxicity, beginning a new era of housing and prosperity in the district. and most importantly, giving a voice to the residents of the bayview hunters point community, you need to be validated, and acknowledged. i want to begin by inviting laura from the united states navy to present first. we'll hear presentation from the navy. we will then hear a presentation from tetra tech. followed by dtsc, epa, golden gate university, the department of public health, ocii, and of course, our beloved marie harrison from green action. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. before we begin, is it all right to give our colleagues a chance to speak? we have supervisor kim on the

roallison ross ter and -- roster and supervisor fewer. >> supervisor kim, has been hand in hand, holing the navy accountable, so i would love for her to engage on the hearing. >> supervisor tang: thank you, and thank you for your leadership, supervisor cohen. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: as cosponsor of the hearing, i want to acknowledge the work of your office making sure we're holding the navy and federal contractors accountable to the health, safety and well-being of all of our residents. i joined in not just because this is city-wide issue, but we have to a similar project on treasure island and while tetra tech plays a different role, i have a number of questions given the incredible mall practice that has emerged.

it is abhorrent and unacceptable we've allowed any of our residents to be exposed when there has already been so much mistrust over the last decade how the cleanup would occur and how the monitoring would take place. i served on the board of education with then commissioner sandra fewer. when we first heard the issue a decade ago, when residents were concerned the cleanup would not happen, they would be lied to, they were not as safe as they were told they were. it is now concerning to have two employees of the federal contractor go to prison, as judged by our court of the law. that is only further confirmed what many of the residents felt, this neighborhood is neglected, it's not a priority, that we don't care about the health and safety and well-being of all of our residents. that said, this hearing is to ask questions and to get

answers. i just want to reiterate what supervisor cohen said, i 100% support the retesting of parcel a, even if there is no scientific evidence to support a retesting. i think given the incredible breach of trust that has occurred, it is entirely reasonable for our residents to ask for this and our city and delegation should push for it. i will be brief, because i know members of the public want to speak, but i will have questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chair tang. i wanted to say that i'm happy to be a cosponsor of the hearing. this is a very important issue as supervisor kim mentioned, we both worked on the school board and we've heard about this issue for a long time. what we've heard in the news recently is appalling and offensive that people would put profits over the health and well-being of human beings. it is criminal.

and i think that we have seen them being punished criminally and not long enough in my opinion. i also in favor of retesting of parcel a, it's about gaining trust, but it goes beyond trust, but it's about accountable and making sure it's right, that is the city's job. >> supervisor tang: i want to acknowledge, i heard minister christopher's voice, i want to thank him for being outstanding and being an advocate when few people were paying attention. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor tang: so now, supervisor cohen, i know you listed off speakers. i'm turning over the hearing to you. >> supervisor cohen: first up, the united states navy, ms. laura ducheck. >> just in case you're wondering why the navy is going first, they're the original landowners.

and they will be setting up the parameter and framing up the early parts of this conversation. >> ok, good afternoon, supervisor cohen and other distinguished supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to discuss the department of the navy's work at the former naval hunters point shipyard. hunters point is an important part of the san francisco history. it played a vital role in the national defense, especially during world war ii and after. all with the support of the bayview community. since closure in 1991, the navy has undertaken environmental cleanup resulting from many years of important industrial work at the shipyard. at this epa super fund site we have invested $1 billion on cleanup for chemicals and low level radiological contamination. the vast majority of the work in

excess of $750 million has been successfully completed. we are proud of the efforts and we will be here until it is properly completed. the most challenging issue has been the radiological cleanup work. this would be true under any circumstance due to the low levels of radiation that are near the levels that are naturally occurring in the environment, commonly referred to as background levels. however, the larger issue and why we're here today, some portions of the roughly $250 million of radiological analysis and cleanup work performed by tetra tech has been questioned. the company currently known as tetra tech began radiological work on the site in 2002. the navy originally discovered irregularities in radiological data through the ongoing quality control procedures in 2012. we initially worked with tetra

tech and the regulatory agencies to address those issues and rework was performed from 2012 to 2014. in 2014, tetra tech released a soil sample report as documentation. in 2013 deviated from the work plans while conducting surveys throughout the site. as a results, the state suspended their recommendations in 2015 and tetra tech reperformed radiological sur. subsequently, the navy identified additional issues. then former tetra tech employees came forward with specific claims of deliberate falsification of tests, improper

work and fraudulent record keeping. at this point, the navy paused the program for a comprehensive review. after exploring the allegations in 2016, the navy initiated and led a data evaluation and analysis effort from the group of radiological experts consisting of independent contractors and consortium of universities. in november, 2017, the navy concluded that there were more problems with the tetra tech cleanup data at hunters point which created uncertainty in the overall work. this conclusion was reinforced by a second data evaluation proportionated by epa, using different methodology. we understand that credible reliable data is imperative to establish that the property is safe to transfer to the local community. that is why we've halted all remaining transfers of the property at hunters point and have been working closely with

epa and the california regulatory agencies on the next steps. we're in agreement with epa that all of tetra tech work areas must be reevaluated. the navy will be releasing a draft work plan within the next month. this will allow us to retest and certify the property is safe for transfer. the navy is taking action against tetraeffect for its unsatisfactory work. we are in the process of contractual remedy force the noncompliant work. additionally, we have provided the department of justice with our findings to aid in the investigation. earlier this hospital, two tetra tech employees received criminal sentences for their part in the fraudulent work at hunters point. both the navy and department of justice are committed to pursuing and persecuting contractor fraud to the fullest extent of the law.

we have been and will continue to be open and transparent with the local community on the environmental work at hunters point. we hold four community meetings, bus tours of the shipyard and provide the latest information on the website. last year, we hired a radiological technical expert, the head of the oregon state university school of nuclear science and engineering, who has a ph.d. in radiological health sciences and is a physicist. on may 7, 2018, we held a meeting with the residents of parcel a to explain the history of the property and listen to concerns. they have verified the safety of the parcel which has been investigated, cleared and removed from the program in 1999

and epa surveyed the parcel twice before transfer. parcel a is safe. i would live there. i would have my family live there. however, we understand that the broader issues have sparked concern among parcel a homeowners, therefore, we have engaged with the regulatory agencies to evaluate options to provide additional information to reinforce the property's safety. i would like to mention the most recent allegations regarding improper soil disposal from hunters point. we are in the internal review process. there are procedures in place designated to ensure the soil is characterized and disposed of in the proper land fills. however, those procedures were not designed to prevent fraudulent activity. we're reviewing the process and we intend to work with the landfill owners to address their concerns.

for many years, the navy has worked closely with epa, california department of public health and the department of toxic substances control to achieve our common goal of environmental cleanup that is protective of human health and environment. we have a positive and productive working relationship with the city of san francisco and look forward to continuing that relationship with the future. we are appreciative of the funding provided by congress to support this site. and the extensive cleanup effort. as we move forward, the city of san francisco residents and policymakers can trust that the navy and regulatory agencies will uphold our mutual goal of ensuring that the environmental work is properly completed and the remaining 858 acres have safely transferred to the city. the navy has put measures in place ensuring quality assurance, compliance and

oversight measures. again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our extensive cleanup efficients at the former hunters point shipyard today. we look forward to a successful conclusion of our work at hunters point. we were determined that our legacy here will be positive. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: i have several questions, 13 of them, to ask you. >> ok. >> supervisor cohen: when is the property going get transferred to the city? >> so i can't tell you exactly when the property is going to be transferred, but what i can tell you, we have completed our extensive data evaluation. we have -- >> supervisor cohen: and the reason -- excuse me -- the reason why you can't tell me when it's going to get transfer is? because of what reason? >> we have to figure out what testing needs to take place.

that needs to be conclude. once that is concluded, we can prepare the property for transfer. what we're focused on now is getting the rework in place to so the retesting can take place. >> supervisor cohen: when is this cleaned up so we can have the property, it's been 30 years, when is this going to happen? your work plan. you mentioned the work plan. >> yeah, so the work plan will be out in the next month. it will go for public comment. once public comment is received, then we can finalize that and proceed to field to do the retesting. at the conclusion of the retesting effort, we'll be able to determine what actions need to be taken, if any. and we'll be prepared for transfer. >> supervisor cohen: if you were to start over, how long would it take to retest parcel g? by retest, i mean, pull the soil

out of the ground, pull out pads and run scanners over the soil? >> well, depending on what retesting plan is approved, that will dictate how long it takes to get through it. we anticipate being in the field roughly 3-6 months and after that time, we get the reports and finalize from there. >> supervisor cohen: do you think that 30 days is sufficient amount of time for public comment on the work plan? >> generally, we do 30 days. i understand there might be interest in extending that to 60 days. we would certainly entertain that. >> supervisor cohen: ok. what is the process -- what process do you envision for retesting the soil on parcel g? >> i think there will be combination of processes, trenches will be dug, samples will be put in place. we'll do a whole host running the gamut of what was originally done to test that parcel. >> supervisor cohen: when will

the work plan for the retesting be issued and will the community be able to review and comment? >> the work plan should go out within the next month. it will be available for public comment. >> ok. >> and how did you let this fraud with tetra tech happen? >> well, i would say that we detected it. our internal quality procedures did exactly what they were intended to do. our health businesses reviewed the data, found irregularities and we worked through that procedurally. i would say it did end up taking much longer than we would have liked to resolve the issue, to get to the place where we're doing retesting, but we found the data and we stopped the issue. and we are now proceeding to do the retesting and move forward. >> supervisor cohen: i guess the question is, at what point --

how much did you know and when did you know it? >> well, as i explained, in 2012, we detected some irregularities in the soil. and at that point, it looked like a limited issue and we worked to resolve those issues from 2012 to 2014. there were then additional issues. as we've learned more information, that led us to cause a pause and halt and do a complete comprehensive reevaluation. i think at this point, you should feel very comfortable that we will have more data on this site than any other site. >> supervisor cohen: ok. i'm curious to know internally, the navy it's a big huge organization, how have you made sure that fraud doesn't happen again? particularly to the hunters

point shipyard, but i'm also thinking about the other super fund projects on the land that you currently own. what channels have you put in place to ensure this doesn't repeat itself? >> so we have hired third party monitoring to provide oversight at many of our sites. we certainly have had it in place in the bay area since this initially was detected. and we're continuing to increase our oversight and field processes. >> supervisor cohen: in what way are you holding tetra tech accountable? >> as i mentioned, we're pursuing contractual action. we're also providing information to the investigative branches that are proceeding with any of their investigations. >> supervisor cohen: do you continue to contract with them? >> we are no longer contracting for any radiological work with tetra tech in the bay area.

>> supervisor cohen: that means you're still contracting with them on other projects, other aspects of your -- >> well, we're following the federal acquisition regulations. we're providing all the feedback and input we can to the contracting process. >> supervisor cohen: despite the two supervisors being sentenced to time in prison, there was no fine given to tetra tech. the nuclear regulatory commission fined tetra tech $7,000, then negotiated in lieu of paying the fine, they would better train their staff. do you think this is a reasonable punishment? >> i don't really think i should pass judgment on different agencies' actions, but what i would encourage you to talk to the nuclear regulatory commission about their actions. >> supervisor cohen: when will you be moving forward with the

offer from tetra tech to pay a third party to retest all places that the tetra tech company tested in the past? >> so as we mentioned, third party retesting is a critical element of us moving forward. we certainly need more details from the broad public offer from tetra tech to pay for the rework. and we'll follow up with that. but we are focused on getting the retesting under way. along with a regulatory approved work plan. >> supervisor cohen: how close to radioactive materials would one have to live in order to be in danger? >> i don't know that i can answer that. since i'm not a health physicist, but i can say we do not believe there is any danger at hunters point from

radiological exposure. please stand by.

. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to make sure that we're very clear in what we're talking about, 'cause i can see you're emphatic about answering the question, but it seems that it's erbsoed with parcel a. what about -- associated with parcel a. what about parcel g? >> yes. any folks that access hunters point are safe. >> supervisor cohen: how dow guarantee their safety? how do you guarantee that they're not in danger? >> there have been tests, and folks have looked at the artists colony where the police are, any of the other folks that are on the base, those areas have been evaluated and deemed safe. >> supervisor cohen: all right. well, can you speak to building 322 which was temporarily placed on parcel a? >> yes. building 322 was the only

building on parcel a that tetratech did any work. it was scanned, demolished, and removed from the sites. as we mentioned earlier, that parcel a has been repeatedly studied and cleared. that building was demolished and removed, and upon its completion, e.p.a. did a hand scan of that area and detected no radiological activity. >> supervisor cohen: what was stored in building 322? >> i don't even remember what was stored in 322. do you guys know? it was just administrative...yeah, i believe it was just administrative. >> supervisor cohen: okay. there seems to be some disagreement with that in chambers. >> we can confer tirm the use building 322. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i appreciate that.

has any information come to your attention or have any e.p.a. standards changed since the transfer of parcel a, d-2, uc-1 or uc-2 which would make you reconsider that those parcels were safe for transfer? and again, i'm asking, has there been any information because it's been a long period of time that we've been cleaning up the shipyard? have the standards changed? >> there is nothing in the changes in standards that would cause us any concern. >> supervisor cohen: what standards have changed? which ones? >> no standards have changed? >> supervisor cohen: is it safe for the navy to make the parcel safe for future developments? >> we have.

>> supervisor cohen: and will you? >> we will. >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's concerning that the navy doesn't know or realize that. supervisor kim, i just want to give you a chance to chime in here. >> supervisor kim: thank you. i appreciate many of the questions that were already asked in regards to the shipyard. i'm just going to shift to treasure island which is part of the district that i represent. we know about the falsification of the data as it related to hunters point. can you describe the scope of work that tetratech does on treasure island? >> i can. i have some limited information with me on treasure island today. they performed radiological work between 2007 and 2008, and they also performed radiological work between 2014 and 2015. they work included buildings 334, 333, investigations of site open space, and a

radiological survey to support demolition, buildings 1121 and 1323. and lastly, a final status survey of the i.r. site 6 area. >> supervisor kim: how does their work on treasure island differ from the work on hunters point? is it similar, is it surveying and investigation work on both areas? >> some of it was similar, surveying and investigation work, but on traerk island, we had an extensive work on-site 12, dwelling units as well as all the open space. cdph also did that scanning, so there are two independent sites that scanned that area, and it was preempted by no issue or misconduct, it was because the navy determined or site model didn't model accurately how any

of the radiological elements could have been spread, and when we determined that, we took the action to scan the entire site. that area was heavily overseen. >> supervisor kim: okay. so when you say the navy, and the california department of health scanned that site, meaning your employees and california department of health employees did the scan of this site. >> so the navy hired a contractor that did it, but there were navy employees there overseeing the work throughout. >> supervisor kim: and who was the contractor? >> i believe it was cbni or shaw. >> supervisor kim: and when you say the navy was overseeing the contractor's work, wasn't the navy overseeing the work of tetratech at the time of falsification of the data. >> they were. >> supervisor kim: it wasn't that the navy discovered the falsification of the data via tetratech, it was because there was a whistle blower within tetratech that let us know the information. so if the navy was providing

oversight of tetratech in hunters point, and the navy was providing oversight of your contractor -- i'm sorry, i forgot the name again. >> cdli. >> supervisor kim: cdli on treasure island, how do i tell my residents that i can tell them with 100% resolution that the work that was done there was done and met the highest standards? >> so the navy did detect the fraudulent work at hunters point through internal quality control procedures by the health phycists. they were able to discern all the irregularities. >> supervisor kim: okay. before the whistle blower? >> yes. long before. >> supervisor kim: long before? >> mm-hmm. >> supervisor kim: i guess, could you determine that a little more. what did the navy do?

'cause it was not in the press. we read about the whistle blower and the two that are going to jail, so that is the public narrative. can you explain what the navy did when they detected the discrepancy first. >> right. so in 2012, when we detected that irregularity, we worked -- >> supervisor kim: in 2012? >> yes, in 2012. >> supervisor kim: six years ago? >> yes. >> supervisor kim: why is it i only found out about the discrepancy in 2018? >> yes. in 2012, we detected the irregularity. we worked with tetratech to say we need to understand what this irregularity is. they did an investigation, an evaluation. they issued a report. i think that report has been heavily covered in the media, and there was -- there was thought to be really limited issue there, and corrective actions were taken and rework was done. so in 2014, it was thought that that had been completely addressed.

however, subsequently, we found additional issues. >> supervisor kim: when was that? >> we found them throughout 2013, 2014, and we continued to work through the issues. >> supervisor kim: but i guess i'm concerned because you did discover the discrepancies in 2012, '13, and '14. you thought you worked through the issued, and then in 2018, at least -- issues, and then, in 2018, at least the public, six years later, we find out that information had been falsified. i guess it took six years for this to get to the public, so that does make me concerned. i feel like i then can't tell our residents on treasure island with 100% certainty that the navy oversight of the federal contractor was done in a way that ensured their health and safety. >> well, i would say that in 2016, on hunters point is when we -- we called a halt to everything that was going on.

we met with the mayor's office, supervisors' office, many, and said, this is a grave situation. we want to resolve it. we were going to embark on a comprehensive review of all the data. and it has taken a long time. it was a massive amount of data, but i think that speaks to our commitment to this issue. we are going to do it thoroughly, and we are going to do it right, so we worked through those issues. at treasure island, the issue with the radiological elements in site 12, as i said, was not prompted by any -- any errors, it was really something we discerned in looking at how the site came to be. and because it was such an emotional issue, and we were all very concerned that it got the utmost attention in oversight as we worked through that, going through people's homes, as you can imagine, was an extremely -- extremely hard

task, and we were very empathetic to what they were going through. >> supervisor kim: i remember, and i appreciate that effort. it -- you know, you never like knowing that there's a possibility that you are living on land with toxic contaminations that can impact your health and also the health of your children and other family members. >> supervisor kim: i remember that work, and i appreciate the work that was done. my question is was there any overlap amongst the workers on treasure island that pleaded guilty? >> i don't know the whole work crews that were in both places, but we can certainly look at that and make sure that there's not an issue related to any of those individuals. >> supervisor kim: great. and, you know, i think the one thing -- and it's a little hard when you're primarily learning through the press, but it seems really clear that what occurred was much more than two employees within tetratech.

i know that tetratech has come out with many statements that they disavow the actions of those two individuals, but i can't believe it's just those two individuals, that there's a culture that's been set out within the organization that encourages these lies and falsifications to move forward. i just don't think you can do something to this extent without there being more involvement from other individuals. so i continue to be concerned about tetratech and its work both on hunters point and treasure island. i also just want to say, i appreciate your response. it is, however, very bure bureaucratic response as many people in the audience have. i know that the navy acted, however, six years is a long time, and it's a long time if we were wrong -- it seemed like we're not. if we are wrong, that's six

years that people have been living under false pretenses about their health and safety and well-being -- [applause] >> supervisor kim: and i just think we have to have a quicker response moving forward. and i would really like the navy to commit today to testing parcel a. i know the scientific evidence does not support it, and i know that our local department of public health has said that, and i know we basically lopped off an entire hill, and i know the work was very different. but i completely understand why people are concerned, and i think it is incumbent upon us to allay their concerns and do the tests and show the work. i don't know how much the cost is, i don't know how much money is involved in it. i just think given the disaster that has occurred within tetratech, it is our responsibility to the residents, that we owe it to them to prove that this parcel

is safe. i hope that the navy will commit to that. >> yeah. as i said earlier, we have engaged with the regulatory agencies. we are all in to assist in whatever activities can provide additional information to allay the concerns of the parcel a residents. i don't know what exactly those actions are. we posed those questions to the regulatory agency on thursday, but we are committed to address the actions on parcel a. >> supervisor kim: i don't want to put you on the spot because i know that you're not the only decision maker, but for folks that are listening, it's great to say we're going to look to see what additional information we can share, and that we have to go to a different board and this board to get a confirmation of what we're going to do, but this is what i mean by a bureaucratic response. by the way, this is what i do. i will also give a bureaucratic

response on a number of different things, but i think on an issue like this, we have to say yes, we're going to do it, and you can't say, we're going to ask another committee. this is not on you, this is on the nation -- not the nation, but the navy. at a certain point, you have to say, we're going to do it. we're not going to ask another committee, we're going to test the site and make sure we are showing the residents our commitment to our health and safety and well-being. >> i can tell you today the navy is committed. what i can't tell you is exactly what that looks like. >> supervisor kim: yeah. that's what i would like to see is maybe you'll commit to the retesting. >> what i will -- i don't know whether we will do for the retesting, whether it's we will pay for the retesting, but we're committed. the regulatory agencies either don't have a clear idea of what the property looks like. the property was transferred title 14 years ago. it's undergone tremendous

change. many new construction materials have been brought in, all of which have radiological signature, so it just changes the flexity of what's going on at a site. whatever can be done to evaluate that site, we're committed to do it. i'm just saying a scan of the site may or may not be useful. >> supervisor kim: well, i -- >> supervisor cohen: well, i think a scan would be helpful. it would be a step in the right direction, this information that's six years. it wasn't like this information was handed out to us. it was through sunshine requests, through -- through investigative reporting. i mean, this is -- it feels as if the navy is constantly sweeping something under the rug, and that is very disingenuous, and it's not fair. the navy should be held accountable, part of this entire process.

[applause] >> supervisor cohen: parcel a, parcel g, and whatever else we decide needs to be rescanned out there. i and also want to say that tetratech should not be the company that you should partner with to do this. [applause] >> supervisor kim: thank you. and at this time, i also wanted to let supervisor fewer chamber in. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i also wanted to say, you knew that were issues. in 2014, you knew that tetratech released some recommendations -- some radiological recommendations, is that correct? >> they released a report that documented the irregularities that they found and the rework that they did to address that. >> supervisor fewer: and did you believe that report to be truthful? >> we did. >> supervisor fewer: after knowing in 2012 and 2013 that you said you found irregularities and issues. so in 2014, when they gave you

this report, you actually thought that they would be telling the truth, is that correct -- even though you knew in 2012, and by your own admission, in 2013, that you found irregularities and issues? and yet, they give you a recommendation in 2014, a report, and you believe them? this is correct? i just want to say, it is not enough to say, it is safe and that you would live there. quite frankly, you don't live there. [applause] >> supervisor fewer: and so to the people of san francisco that do live there, that a retesting is the only way that these people -- and from another company, quite frankly, that people can feel safe. there is no price that you can put on the fact that people can sleep well at night, that they can be there with this be children, they can -- seniors can live there and feel safe.

there is no price that you can put on that. i don't care what it costs, at this point. and i just want to say, i also don't want to be here, and i know that you're representing the navy. but if i could talk to the whole u.s. navy, i would be telling them the same thing. it's not you. i know you're representing them, but the idea that you found irregularities in 2012, and you thought oh, here's a red flag, but you know, it's a limited scope of problem, whenever it involves human lives or the potential to affect human lives, i just think to safe oh, it's just an irregularity, you know, we thought we could work on it, it's really unexcusable. i just think -- i can't even believe that our federal government would take this so lightly, still work with this

company that you clearly saw irregularities, and some -- some issues. i just don't even understand why you would continue to keep contracting with this company and then believing them even more. quite frankly, we look to the federal government to protect us, and when i see this and to the residents of san francisco, yeah, parcel a needs to be retested just so people can sleep at night. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor kim: thank you. we'll turn it back to supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, i appreciate that. miss laura, thank you for coming up and representing the navy. lawyer and i and the navy, we had a chance to meet before. should you knew beforehand that was going to be a difficult meeting and difficult to answer. i appreciate you coming forward and answering to the best of

your capabilities. i just want you to know how serious this is to this body, and thank you for your presentation. the next folks we're going to hear from is tetratech. >> thank you. and i would like to say when i leave, we are committed, and we will be here until this thing is done. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. all right, tetratech, you're up. >> good afternoon, chair person tang, supervisors cohen and kim, we thank you for allowing us to participate in this conversation today. >> supervisor cohen: what's your name? >> my name is preston hopson. i am the senior vice president and general counsel of tetratech, inc. >> real quick, i know this is a very heated topic. i just want to give everyone the time that they need, also that we can hear what the individuals are saying.

when there's a lot of noise, we can't hear what the individuals are saying. >> supervisor cohen: madam chair, i have a question. are you the only representative from tetratech here today? >> yes, i am, supervisor. >> supervisor cohen: okay, i just want to be very transparent and let the public know. tetratech flew up and they met with me, and they had their chief engineer that met with me and a whole bunch of other folks. mr. hopson is their attorney. i specifically asked for this meeting, i specifically asked for a technical person; instead, they sent their legal counsel. so i -- [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: i'm disappointed. i specifically have asked for a technical person. curious, how long have you been working on this project at hunters point shipyard mr. hopson? >> you're asking me personally? >> supervisor cohen: yes, i am. >> for several months. >> supervisor cohen: several month. so as you can see, it's a little hard to take what you're

going to say in this hearing -- i guess we'll just have to take it with a grain of salt, because we're looking for somebody with a little more authority, with a little more depth, with a little more understanding. there are constituents that know more about what's happening in the neighborhood than you, sir. i was very explicit to dr. bill brownlee who was the chief engineer on this project, that i really wanted someone that had that technical background. i find it insult thing that yoe the only one from tetratech here to stand, and i think that your attendance actually flies in the face of all of the work that you've been doing to push the narrative in the media that tetratech stands by its work and that it's done no wrong until this point. so today's not an arbitration, it's not a hearing. i'm not quite sure why they sent their attorney. my first question are there any projects in tetratech's portfolio that are not located

in low-income or impoverished neighborhoods? >> my first answer is yes, there. my first question is am i allowed to make a presentation? >> supervisor cohen: the invitation was to mr. brownlee. >> unfortunately, dr. brownlee send is sends his regrets. >> okay. i'm going to jump in here and ask you to answer supervisor cohen's questions. >> tetratech does 60,000 projects around the world, both for government at the federal, state and local levels as well as for commercial clients. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so are there any cleanup projects in your portfolio that

are not located in low-income or impoverished neighborhoods? if so, tell us where they are. >> we engaged in remediation projects around the country in communities of all types. >> i'm so sorry. that is not an answer to the supervisor's questions, and i just feel that if you're not going to answer the questions, i'm not going to waste our time with this. [applause] >> supervisor cohen: that's fine with me. i think mr. hopson you've made my point on why i didn't want the attorney. thank you. we'll move on. >> thank you to the supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: all right. i want to call up the representative motion nazimi from decs. come on down, sir. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to request

respectfully that have e.p.a. go first because i want to have the federal agencies present first before we get to the state. >> supervisor cohen: sure. enrique tanzania. good to see yo-- manzanilla. good to see you. >> thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: i'm with you. present. >> okay. supervisor cohen, chair person tang, vice chair person, other supervisors here, my name is enrique manzanilla. i'm the director of the super fund division of the u.s. e.p.a. located here in san francisco. i am joined by my technical

team. you have heard already from the navy who is the lead on the cleanup at the hunters point shipyard cleanup. my department has overseen the cleanup to make sure that it is done in a way that follows the super fund laws and other laws that protect the environment. we take this mission very seriously. for the past decades we and the state have been monitoring radiological levels on an ongoing basis to ensure the safety of the surrounding community. for example we have been reviewing radiological data collected from navy regulators. we have also done independent radiological testing at various sites in independent laboratories. we are aware of the deep concern that you and the community have about any

potential impacts of the shipyard and the health of the current and future residents and workers. we share that concern, and we want answers, too. for that reason, we have made hunters point a top priority. we have assembled a team of national experts throughout e.p.a. and radiation, statistics, geography, and other areas to make sure that the community is protected. our first concern is any potential exposure to the current residents and workers at the shipyard, particularly at parcel a. since 1989, e.p.a. and the state have conducted oversight on investigation and cleanup work at the hunters point naval shipyard including parcel a, historically, most of parcel a was used for residences, cafeterias, and other nonindustrial activities. for the minimal levels of

radiological activities, we have reviewed and made sure decontamination was complete. e.p.a. and the state of california conducted both in person testing and in person review. we approved the navy's 2004 historical radiological assessment. that assessment found three buildings with a history of radiological involvement. the navy tested all three buildings. of those, my understanding is that tetratech, e.c. did not do any radiological work at parcel a except at building 322 which was demolished and removed in 2004. following the removal of building 322, an e.p.a. worker conducted independent hand scans of the area using two types of scanners to confirm that the former building site was clean. in addition, around building 816, the california department

of health services independently collected and analyzed five soil samples. e.p.a. conducted multiple site visits. all these actions occurred before we approved the transfer of parcel a. even after parcel a was transferred, we continued to respond to specific concerns about exposure to residents, especially since 2014. at this -- those points, my technical team reviewed the site history, analyzed the available data, conducted site visits and interviews, and conferred with our state regulatory partners. we then distributed updated fact sheets for the public in 2016 and 2017, after we received additional specific concerns. now again we have received new allegations of potential concerns in parcel a. we have asked to speak to the individuals who have made these allegations through their attorney. when we receive more