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 detailed

information, we will evaluate it, consult with our regulatory partners, your staff and other stakeholders to recommend a course of action. we will share those results with the public, as well. based on the history of the work done -- based on the history of and the work done on parcel a, we do not believe that any current residents are at risk due to tetratech's actions. none theless, we are going to follow up with these new allegations and investigate them and come back with a proposal for a course of action. for other parts of the site outside of parcel a, we wrote to the navy in 2016 to reiterate that no further transfers of property would occur until we could get to the bottom of our questions about tetratech, e.c. incorporated data. in parcels b, g, and others. e.p.a.'s review of data from tetratech e.c.'s have found

that both violations -- we support the navys decision to do retesting at all locations where tetratech e.c. incorporated has done radiological work. because of our concerns, e.p.a. will not approve parcel transfers without comprehensive retesting. if retesting finds contamination, then the navy must cleanup the area until it is safe enough to allow future transfers. together with my state regulatory partners, we commit to having the team retest the state every step of the way to monitor the safety of residents and workers. [please stand by for captioner

switch] . >> we all want what is for the retesting -- we all -- what we all want is for the retesting to start as soon as possible. only with that retesting can we finally know the facts about the extent of any potential contamination and to begin cleanup, if needed, right away. however, we want that urgency to be balanced with the need for careful and transparent review of the work plan by both the community and the

regulatory agencies to make sure we are moving forward responsibly and efficiently to protect public health. i continue to direct u.s.e.p.a.'s resources to hunters point so our team will technical experts can focus our attention on this community. we are committed to working hard together with the navy, our state regulatory partners, your departments to develop plans that will ensure that hunters point shipyard is safe for the community. we take these issues very seriously. again, we will not approve any new development without review work, with proper over sight to ensure residents and future workers will be safe. we look forward to answering your questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. ladies and gentlemen i just want to point out that the representatives of tetratech have left the chamber, have made a decision not to hear out this entire hearing in its entirety, and i think that

speaks to the character. and they also took with them their p.r. person so they can go do an interview in the chamber. but the business, rest assured is handling right here in this chamber, and we will continue to move forward. mr. enrique manzanilla, thank you for recognizing that enough is enough and we need to really stop pointing fingers and get back to work. i want to ask the same question that i asked the navy, are the current residents, are the tenants, and are the workers safe, and how can we guarantee their safety? >> we believe they are safe based on all the information, the historical record and then, the additional work that was done at parcel a. again, that was about 14 years ago. >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> now, that doesn't mean we ignore the most recent allegations. we're going to follow up, investigate those allegations, talk to those individuals because we'd like to understand that better. and what we want to do is work with our regulatory partners,

department of toxic substance control, california department of public health, the navy, and of course your staff and the public to determine the proper course of action. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so i asked a question earlier and the navy wasn't able to answer it. has any information come to your attention or has any of the e.p.a. standards changed, changed since the transfer of parcel a. we're talking 14 years ago -- since the transfer of parcel a, uc-1 or uc-2, specifically, would it make you reconsider that those parcels are safe for transfer. >> there's always a risk of e.p.a. risk modelling and sort. of course, if that happens we take another look at that either through a five year review process or things change

in between there, we look at that. >> supervisor cohen: so, have we looked at the change? first of all, can you confirm that there is a change that has occurred in terms of e.p.a. standards? >> there are -- i'm going to ask my colleague, john chestnut to answer that. i think there's some changes to how e.p.a. does risk modelling and things of that sort that have been updated. we have the criteria that are in the record of decision for the site. those criteria, at least to date in my view, remain protective. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. mr. chestnut. >> yes. so he's reity rating some risk models have changed, but we're always evaluating them on a continuous basis. >> supervisor cohen: so has the shipyard transfer, again, not exclusively to parcel a but also d-2, uc-1 or uc-2, have

the risk factors changed? >> i don't think they have. >> this is john chestnut. he's my section manager at e.p.a. >> supervisor cohen: mr. chestnut, well come. >> hi. i'm the engineer that managed the team that has been doing the indepth evaluation of the data. mr. manzanilla said our data has been set in the records of decision. we continue to look at those. the five year review is starting this year, it regard to uc-1, uc-2, and d-1, we look at any new activity that has been done on that site, like the construction, and we've done activities to ensure that -- >> supervisor cohen: what is

your motion denied ellig and analysis, what this very yielded? you said you done -- >> we have a calculator called a preliminary meters and goal calculator, and we look at that. when it comes to the developments transfer, it was actually much more hands on. we looked at the development and what they were doing and analyzed specific foot prints of where the trenches were to see if tetratech might have worked to see if there might be extra analysis done around that, and we felt that the work that had been done did not impact those areas. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. mr. manzanilla, since you stated that the site was safe in its current condition and everyone is committed to continuing to ensure its safety, what's your opinion on the scope of the retesting demands that -- the scope of the retesting demands at the expense of the timeline, of the timeliness? >> the scope of the retesting for parcel a or just overall?

>> supervisor cohen: well, you can take the question in two parts. what brings us here is the testing of parcel g, retesting. but there are some people that are living on parcel a and i want to give them some assurances, so that when we walk out of here about the health and well-being of parcel a, so if you could answer in both sections, for parcel g, and then parcel a and the other parcels. >> i think based on the documentation that we have, the cleanup work that we did, the testing that we did, again, 14 years ago, we believe the site is safe for current residents. now, with these new allegations, there's allegations of movement of soil from one part of the base to parcel a, there's allegations regarding a manhole cover and things of that sort. we have to look into that to make sure that we understand what those allegations are. and then, of course, we will work with our coregulators,

with the navy, with your staff, to determine a course of action. that course of action could involve rescanning, but again, even if we go down that path, we have to do that in a very informed way. in order for us to be able to confidently reassure folks of the safety of the parcel, so i think there's a lot of science and a lot of work that needs to be done even if we were to go down that path, so i think it would -- it's most appropriate and appropriate responsible for us to take these allegations -- most responsible for us to take these allegations into consideration, have discussions and determine the course of action. we want to do that promptly, and so we can, of course, commit to updating you and your staff on a regular basis over the course of what remains of this month. we want to -- we're acting upon it as quickly as possible. >> supervisor cohen: so you're

a representative and have been working on this site for years. you represent the environmental protection agency. so how are you going to make sure that these types of fraudulent activities don't happen again? >> well, we, obviously, with our own contractors, and every agency has this, we have mechanisms in place to ensure that there's data quality checks and all sorts of mechanisms in place to ensure that the quality of the data emanating from our contractors is valid. >> supervisor cohen: were these mechanisms in place six years ago? >> because this is a navy's contractor, i mean, i'm sure that they've answered the question. i think they -- what laura has indicated to you is they discovered these problems themselves. >> supervisor cohen: but see as a regulator, your job is to oversee and check their work. >> well, we oversee the work of

the navy as presented to us. we are not in a position to oversee their contractors, the way we would oversee our own contractors. >> supervisor cohen: i understand. if the navy's contractors lie on their documentation, and they pass it off to the navy, and the navy passes it on to you, you assume that what you're getting is generally valid data? >> that is correct. >> well, does it matter that the e.p.a. calculated a different figure? >> for parcel g? >> yeah. >> yes, it does matter. obviously we looked at the data evaluation work -- the data evaluation work that the navy has done for parcel g and for parcel b, and we calculates not only areas -- problem areas or unreliable data due to falsification but unreliable data for lack of a better word,

missing data, quality control issues, things of that sort. >> so do you have any advice for this policy making body right here that your analysis -- it's predicated on information, and if the information that you get -- it's predicated on information that is tainted, how do we -- how do we, you know, continue to -- to trust what is coming to us? how do we -- what kind of assurances do we need to build in? do we need a peer review? do we need multilayered approach of the analysis of the data of the soil samples, just to stick with this example? >> i think with where we are now with parcel g, getting out to the field and starting to do the retesting as soon as possible is very important. i think -- and in so doing, i think what you have now is you have us at e.p.a., our colleagues at the state of california overseeing this work at every step, so i think that

type of review and that type of intensity of review is fairly unprecedented. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: thank you. how many -- well, so the tetratech contract is through the navy, not through the e.p.a.? >> that's correct. >> supervisor kim: and have we halted any work with tetratech after we discovered falsification of the data? >> not that i'm aware of -- for whom? for us or the navy? >> supervisor kim: for either. >> for us, i can say as far as i know we have not headlighted work with tetratech. >> supervisor kim: how many contracts did the e.p.a. have with tetratech? >> i would have to look that up. but they are an important contractor for the e.p.a. and other agencies.

>> supervisor kim: how often do members of federal contractors get sentenced to jail time? >> well, supervisor, i've worked for e.p.a. for 33 years, and off the top of my head, i cannot recollect this type of situation. >> supervisor kim: do you think this is extraordinary? >> i do think it's an extraordinary situation? >> supervisor kim: given the extraordinary nature of the situation, wouldn't it make common sense for the navy and the e.p.a. to suspend all of their contract work with this company? [applause] >> supervisor kim: these are public taxpayer dollars. they lied to us. they went to jail. in your 33 years as a government administrator, you cannot recollect any time that you have seen an employee of a federal contractor go to jail for lying to the government. isn't that cause to end every single contract with this organization?

even if that company also does good work? >> supervisor, there are separate processes for every federal agency in terms of prosecution and disbarment. >> supervisor kim: you said you're taking this serious, both for the navy and the e.p.a. taking this seriously would be calling into contract every single contract you have with this company all across the country credi country. [applause] >> supervisor kim: i mean, maybe this is regular, but when i saw the government sentence two former contractors to prison time, i don't read that often. and to say this action is limited to two employees -- well, first of all, many people already contest that, both within the federal government -- and i -- it's too bad tetratech left. when i said they were not answering the question, and --

it is incredibly disrespectful what happened today. i think they need to be doing everything they can to rebuilding the relationship by staying and listening to the community stating what their actions meant to the community here. now you also stated that you will be acting upon this as quickly as possible; that retesting will happen as soon as possible. you and the navy have known that there were kephardiscrepa in the data since 2012, and why is it six months after this went public we still don't have a course of action, and we're still saying we're going to act as soon as possible? >> well, i think the navy's law describes the navy's course of action, and of course part of their course of action was them doing a thorough analysis of the data to determine the scope of the problem. they completed those data evaluations basically over the

last fall, and hence, you have the letter from my colleagues -- >> supervisor kim: why don't we have a course of action, because if you're acting as quickly as possible, then to me, by may 14, we should already know what that course of action is, being that we've -- >> no, no, i understand. >> supervisor kim: you've known much earlier, but we've known -- the public has at least least via the press for six months, so when you say you're acting as quickly as possible, but we're still determining a course of action as quickly as possible, it doesn't feel like it's happening as quickly as possible. >> the data evaluation and the scope of the problems with unreliable data is vast. i think that's what you have in writing from the u.s. environmental protection agency. therefore, given the scope of

that problem, determining how to retest, where to retest, is not a simple proposition. so what we want to do, and i think what we support is getting out in the field and starting to do retesting, starting with parcel g, and to determine, that will give us new data, reliable data, that we can use to determine the course of action in terms of it's safe, it is done correctly, or it needs additional cleanup. and we're not in a position yet to define that for you because we don't have that data. >> supervisor kim: just because -- and forgive me because this is clearly not my area of expertise. so can you go over again what you've done since the fall, where you're at, and what needs to be done. and what does as quickly as possible means. so let's start with the first

question. what has been done since the fall, where are we at today? >> what we've done is we've reviewed the navy's data evaluation for certain parcels, parcel g, parcels b, and other parcels, like -- i can't remember right now. b-2, gc-1, and 3. we've reviewed the evaluations that they've done. we've made a lot of comments -- supervisor cohen relayed from one of our letters, from my colleague, john chestnut, in our evaluation where we had differences of opinion over the agree of data, data reliability problems. >> supervisor kim: so how long did that take? >> from the time we received the navy's report and the time that they got our formal written response, it was about three months. but i would assure you that in between that time, we were working back and forth with navy staff on -- on their

report. >> supervisor kim: so -- and the report is now complete? >> that data evaluation report on b and g are now complete, yes. >> supervisor kim: and so what is the course of action on those two parcels. >> the course of action would be to develop a retesting for public review and our review. >> supervisor kim: what do we expect that to be done? >> if i heard laura, within the next 30 days. >> supervisor kim: okay, and within the next 30 days, the e.p.a. and navy will release their recommended course of action, which we will give 30 to 60 days to comment on, and then we'll move forward. >> correct. >> supervisor kim: i just have to -- again, i know this is not just on the e.p.a., you, and the representative from the navy themselves, but as just a citizen, not as an elected

official, i am so disappointed that we have not cut every single contract with this organization. it is a crime what they did. this is the health and well-being of our residents, and even if these were the only two employees that committed falsification of data, the fact that this company wasn't able to -- to -- to find this out and discover it and staop it, t just gives you a lot of pause over how much i trust this company. now, their explanation, we have thousands and thousands of employees, that's just not a good enough answer. and they are -- they are getting paid with taxpayer dollars -- my money, every single person in this room, we are paying this company. they make profits, they are becoming wealthy because of our public taxpayer dollars. it's not okay. we should be suspending every single contract with this company, and i imagine you are limited in the number of

companies that you can go to that do this type of work. so i am sympathetic to the bureaucratic answer as to why they are doing work for the government and the e.p.a., but i'm so dissatisfied with the answers. we need real answers, real-time lines. you should just commit to retesting parcel a. it is now may 14. we've been reading about this in the news for six months. it's just not acceptable that we don't have an answer here today. >> supervisor cohen: mr. manzanilla, right over here. i want to ask you the same question that i asked the navy. and supervisor kim was talking a lot about this, about the two supervisors being sentenced to time in prison, acknowledging the fact that there was no fine

given, and that the nuclear regulatory commission initially find tetratech $7,000 and then negotiated them in lieu of the fee to better train them staff. i just want to know, in hindsight, is that reasonable? is that a reasonable response? >> i'm not going to comment on another agency's enforcement action, on how they navigate through the enforcement proceedings. as laura from the navy commented, there's additional remedies that they are pursuing with regard to their contract with tetratech as would be available to any federal agency. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor kim, i think the only thing that kind of gives me comfort is that there's more to come, that those two supervisors that were indicted and there's still an ongoing case, and from my understanding, there will be another shoe that will drop. hopefully, this is a lesson learned and we can move forward. mr. manzanilla, is there anything you want to share --

>> not at this time. thank you for the opportunity to be here today. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. we want to go back to mr. nazimi. folks, this is a representative from the department of toxic -- >> control. i am the deputy director with the department of toxic substances control, dtsc, in charge of the site mitigation and restoration program and in charge of overseeing remediation of conthank you very much -- contaminated cited in the state of california. dtsc's mission is to protect public health and the environment in california, and i would like to assure you that

we take this responsibility very seriously. dtsc understands the concerns that the community and the supervisors have regarding the results of the radiological testing performed by techtrate e.c. at the hunters point sites, and i want to assure you that we have the concerns. we want to ensure that all residents of the hunters point shipyard and the surrounding communities are protected from any health impacts from past operations associated with this site. as such, we have devoted a significant amount of our resources to ensure that public health is protected. as you already heard from navy and u.s.e.p.a., hunters point has been identify by the e.p.a. has a super fund site and been identified on the high priorities list. the u.s.e.p.a. region nine is

the federal lead agency overseeing the cleanup at the hunters point site to ensure the cleanup is conducted consistent with federal law and dtsc is the lead agency for the state overseeing the cleanup. our mission is to ensure the cleanup is conducted in a way that is consistent with state laws. in addition, dtsc also works in collaboration with the california department of public health, who is the state authority on radiological matters. so regarding the issues of concern, dtsc's experts have been working closely with u.s.e.p.a. region nine and cdph experts as well as department of the navy to review radiological testing of parcel a and other parcels at this site. we are aware that tetratech fault identified data at that

region and dtsc and u.s.e.p.a. region nine and cdph have recommended that parcel g as well as other parcels previously tested by tetratech be retested. the navy is also in agreement that those parcels need to be retested and is preparing a work plan as you heard that will be reviewed and evaluated by e.p.a. region nine, by dtsc, by cdph and will be shared with your departments for review and comments. dtsc and california department of public health are committed to work with e.p.a. region nine and the navy to have retesting begin as expeditiously as possible, however the timing of the cleanup will depend on results of retesting. and i know that was one of the questions that you all want to know, and to what extent, if

any, further remediation may be required. so if there is nothing required, and the evaluation is done at the end of retesting, and it's clear, then that's the end of the process. but if there is other falsification, records show that there were contamination left in place, then remediation will take longer. in addition, dtsc want to ensure the safety of the community presently residing or working at hunters point shipyard. therefore, we will work very closely with region nine to address concerns about this parcel. dtsc and cdph agree with e.p.a. region nine that based on a review of available data and information, the vast majority of parcel a historical use was for residential residences and administrative offices and is

considered radiologically not impacted. [inaudible] >> -- conducting confirmation surveys, and evaluating the data to ensure that california radiological standards were met so that the site could be released for unrestricted use. more importantly, dtsc, cdph, and region nine have all determined that the only involvement tetratech e.c. had with parcel a related to radiological work was testing at building number 322. this building was subsequently demolished, as you heard, and removed from hunters point in 2 2004. the area was then scanned by u.s.e.p.a. in 2004 after demolishing and was determined to be cleaned. after reviewing data, we agree with region nine that there was

no evidence of radiological contamination at parcel a, notwithstanding, dtsc and cdph will work expeditiously and closely with region nine to address concerns arising from region nine as you just heard. we understand the board and the public have legitimate questions and concerns about the safety of the hunters point reuse site. we also understand the urgency to complete the cleanup at hunters point and allow the development of san francisco's much needed housing. dtsc's primarily responsibility and focus -- focus is the safety of the environment to ensure that the site is safe for future residents and workers, we will make sure that the resampling is conducted at the parcels where the prior data is in question, that the resampling is done correctly, it is technically sound, and is

completed as expeditiously as possible. we are working with region nine, departmecalifornia depar public health, department of public health to conduct resampling, and we also understand the urgency and need to follow up with concerns raised about parcel a, and we will be working with e.p.a. region nine. finally, dtsc is committed to protect the health of the communities at hunters point and will ensure that concerns about parcel a are addressed expeditiously and that all the other parcels at hunters point site will be safe for future uses of the property prior to transfer to the city. thank you again for invitation and opportunity to provide comments at your committee meeting. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much for your presentation. i don't have too much to say, other than, i mean, you

certainly over emphasized the desire to move things forward and to move things expeditiously. really, this is a hearing that is in response to something this expeditious desire should have happened months ago, one could even argue years ago, so as a regulator, you know, it's your job to regulate, to look for anomalies and then to notify us immediately. i don't feel as a regulator, that has exactly happened. i don't really understand why it hasn't happened, but here we are on, what is this, may 14, and it sounds like we're all standing in agreement that we're going to rescan, and we're going to retest, and that's good. i'm happy to hear that, but i need to know that we don't make the same mistakes that we made in the fapast, and that we are moving forward, and that we are moving in a different

direction. what kind of assurances can you give me because you've been at the table for all these years, and -- and you've seen, as a -- as a science entity in this, you've seen the discrepancy in the data, you've seen the discrepancy in the data from the e.p.a. and the navy, and yet, there still is -- there still hasn't been that level of outrage, even brought to this chamber's level of attention. how do you reconcile that? >> that's a very good question, and i think that's a concern that all the regulatory agencies that are overseeing this cleanup have. and just -- just as a few examples, some of the things that we are considering we're working with california department of public health is to have much greater oversight when this resampling is being conducted. possibility of doing split samples. for example, when the navy takes a sample, we take the same exact sample and cut it in half, and we analyze it, and cdph analyze, it and have the navy analyze it to make sure it

match, and have the possibility of taking independent samples to make sure that the sampling was done properly. so these are all of the options that we have. just to make comments to some of the comments made by the supervisors. what we did is we hired contractors to do sampling in the larngest cleanup in the state of california. so we hired contractors to go out to do sampling. we also hired an independent contractor to oversee the work of our contractors, and that way, we would make sure if there is any discrepancy, another eye in addition to the dtsc staff is out there to look at that. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i have one question for you. so in the state of california, are our standards more stringent than federal law around safety or levels of the

toxins in the soil? >> there are different chemicals that state of california has more stringent standards than federal standards, and our department is under six other agencies under california environmental protection agency. one of those is office of environmental health hazard assessment ooehha, and they have all the scientists and toxicologists, and they do all the analysises and risk factors for different chemicals. in some cases, we have standards that are more stringent than the federal standards. as we speak, we have proposed a new rule that we are in the final stages of having it go to office of administrative law for final adoption that requires all cleanups, including federal military

sites, to use state standards first if they're more stringent than the federal standards, and then, if we don't have final peer review number then use the federal standards, but that's mostly on chemicals. here, we are also covering radiological. >> supervisor fewer: right. it doesn't cover radiological? >> our department is not the department of radiological. california department of public health is. they cover each site on a case by case, but they do review prior to signing off like they did for parcel a. >> supervisor fewer: so we heard from the e.p.a. that no other parcels will be transferred without retesting, so after 2016, they said no other parcels will be transferred without retesting. would that transfer also necessitate the approval of your organization? >> yes, it does.

>> supervisor fewer: okay. >> we are the state's lead agency for overseeing this cleanup, and we can express what our opinion is, and both federal agencies need to consider that. >> supervisor fewer: so when the report comes out, then, you will also review the report. and will your organization, then, have recommendations if they are not in agreement with the findings? >> absolutely. our organization works very closely with california department of public health. they're our contractor, so to speak, and they will provide that expertise in the radiological aspect of it, which we will respond and comment to the federal agency. >> supervisor fewer: and then, will your recommendations be open to the public? >> absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim, i don't know if you had any questions? >> supervisor kim: well, i just had one. does your agency contract with

tetratech directly. >> to the best of my knowledge, we do not have any contracts with tetratech at this time. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: good. thank you. thank you for your presentation; we have no other questions. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: next, i'd like to bring up mr. steve kr astleman. he's representing golden gate university. >> my name is steve castleman, and i'm an attorney with the environmental law and justice clinic at golden gate university school of law. and where to begin? i think the place to begin is with tetratech. what they did is clearly criminal. they have been prosecuted. there may be additional prosecutions, we will wait and

see. but what they also did was they screwed up the cleanup big time, and now we're confronted with a problem that as mr. manzanilla said, is a very difficult problem of resampling a location, considering the contamination that was actually spread by the alleged decontamination. so one of the questions that you asked was how do we guarantee that this doesn't happen again? and we cannot guarantee that it won't happen again. after all, what tetratech did was criminal, but the navy and the e.p.a. and the dtsc, and the other regulators allowed it to happen, didn't they?

[applause] >> now, i'm compelled to go back in history and correct some of the mi mischaracterizations that you've heard here this afternoon. 2012, it's true that the navy identified what they call anomalies and what we call fraudulent samples. it's true that it took two years for tetratech to publish a report, and it is equally true that tetratech alleged that they had taken care of the problem, it was the problem of a few rogue employees, management had nothing to do with it, everything is taken care of. ladies and gentlemen, nothing to see here, please move on. the navy, e.p.a. accepted that

report in 2014. they accepted the report. they took a report that was a self-investigation by a fraudulent company, and they accepted their work. would you? i wouldn't. so in 2014, they -- tetratech published this whitewash of a report, which was not at all true. and if you read the report, which i have done in great detail, many times, you will see that one of the appendixes is a list of the questions that they asked the employees, none of which had anything to do with the fraud. so in 2014, the navy accepted their work, and they went

blythely along with their plan until 2016, when the whistle blowers came forward. but for the whistle blowers, but for the whistle blowers, the navy and the e.p.a. would have approved additional transfers of property, parcels at hunters point that were still contaminated because they did not know, and they did not look. we urged them 1.5 years ago to conduct a realistic investigation, to interview all of the employees who worked on radiation control at hunters point to determine the full extent of the fraud. they said it's not our job.

if you don't look, you're not going to find things. they didn't look. now, the whistle blowers came to golden gate university, our clinic, our environmental clinic. we interviewed them, we found them highly credible. there weren't just one or two of them, there were a lot of them. we obtained seven or so declaratio declarations under penalty of perjury where they admitted they committed fraud on behalf of tetratech. we brought that to the navy. now, how is it possible that a handful of second and third-year law students

directed by a qualified investigator like myself -- how is it possible that a handful of law students in six months discovered more fraud than the united states navy did in six years? [applause] >> so they tell us now, trust us. we're going to do it right this time. we're going to do it right this time. we will. we've got lots of experience with fraud now. we're going to do it right. we want you to trust us. i urge you not to trust them. hold them accountable. how is it that this is not going to happen again? two words: community oversight.

[applause] >> we have been through their technical documents. we have discovered fraud that they didn't know about. we will go through their sampling plan. we will be in it for the long run, and ladies and gentlemen, believe me, this will be a long run. this cleanup has to redo 12 years of work. so anybody who tells you that they can, like tetratech did a couple weeks ago, that they can have a sampling panel up and running in a couple of months, is, excuse me, full of bull. and the navy said that they want to be open and transparent, but they have not been. the navy says that they want community participation. they have a technical community

liaison. i've spoken to her i don't know how many dozens of times. i've never once gotten a useful fact from her, not once. the fact of the matter is the navy is not being open and transparent. there's one thing that they could do to be open and transparent, and that is to release the draft sampling plans that they are going to prepare and provide to the e.p.a. to the public at the same time they provide it to the e.p.a. and they are the regulators. this is a plan that will take them a year to put together. this is a plan that they expect us to comment on in 30 days, 60 days. they gave us another 30 days, right? great. we're supposed to really appreciate that. give us the plan when you --

when the navy gives it to e.p.a., and that is what i would urge the board of supervisors to do: pass a resolution saying that it is -- that it is the sense of the board and the community that in order for the navy to demonstrate it's bona fide that it's go it's going to be open and transparent, bend over backwards and give the community the sampling plan as soon as the navy has presented it to the e.p.a. and actually, if you think about it, that's actually the fastest way to approach it, because if we could do our comments during the initial period, if we could do our comments in 30 days, that will speed things up. if we have to wait 60 days, if we have to insist on more time than that, it's just going to delay the whole project. and remember, this is just

parcel g. >> thank you. and at this time, supervisor kim has a question for you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. first of all, i appreciate you being here and talking a little bit on background. i imagine you're somewhat limited in your ability to answer questions because some of this is going to be involved in either future litigation or courtroom cases. >> that's what they pay me to not do. >> supervisor kim: okay. can i ask you a little bit about what you believe led to the falsification of data within tetratech's rank and file? >> it's a culture. >> supervisor kim: it's a cultural issue? >> yeah. it's a culture of fraud. >> supervisor kim: and what motivated this fraud? >> they had a fixed-price contract, and to the extent that they could reduce their costs, they made more money, and the managers made a bigger bonus. and so if you talk to the

whistle blowers, as we have done, what they will tell you is -- and in fact one of the supervisors who was sentenced last week said this, that they were under constant pressure to get the job done so that the -- so that the property could be turned over to the city so that the property could be developed. everybody wanted to get it done as quickly as possible. and when you do that kind of work quickly, you do it wrong. >> supervisor kim: how many billions of dollars in taxpayer funds did tetratech get? do you know the amount of the contracts that they currently engage? >> oh, the total? >> supervisor kim: total. >> i have no idea. i know we're told that tetratech was paid $250 million at hunters point. >> supervisor kim: just for hunters point? >> just for hunters point. >> supervisor kim: i know, shouldn't we have access to

this information? it's a federal contract. >> it's a federal contract, but it's how close to the current date they can get. for example, i asked the navy quite sometime ago how much their data analysis cost, and i haven't received a response to that. and the reason i asked was because we told them that they should throw out their data 1.5 years ago, and they said no, we don't really believe we need to do that. so they did the data review, it's totally apparent what the result was going to be. but now, that's what they needed to convince themselves that we were right. >> supervisor kim: i understand that culture. i participate, i serve in government, i'm a part of government. you want the best possible answer you can give to your constituents, as well, and so sometimes, you lead yourself to the answer that you want to give, and so i understand how that happens. and it's unfortunate because it's at the detriment of our

constituents. do you have a sense of how much the highest paid executives at tetratech make? >> i don't. a lot more than me, i assume. >> supervisor kim: i think a lot more than anyone in this room. >> a lot more than everyone in this room put together, perhaps. >> supervisor kim: you also mentioned that the only way you thought that we could put an end to this type of falsification is by a community layer of oversight? >> right. >> supervisor kim: i have to tell you this data collection, testing, it's incredibly difficult for someone like me to understand, so i worry about putting a community led council, because they're going to get fed the information that the federal contractor or preechb the federal government -- even the federal government wants them to have. i have a hard time following a lot of this presentation

because this is not my background. so i'm just wondering how a community oversight layer will ensure this won't happen again. >> because there are people in the community like the golden gate institute that can review this to make sure this won't happen again. i've been through lots of sampling plans. we have access to experts who will help us with those sampling plans. we actually make sense out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that they're going to turnover to describe their sampling plan. we have the ability to hold their feet to the fire, and when they say we're going to sample it all, we have the ability to demonstrate whether or not they're keeping their word because we do understand their documents, but we need time to understand their documents, just as they needed

time to put them together. and if the navy is serious about community involvement, that's the one thing they can do. they've been unwilling to do it so far, they have not -- they have not given a good reason why they can't release the sampling plan early, but that's the one thing they can do. >> supervisor kim: thank you. no, i appreciate your response by the way. thanks to the members of the public that are writing me, the ceo, dan patrick makes about 5.9 million. it's a publicly traded company. i'm sickened by the amount of dollars that are taxpayer dollars. there is a whole section that is designed just to take tax prayer dollars and profit off of it. if you're not going to do the work that we ask you to do, especially when it comes to the

life and safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, it's criminal. it's criminal that they have not suspended all of their contracts. it doesn't matter what the excuse is, there's only three companies. whatever the reason is, regardless of their expertise and all of the other good work that they do, there clearly is a culture. it cannot just be these two individuals. you say that there are many more, and there's more investigations that are going to come forward, i would like to see them do zero work on treasure island going forward. i'm certainly going to be doing what i can to push on that. and i just want to say, the one thing i will say is this: it is true that much of the evidence that we look at points to the fact that this neighborhood is safe for the residents in

regards to the toxic contamination that may or may not exist in this neighborhood. but what i do know is the data, and this neighborhood has higher levels of asthma, cancer, and we can say it's not because of contamination, it's because of education, lack of access to fresh and healthy food. i just don't know that we can say with 100% conviction that we have not put the lives of our residents in danger, and we are not doing everything that we can do to ensure that our public taxpayers are safe. i have to stop you because there's so many people that want to speak. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: i do have one quick question, and i do

need you to keep it tight and concise. whatcom peled t what -- what compelled the whistle blowers to come forward. >> they knew what they were doing was wrong, and it ate at them, and they knew people were going to be living there ultimately, and they couldn't live with themselves without coming forward. >> supervisor cohen: are any of the whistle blowers in the chamber, if they could standup. >> yeah, they are here. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to say thank you to the whistle blowers that are here that had the courage -- [applause] -- i just want to acknowledge, that's true leadership, and that's true moral character that you displayed, and i appreciate it on behalf of the city and county of san

francisco, let alone the bayview, hunters point community. mr. kr castleman, thank you for your time today. i know we've got a lot of public comment that folks want to come down and speak. so let me say this: we've got the department of public health, and we've got ocii to present. if you don't mind, i'd like to call an audible, and i'd like to call marie harrison with green action to come up at this time. marie, you already know has been a champion. she was speaking when people wouldn't listen, and quite frankly, when i wouldn't listen. it's a privilege to honor her

leadership, miss harrison. >> if you don't mind me -- unfortunately, i have to hook back up, so give me a minute. >> supervisor cohen: no problem. >> i'm back up. >> supervisor cohen: we're happy to see you, and happy to have you here. >> thank you very much. let me start off my little two cents in here by saying we truly appreciate the fact that you called for the hearing. i have to be honest and say, it is long overdue. >> supervisor cohen: i would agree with you. >> golden gate action, the law students, the investigative reporters have brought these concerns before a lot of folks of fraud, just out and out lying. i mean, i could go take you back to the first r.a.b. meeting, that's the restoration advisory meeting, when it wasn't going the way they wanted it to