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 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.