Navy releases proposal to retest part of shipyard
Independent workers would analyze portion of Hunters Point soil after botched cleanup
The Navy on Friday released its proposal for retesting a 40-acre parcel of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, the first step in what could be a multiyear re-examination of a $1 billion cleanup the government says was botched.
The proposal, which allows 60 days for public comment, calls for independent contractors to gather “new radiological data” at Parcel G, a rectangular piece of land just to the south of Parcel A, where about 450 new housing units have been built or are under construction.
The evaluation, which will delay the planned redevelopment of the former shipyard by at least a year, will include testing of former sanitary sewer and storm drain trenches, as well as other portions of the property previously iden- tified as having possible radiological contamination. It will also involve the scanning of six buildings “identified as radiologically impacted according to historical use,” the Navy said.
The Navy said the new soil data would be “analyzed at approved off-site laboratories to determine if it meets cleanup objectives. If results do not meet the cleanup objectives, the samples will go through an additional radiological assessment.”
“We believe that credible, reliable data crucial to completing necessary cleanup activities and establishing that the property is ready for transfer to the local community,” said Laura Duchnak, director of the Navy’s program management office for base reuse. “The Navy is moving forward with the actions necessary to gather this data and put transfer of the Hunters Point property to the city of San Francisco back on track.”
Also on Friday, Supervisor Malia Cohen said the California Department of Public Health has agreed to test Parcel A, the portion of the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard where people already are living. Cohen said in a statement that she appreciated “that federal and state regulators heard the unmistakable demands of my constituents and have taken this first step to address them.”
The Navy said it would provide some financial support as well as “guidance and expertise” on Parcel A but is not taking a lead in the retesting of that area.
“Federal and state regulators have repeatedly verified the safety of Parcel A, which was investigated, cleared and removed from the Superfund program in 1999 and EPA surveyed Parcel A before transfer to the city of San Francisco in 2004,” said Derek Robinson, a Navy environmental coordinator. “We support CDPH in their efforts to gather additional data to provide Parcel A homeowners with peace of mind.”
The plan to retest the property — site of the Bay Area’s largest redevelopment project — comes after a year in which both the Navy and the Environmental Protection Agency have called into question cleanup and soil testing work done by Tetra Tech, an environmental engineering firm that was paid between $250 million and $350 million to clean up the mothballed shipyard, home to the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory from 1946 to 1969.
On Jan. 30, the Navy released a preliminary report from five outside consultants concluding that nearly half the data Tetra Tech collected from the Superfund site was flawed. The data include samples collected mostly from 2006 to 2012 from 300,000 cubic yards of soil, 20 buildings, 30 former building sites and 28 miles of storm drains. Two former Tetra Tech supervisors have pleaded guilty to falsifying soil records.
Data collected on Parcel G will determine whether the soil and buildings that remain meet the original cleanup objectives and are suitable for transfer to the city or if additional work is required, the Navy said.
“To date, no areas have been identified that pose a risk to the public or current tenants,” Robinson said. “Regardless, the original contractor data cannot be used to validate readiness for transfer, so retesting is the best possible course of action.”
Robinson said the retesting will “ensure that Parcel G meets cleanup objectives and provides the community with peace of mind.”
Parcel G is slated for 1.7 million square feet of housing and office space. The entire development plan calls for more than 12,000 homes, 300 acres of parkland, three schools, a hotel, and several million square feet of office and research space.
Bradley Angel, executive director of the environmental watchdog group Greenaction, called the Navy’s draft plan on Parcel G “a farce” and questioned whether it will allow for meaningful community input. He took issue with the fact that a contractor, Jacobs, has already been hired to test the buildings on the parcel.
“If they are going to start hiring contractors, what is the purpose of having a public comment period?” Angel said. “How do you know the scope of work? It’s a waste of time to comment on something that is predetermined. That is a big concern.”
Angel said the Navy has been a cheerleader for redevelopment and that the retesting is simply a way to assure community members that the land is safe so that development can get back on track. “The attitude is, ‘Let’s pretend it’s clean, and hurry up and build houses,’ ” said Angel, who opposes the development plan. “We want to see it off limits. No new homes.”
The soil sampling in former sanitary sewer and storm drain line trenches will extend “up to 22 feet below ground surface,” and 100 percent of the soil will be excavated to the original trench boundaries, according to the Navy. After excavation, radiological scans of the sidewall and floor soils will be conducted either at the site or after it is removed. In addition, “walk-over or drive-over” radiological scans will be conducted on all surface soil in identified areas.
Historically, Parcel G was part of the facility’s industrial support area, used for shipping, ship repair, offices and commercial activities.
This retesting process will determine whether Tetra Tech remediation work at Parcel G was completed successfully or whether additional work is needed before it can be transferred to San Francisco for development. After Parcel G, the Navy will propose a plan to retest other areas where Tetra Tech worked.
In a statement, Tetra Tech said the company supports the retesting plan and that the evidence gathering will “put to rest false statements and misleading speculation promoted by plaintiffs who are motivated by financial selfgain.” Tetra Tech has blamed the scandal on a handful of rogue employees.
“We stand by our work as valid, proper and safe,” the company said. “We believe scientifically valid retesting will demonstrate the company met the standards established by the Navy.”
Tetra Tech has offered to pay for independent retesting of its shipyard work that has been questioned. The Navy said it is still in discussions with Tetra Tech about its offer.
The soil scandal has forced the site’s developer, Lennar spinoff FivePoint, to shift the schedule of the major redevelopment effort. Originally the plan called for FivePoint to take ownership of Parcels G and B this year — a total of 90 acres. With the two parcels set for retesting, FivePoint will instead move on to redevelop Candlestick Point, a portion of the property without radiological contamination.
Kofi Bonner, FivePoint’s chief operating officer, said he welcomed the plan’s release.
“It’s about time,” he said. “This is a critical first step to dissipating the cloud of uncertainty over the project and allaying people’s fears.”
Michelle Pierce of Bayview Hunters Point Community Advocates said she has no faith that the retesting will provide any real answers about whether the land is safe.
“It continues to allow the wolves to be in charge of the henhouse,” she said. “The new plan is exactly like the old plan. I’m not seeing any adjustments. It’s a circus of fools running the whole thing, and the Navy is going to get away with it.”