SF Cover-up Blows Up At Superfund Hunters Point Naval Shipyard "Clean-up" Meeting

Derek, the notorious liar representing the Navy on the former NAS Alameda, AKA Alameda Point before he was reassigned to Hunters Point cover up. misrepresented both the Navy commitment to clean up their mess to be safe for the community, but Derek also manipulated the transcripts of the citizens oversight committee and falsifies the transcripts after the meetings.

Never trust anything the Navy says about their toxic waste dumps, even the written records. (PS Testa Tech is just one of their sock puppets).

Crooked and Corrupt EPA officials invent their own rules and stonewall the public
http://healfukushima.org/2017/02/10/epa-officials-invent-their-own-rules-and-stonewall-the-public-example-san-francisco-california/

EPA officials invent their own rules and stonewall the public; example, San Francisco, California
Lily Lee, EPA Cleanup Project Manager, Superfund Division
Interviewed on February 8, 2017 at a community meeting on the cleanup problems and fraud at the San Francisco Superfund site. The Superfund site is located at the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard andNaval Radiological Defense Laboratory.

Ms. Lee was interviewed by Labor Video Project, and then asked questions by Dan Hirsch, UCSC Executive Director of Environmental and Radioactive Policy, on EPA exposure guidelines. Her answers, as Superfund Cleanup Project Manager, were surprising.

This is why these agencies organize “poster” open house format meetings. They do not want to be asked these important questions in front of an audience, and they certainly don't want to be forced to answer. Of course, as public employees, they don't want to be seen as avoiding or stonewalling, and they certainly don't want to go on the record admitting negligence or indifference in implementing rules.

In a meeting in another town on a public health issue, members of the public refused to put up with this style of format. They pulled chairs into the center of the room, sat down as a group, and demanded to have a presentation made to them as a whole. Rather than do that, the people in charge gathered up their materials and walked out. Unless forced, they will not submit to a regular meeting format.

https://youtu.be/J_YVou0kmQI

Interview of Lily Lee, EPA, begins at 29:13
This transcript begins toward the end of her interview with Labor Video Project
...
Lee: ...We are here to say that I am doing my job every day the same way I have been and I will keep doing so to ensure that the cleanup here is meeting all of the health-based standards

LVP: I understand that 50% of the black population, African-American population, their children have asthma and other toxins from living out here. Is that of concern to you?

Lee: What we do here is that we set the standards for cleanup based on health-protective levels and then we ensure that when the Navy's cleanup is happening, both during the process and when they're done, that it meets our health-based standards to protect people from health conditions such as asthma.

["Health-protective levels" and “health-based standards” -- The EPA has repeatedly loosened exposure guidelines for radioactivity which they acknowledge increases the percentage of the population that will develop cancer. If the EPA uses these terms often enough, do they believe they will become accurate?
Her following interchange with Dan Hirsch reveals that she does not enforce EPA's own standards, and she further says that steady exposure to radiation at the level of 25 REM is something the body can cope with.]

Hirsch: Did the EPA's criteria in effect at that time -- I'm not talking about doing an analysis years later that it wasn't that big of a mistake -- why was the mistake made in the first place? Why did EPA allow clean-up standards that were contradicting EPA's then current standards?

Lee: And again, I wasn't there at that time and I tried to look for records about this information, and I've unfortunately not been able to find those records, but what I can tell you is that I am looking at the current standards, the current PRG calculator which is unfortunately in flux right now, and we are looking to see, revisit these standards to determine whether or not they would fall within the circle risk (?) range using site-specific factors.

Hirsch: I mean, you know you're playing a game about this over and over again. The public was told you were cleaning up to a one in a million risk. You've seen EPA standards, but it turns out the Navy didn't do that and used standards that are very much weaker than the ones that they said they would be using, and EPA said should be used at that time.
You're now saying you're seeing whether, okay it was a mistake but whether the mistake was mistake of a 300 fold. That isn't very reassuring to the public.
I want to come back to the central issue. Do you agree that 25 millirems should not have been used, that was, even at the time, something the EPA said that was not acceptable and not protective.

Lee: I want to explain that some of the language that you saw in the footnotes referenced the 25 millrems but wasn't necessarily the only standard that the Navy would be required to meet that

Hirsch (interrupting): In the tables, they actually estimate the dose for the other standard that they met, and for several of those, that was 25 millirem. So they actually did use 25 millirem. They shouldn't have

Lee (interrupting) ___waste?

Hirsch: And structures?

Lee: Okay, and structures.

Hirsch: And they're not supposed to according to EPA guidelines.
That's 12 chest x-rays a year. They're saying it's okay for people to get a chest x-ray a month from the moment of conception to the moment of birth. Even the EPA says that level of radiation is outside the upper limit of your acceptable risk range.

So do you concede that they used a cleanup number that EPA said, even at the time, should not have been used?

Lee: So, I would like to talk about the chest x-ray which is an acute dose meaning a dose that people would get in one situation during the chest x-ray itself as being different from what's relevant here at the base which would be a dose that would be over time continuously across year. So that wouldn't be something

Hirsch (interrupting): Your own agency says there is no difference. EPA formally said that getting a chest x-ray a month is no different than getting a thirtieth of a chest x-ray every day for those months. That there is no... It's linear, so the rate at which you get it doesn't matter.
You know that's your own agency's official position.

Lee: So, if you can get a small dose that's over a period of time, your body does have some recovery and

Hirsch (interrupting): Excuse me, are you saying that EPA believes that radiation is potentially good for you – the hormesis theory? Or that, or are you also saying that the risk is not linear with dose? Because the official position of EPA is just the opposite of what you've just said.

Lee: So, thank you for sharing your perspective. I am saying that those kinds of exposures are different, and I am also saying as I have said before that we are looking at the original standards to see if under the current version of the PRG calculator which is going to be changed soon, that that will still fall within the national contingency plan superfund regulation range of acceptable.

Hirsch: I want you to answer once and for all whether the standards that they chose were consistent or inconsistent with EPA's guidance in effect at the time they chose them. Not whether going back years later and trying to say whether it was a 300 fold mistake.
Was the standard chosen by the Navy and approved by the EPA inconsistent with EPA's Superfund guidance in effect at the time?

Lee: And I'd let you know that I don't have information about what the standards were in effect at the time and I'm going to go back and look at that information some more. I've done some research

Hirsch (interrupting): ___the 25 millirem was back then considered unacceptable? Back in 2013? Do you not know the ___ in 2013 is not acceptable? So why was 25 millirem allowed to be used?

Lee: As I said, we are going to be checking the current version of EPA calculator

Hirsch (interrupting): Why was a cleanup standard allowed to be used that was not consistent with your guidance? I'm not talking about whether a post doc analysis as to whether it is too huge a mistake. I'm talking about whether it was a mistake. 25 millirem, is it not, today, and wasn't it in 2013, outside the level that EPA said was protective? It was a level that EPA said should not be used for cleanup standards. Am I not right about that?

Lee: I will go back and check to make sure.

Hirsch: Don't you know that 25 millirem EPA has always, has said for long periods of time and certainly in the last years, is not to be used at Superfund sites?

Lee: I have seen that guidance information before.

Hirsch: Alright. Well, then, let's just admit, can't you, that they used a cleanup standard that was incompatible with Superfund guidance in effect at the time. Can you admit that?

Lee: As I said, I will go back and check that information.

Fake soil tests delay SF Shipyard project
By J.K. Dineen, San Francisco Chronicle
February 7, 2017 Updated: February 7, 2017 8:15pm

Photo: Gabriella Angotti-Jones, The ChronicleSean Sullivan plays with his dog, Fergus, last year at a park at the S.F. Shipyard, which is being transformed into a mixed-use neighborhood that will include thousands of housing units.

The transfer of some parcels at San Francisco Shipyard to the city for development will be delayed by at least a year after employees of a contractor cleaning up the property admitted faking soil tests, a Navy spokesman confirms.

Derek Robinson, the environmental coordinator for the U.S. Navy’s Base Realignment and Closure program at Hunters Point, said a group of six consultants is reviewing all the soil testing on the the former naval shipyard, which closed in 1994. It is being developed by FivePoint Communities into a sprawling mixed-use neighborhood with more than 12,000 housing units, hundreds of acres of parkland and millions of square feet of office space.

“We want to resolve these issues as soon as possible and transfer the property to the city as soon as possible,” said Robinson, who is an employee of the Navy.

Concern over the accuracy of the soil tests first emerged in October 2012, when the Navy discovered that some results were inconsistent with results from previous samples collected in the same areas. While the dirt in question was identified as having been collected from beneath a former lab used to conduct radiation tests on animals, an internal investigation by the contractor doing the cleanup, Tetra Tech, found that in at least 386 cases it had been pulled from areas already given a clean bill for radiological contamination.
Potrero Hill’s biggest housing project starts with plenty of

That prompted Tetra Tech to retest 12 additional areas of the 420-acre property, and more contaminated soil was discovered. The contractor has since cleaned up those areas.

While Navy and Environmental Protection Agency officials thought the problems had been taken care of, they cropped up again last year when Anthony Smith, a former Tetra Tech employee, revealed in an interview with television station KNTV that the soil misrepresentations were more widespread than previously thought.

“We had done a completed review of the data in question, but Mr. Smith brought up specific areas that allowed us to look at it a little differently,” Robinson said.

About 50 acres have been transferred to the city so far, including Parcel A, where 150 housing units have been completed, sold and occupied, and another 180 are either under construction or will be in the next year. Robinson emphasized that the area where the condos are was never used for industrial purposes by the Navy.

“We want to make sure people understand that if they are living in Hunters Point, it is 100 percent safe,” Robinson said. “Nobody who works there or lives there has anything to fear from anything that was left behind by the Navy.”

The next three parcels to be transferred — B, G, and D1 — are expected to be handed to the city next year. The Navy is now doing additional analysis on those parcels.

Officials for Tetra Tech, which over the last 20 years has been awarded more than $300 million in contracts to clean up the former naval shipyard, did not return a call seeking comment.

While the Navy is the lead agency responsible for the investigation and cleanup, the EPA and its state regulatory agency oversee and enforce compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly called the Superfund law.

“The EPA is taking the allegations regarding Tetra Tech EC very seriously,” EPA spokeswoman Michele Huitric said.

The Navy will host a public meeting Wednesday to explain the soil-sampling misrepresentations and its plan to resolve the questionable data.

The 420-acre shipyard was one of the nation’s most notorious Superfund sites, home to a federal nuclear program begun in 1946 that included a secret laboratory where tests were conducted to determine the effects of radiation on living organisms. Military equipment and ships contaminated by atomic bomb explosions were kept at Hunters Point, and the grounds were polluted with petroleum fuels, pesticides, heavy metals, PCBs, organic compounds and asbestos.

FivePoint Communities Regional President Kofi Bonner said that the soil testing problem is an issue “between the Navy and the regulators, for the most part.”

“They are working through ensuring for themselves that Tetra Tech has not created issues in the cleanup,” said Bonner. “Obviously, we applaud that. From our point of view it is absolutely imperative that the Navy clean the property up to the level that was promised to the community.”

Bonner said that the delayed land transfer to the city would not change the development schedule. FivePoint first needs to build replacement spaces for artists’ studios before starting on the next phase of construction, which will be more housing.

Residents are anxious for information, said longtime resident Yolanda Jones.

“As a resident of Bayview-Hunters Point, there is still a lot more to be told about what is actually out here in the ground and in the environment,” Jones said. “The redevelopment has been positive — it’s brought in development and the hiring of local people. It’s given the community new meaning. But am I convinced the shipyard is free of toxins? Not quite. The jury is still out.”

In recent months, Supervisor Malia Cohen, who represents the neighborhood, and Mayor Ed Lee have pushed the Navy and the EPA to make sure all the Tetra Tech soil data has been reviewed as soon as possible.

“This is a big deal for the entire city, whether people are paying attention to it or not,” Cohen said. “We are not going to accept the transfer of any land until the federal and state regulators can assure us that the land is clean and safe.”

J.K. Dineen is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: jdineen [at] sfchronicle.com

Twitter: @SFJKDineen

Public meeting

The Navy will hold a public meeting on the shipyard soil questions from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Storehouse, 451 Galvez Ave., in San Francisco.

The chain of events here is so obvious, I don't know why people aren't focusing on it more. Yes, Tetra Tech and its subsidiary, TestAmerica, were hired to perform sampling at Hunters Point. They were given a set of procedures to follow, and a lot of dog and pony show for the public to see.
Now, the current story is that Tetra Tech VOLUNTARILY manipulated or falsified data from samples on the site. Ummmm...why the hell would they do THAT? As a consultant, they get paid per sample pulled or per labor hour worked. At most, their restriction would have been a "not to exceed" contract price from the Navy. Which, in this case, wouldn't have mattered a bit. There were dozens of additional areas requiring more involved testing, so a Guaranteed Maximum Price contract could no longer be in effect.
Was their work sloppy? Hell yes. Was it falsified? Yes, the third party consultant has already verified that fact, too. Was it potentially illegal, possibly even criminal? Yes again. BUT WHY?? What the hell did THEY have to gain from shorting the samples? Absolutely nothing.

Only the City, CalOSHA, the EPA, the builders, and most especially the US Navy had things to gain from declaring the worksite "clean."

The City needed the property cleared for housing, even though every representative involved voted AGAINST subsidized or low income housing at the site. City needs tax revenue; the bigger, the better. Hunters Point is their golden goose. But only if it's able to be developed...

Cal OSHA needs the site off their books, if only to show progress on one of the worst contaminated sites in California. I also suspect THEY got pressure from the other interested parties to "go along" with the way the cleanup was proceeding. And they folded like a lawn chair when things got ugly.

The EPA? Oh yeah, the poster child for deniability in government. Here in Colorado, the EPA ORDERED a contractor to breach the Gold King Mine tunnels, unwittingly releasing millions of gallons of heavy metals contaminated wastewater. The contractor had tried to defer, stating that the data being used was 20 years out of date, and needed to be examined further before breaching the tunnels. Turned out, two other mines had been closed in the vicinity, and their wastewater was ALSO piled up in the connecting Gold King tunnels. 500% more volume erupted out of the breach, washing away the entire worksite and all of the contractor's equipment. Then, just to add insult to injury, the EPA tried to tell the public that the CONTRACTOR had performed the action illegally, and that they would criminally prosecute. Smart contractor had saved every email and every memo demanding he breach the tunnel. Once those became public, the EPA was caught in the spotlight. I don't intend to let them escape it.

In your case, it looks like more of the same. The spill is much more severe than the Government expected, or was prepared to clean up. As usual, the Government then uses the EPA to soothe the impacted public on what a good job they are doing...

Uh, excuse me, but isn't Hunter's Point a freaking SUPERFUND site??? The EPA is supposed to conduct those sites directly, i.e., be on site every damn day while testing and remediation are underway. Where the hell were they during all this?

Lennar has a massive investment in the site, and a hell of a lot of political clout. They don't give a damn how much the cleanup costs, or how well it was done. They just need a sign off that they can build, and will exert whatever pressure they can to make that happen now. Which is a ton, but should be expected. You put billions into a development, you want to develop it. Don't expect that animal to change its stripes just because of a "little" radiation...

The Navy? Oh yes, the Navy. Instigator of this entire mess. Paying 1/5th of 1% of their annual budget into Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). Hunters Point represent 15 YEARS of funding for BRAC's Naval portion. $1.5 billion dollars spent, just on the BAD cleanup. Seriously people, do you really need to look any further? The Navy was pressuring, if not outright ORDERING Tetra Tech to get the area cleared, whatever it took. They were tired of spending money on it, and weren't going to ask Congress for more funding to pay for a mess they created.

Tetra Tech was criminally stupid for bowing to that pressure. But don't think they are the only ones who bent rules trying to say this site was clean. They are just the tip of the iceberg.