Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Radiation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State health officials: no health-and-safety risk found from manmade radioactive materials at Hunters Point Parcels A1/A2
Summary
California Department of Public Health presented results of walkover and dust-wipe surveys at Hunters Point Shipyard Parcels A1 and A2, finding 110 anomalies largely attributable to naturally occurring potassium-40, one Navy deck marker that was removed, and dust wipes far below conservative EPA thresholds; CDPH concluded no current health-and-safety risk to residents but community members urged more independent testing and data transparency.
State public-health officials told the Office of Community Investment and Infrastructure on Aug. 6 that a focused radiological health-and-safety survey of Hunters Point Shipyard Parcels A1 (Hilltop) and A2 (Hillside) found no man-made radioactive contamination posing a health risk to residents.
Lila Hussain, OCII Senior Project Manager, opened the item with a map and project background for Shipyard Phase 1 (Parcels A1 and A2) and Phase 2 status. California Department of Public Health (CDPH) staff then described a multi-step survey that combined a walkover gamma scan, a towed-array system with large-volume sodium-iodide detectors, targeted spectral analysis with high-purity germanium and lanthanum bromide detectors, and a dust-wipe program to detect alpha and beta emitters in homes and studios.
CDPH reported 110 anomalies across Parcel A1 (64 from walkover scans, 46 from the towed array). Of the 110 anomalies, 108 were identified as naturally occurring potassium-40. One anomaly was a Navy deck marker recovered near Galvez Avenue; surface measurements at the marker reached about 0.09 millirem per hour at ground surface and 3.4 millirem per hour in contact with the buried object; CDPH noted exposures fall off quickly with distance and that a person would have to remain at the contact point many hours to equal typical medical or flight exposure. Soil at the deck-marker location was surveyed after removal and CDPH found no residual contamination.
CDPH also reported discovery of a low-energy spectral feature (described as a "low energy peak") at very small amplitude (~0.008 millirem) identified during laboratory review. Follow-up resurvey efforts, including an expanded rescanning between May 28–30, were unable to reproduce a persistent source at the site; CDPH judged the feature to be very low-level and not a health-and-safety concern.
To address community concerns about interior exposure, CDPH and EPA supported a dust-wipe program: teams collected 229 wipes from 77 units (46 residences, 31 artist studios). Using a conservative EPA-derived criterion corresponding to a 1-in-1,000,000 lifetime cancer risk, CDPH converted wipe counts to disintegrations-per-minute thresholds (40 DPM for alpha/plutonium; 5,208 DPM for beta/strontium) and reported that none of the measured wipes approached those trigger values; calculated results were orders of magnitude below the conservative threshold.
Commissioners and members of the public asked whether the CDPH work was independent, who paid for it, and whether other testing (soil lab analysis, historical site assessments) might be needed to detect radionuclides not readily revealed by gamma surveys. CDPH said the Navy reimbursed the department for the work but did not control the survey; CDPH staff said they drafted the procedure, conducted the fieldwork, and published two reports to their website the morning of the meeting. CDPH also said their scan methods were targeted to detect fission products (cesium-137 and similar) and that laboratory soil analyses would be the appropriate next step to detect isolated non-gamma radionuclides if the historical site assessment indicated such a risk.
Several public commenters disagreed with the conclusions and urged additional independent review and community health testing. Residents and advocates raised a series of allegations about prior contractor misconduct, delays in aggregate data release, and perceived conflicts of interest involving developers and public staff; speakers requested broader independent audits and community-wide health monitoring. CDPH representatives acknowledged community distrust but maintained that the specific work they were asked to perform was completed and that they found no evidence of health risk for the two parcels surveyed.
The commission did not take formal action on the CDPH update; commissioners said they would forward questions about independent reviews and coordinate with the city and the separate UCSF/UC Berkeley independent review that is ongoing.
