Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
OCII receives Hunters Point Shipyard remediation update; community speakers raise radiological testing concerns
Summary
OCII staff and San Francisco Department of Public Health briefed the Commission on the status of environmental cleanup and planned parcel transfers at Hunters Point Shipyard; staff said Parcels D2 and utility corridors UC1/UC2 are candidates for June transfer pending regulatory concurrence, while multiple public speakers raised allegations about testing practices and data quality, prompting continuation of the item after the Commission lost quorum.
The Commission received a status report on environmental remediation at Hunters Point Shipyard and a preview of planned parcel transfers from the Navy during the May 19 meeting.
Tamsen Drew, OCII senior project manager for Hunters Point and Candlestick Point redevelopment, explained that staff will return in June with a recommendation to accept transfers of Parcel D2 and two thin utility corridor parcels (UC1 and UC2) once the Navy has met conveyance‑agreement cleanup standards and regulatory concurrence is in place. Drew said those parcels are intended for research and development and office uses and that Building 813 would remain in public ownership for economic‑development purposes.
Amy Brownell of the San Francisco Department of Public Health described the multistage, multiagency cleanup and oversight process. She reviewed remediation methods already deployed: excavation and removal of contaminated soils, soil‑vapor extraction and in‑situ groundwater treatment, landfill capping and engineered durable covers, landfill‑gas monitoring, and long‑term inspection, maintenance and deed restrictions that will accompany transferred parcels. Brownell stressed the stepwise, iterative nature of the work and that federal and state agencies (EPA, DTSC, RWQCB, California Department of Public Health, and BAAQMD) have overlapping authorities and must concur that land is safe for its intended use before transfer.
Public comment during the workshop included strong objections and allegations about historical sampling and contractor practices. Dr. Ahimsa Porter Soon Chai, who leads a local restoration advisory board radiological subcommittee, said she has filed formal complaints to multiple bodies alleging problems with radiological scanning practices and sample handling; another commenter referenced a Tetra Tech report and alleged large numbers of deficient soil samples. Long‑time community members urged greater transparency and independent oversight, and some questioned whether the historical cleanup work adequately protected public health.
Because a commissioner had to leave and the meeting would lose quorum, the chair announced the Commission could not take substantive action on the item and that staff would calendar the parcel‑transfer recommendation for a future meeting. The Commission moved to adjourn.
