Board hearing on Treasure Island cleanup spotlights resident health concerns, whistleblower allegations and calls for federal review

A San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee on Feb. 8 examined decades of cleanup work at Treasure Island, where residents, whistleblowers and environmental advocates say radiological and chemical contamination pose ongoing risks.

Supervisor Matt Haney, who sponsored the hearing, said the central responsibility is protecting the island’s roughly 2,000 residents — “retaliation will absolutely not be tolerated,” he said — and urged clearer answers about the extent of contamination, oversight of Navy contractors and the adequacy of past assessments.

State regulators told the committee they oversee the Navy’s cleanup under federal CERCLA authority and that the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) uses risk-based cleanup goals and site-by-site remedies. Julie Petijohn of DTSC said Treasure Island’s census tract ranks in the 85th–90th percentile on CalEnviroScreen and that several IR sites remain in the CERCLA process. “We implement a well defined regulatory process to meet that mission,” she said, describing removal actions, engineering controls and institutional controls that DTSC uses in oversight.

Anthony Chu of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) summarized radiological surveys and confirmation sampling the agency has performed. CDPH said its surveys have identified locations with elevated readings that were remediated and that the agency has improved oversight of contractors since earlier problems. “Our survey results indicate that there’s no immediate health risk,” Chu said, adding that CDPH and DTSC will continue monitoring remediation work.

That assessment drew a sharp response from whistleblowers and residents. Attorney David Anton and former radiation safety officer Guy Tavey described instances they said amounted to falsified testing, unreported finds and inadequate historical review. Anton said workers had been ordered “not to scan areas for radioactivity but were ordered to report the areas as having been scanned and cleared.” Tavey urged a full reassessment of the Navy’s 2006 and 2014 historical radiological assessments, saying the documents omitted or downplayed radiological sources and did not follow required review cycles.

Advocates and island residents recounted illnesses they attribute to exposures and urged more aggressive action: immediate retesting, a new human health risk assessment for Site 12 that explicitly includes radiological and chemical contaminants, stronger city involvement in oversight, and relocation and compensation for residents at risk. Bradley Angel of Green Action called for comprehensive retesting and cleanup, not capping; he also warned that sea-level rise could mobilize buried contaminants into groundwater and the Bay.

DTSC provided screening and cleanup figures used in its risk calculations for Site 12 (lead screening of 400 mg/kg with removals to about 80 mg/kg reported by the Navy; PCBs 1 mg/kg TSCA benchmark; PAH screening ~0.63 mg/kg; dioxin ~12 ng/kg), and noted a Removal Action Completion Report is expected.

Several speakers, including Supervisor Aaron Peskin, pressed why the Navy — the party conducting and funding much of the cleanup — declined to appear at the hearing; the Navy issued a written statement that it has conducted a multifaceted cleanup program and posted materials publicly. Robert Beck, representing the Treasure Island Development Authority, described the transfer structure: he said a portion of the former naval station has been transferred to the city, noted developer obligations for land payments under the sale agreement, and described callback provisions that require Navy remediation if previously undiscovered hazards are found after transfer.

The hearing produced no new remedial decisions; the committee voted unanimously to continue the investigation to the call of the chair and to return with additional information requested by supervisors, including agency responses about risk thresholds, historical sampling records and options for increased federal engagement.

What happens next: Supervisors asked DTSC and CDPH for follow-up materials (specific site risk documents, the timeline of sampling and confirmations, and clarification of who would be responsible for resident health monitoring). Several members asked staff to pursue a timely return date for the committee and to pursue outreach that ensures residents’ experiences inform any further technical work.