Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Early Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outline "early transfer light" for Parcels B and G as community demands scrutiny and full testing
Summary
City presenters described a hybrid "early transfer light" in which the Navy completes source removal while the Redevelopment Agency integrates long-term remedies (parks, roads, foundations) with development on Parcels B and G; community speakers urged caution and full remediation, particularly for Parcel E/E2 and raised monitoring and public-involvement concerns.
City economic development and public-health staff briefed the Government Audit & Oversight Committee on a proposed "early transfer light" approach for Parcels B and G at Hunters Point Shipyard, prompting detailed questioning from supervisors and lengthy public comment concerned about monitoring, capping, and health risks.
Michael Cohen, director of the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, described the concept as a hybrid suggested by EPA: the Navy completes "source removal" (removal of contaminated soil, building decontamination and sewer/storm drain work) while the Redevelopment Agency would integrate long-term remedies into development work — the construction of parks, roads and foundations that also serve as parcel-wide soil covers and protective barriers. "The core concept here is that the navy will do all the source removal work," Cohen said, adding that integrating remedy construction with development could provide the city more control over design decisions responsive to community concerns.
Amy Brownell, environmental engineer with the San Francisco Department of Public Health, gave technical detail: records of decision for B and G are complete; work includes removal/certification of low-level radiological contamination in buildings, sewer and storm-drain remediation, soil excavations where required, groundwater treatment and monitoring, parcel-wide soil covers, revetment walls along the shoreline, and vapor barriers beneath new buildings where needed. Brownell said the agencies that will continue oversight are the U.S. EPA, California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Brownell addressed specific concerns raised in public testimony: she said no radiation has been detected in groundwater samples at the shipyard and that asbestos-monitoring results at station HV12 "fit within the model of what the whole asbestos monitoring program is about," a conclusion the city, EPA and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District have reached in testimony referenced during the hearing. City staff emphasized that a formal "finding of suitability for early transfer" (FOST) and public notice/comment would be required prior to any early transfer.
Members of the public and technical advisers pressed on E/E2 (a separate parcel) and on whether caps would be acceptable. Several speakers — including long-time RAB members, scientists and community leaders — urged that the city insist on removal of the worst contamination rather than capping, especially in areas they said are seismically vulnerable. Some speakers described monitor exceedances and potential health impacts; other organizations (including Archaeology) said they support early transfer for Parcels B and G but not for additional parcels.
Supervisors signaled they will continue the early transfer item for additional hearings and technical review; no decision to accept an early transfer was recorded. The committee said it will hold follow-up hearings on monitoring (including HV12), the developer Lennar and cleanup oversight.
