tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 17, 2018 8:00am-9:01am PDT
federal standards, but that's mostly on chemicals. here, we are also covering radiological. >> supervisor fewer: right. it doesn't cover radiological? >> our department is not the department of radiological. california department of public health is. they cover each site on a case by case, but they do review prior to signing off like they did for parcel a. >> supervisor fewer: so we heard from the e.p.a. that no other parcels will be transferred without retesting, so after 2016, they said no other parcels will be transferred without retesting. would that transfer also necessitate the approval of your organization? >> yes, it does. >> supervisor fewer: okay. >> we are the state's lead agency for overseeing this cleanup, and we can express what our opinion is, and both federal agencies need to consider that.
>> supervisor fewer: so when the report comes out, then, you will also review the report. and will your organization, then, have recommendations if they are not in agreement with the findings? >> absolutely. our organization works very closely with california department of public health. they're our contractor, so to speak, and they will provide that expertise in the radiological aspect of it, which we will respond and comment to the federal agency. >> supervisor fewer: and then, will your recommendations be open to the public? >> absolutely. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim, i don't know if you had any questions? >> supervisor kim: well, i just had one. does your agency contract with tetratech directly. >> to the best of my knowledge, we do not have any contracts with tetratech at this time. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: good. thank you. thank you for your presentation; we have no other questions.
>> thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: next, i'd like to bring up mr. steve kr astleman. he's representing golden gate university. >> my name is steve castleman, and i'm an attorney with the environmental law and justice clinic at golden gate university school of law. and where to begin? i think the place to begin is with tetratech. what they did is clearly criminal. they have been prosecuted. there may be additional prosecutions, we will wait and see. but what they also did was they screwed up the cleanup big time, and now we're confronted with a problem that as mr.
manzanilla said, is a very difficult problem of resampling a location, considering the contamination that was actually spread by the alleged decontamination. so one of the questions that you asked was how do we guarantee that this doesn't happen again? and we cannot guarantee that it won't happen again. after all, what tetratech did was criminal, but the navy and the e.p.a. and the dtsc, and the other regulators allowed it to happen, didn't they? [applause] >> now, i'm compelled to go back in history and correct some of the mi mischaracterizations that you've heard here this
afternoon. 2012, it's true that the navy identified what they call anomalies and what we call fraudulent samples. it's true that it took two years for tetratech to publish a report, and it is equally true that tetratech alleged that they had taken care of the problem, it was the problem of a few rogue employees, management had nothing to do with it, everything is taken care of. ladies and gentlemen, nothing to see here, please move on. the navy, e.p.a. accepted that report in 2014. they accepted the report. they took a report that was a
self-investigation by a fraudulent company, and they accepted their work. would you? i wouldn't. so in 2014, they -- tetratech published this whitewash of a report, which was not at all true. and if you read the report, which i have done in great detail, many times, you will see that one of the appendixes is a list of the questions that they asked the employees, none of which had anything to do with the fraud. so in 2014, the navy accepted their work, and they went blythely along with their plan until 2016, when the whistle blowers came forward. but for the whistle blowers,
but for the whistle blowers, the navy and the e.p.a. would have approved additional transfers of property, parcels at hunters point that were still contaminated because they did not know, and they did not look. we urged them 1.5 years ago to conduct a realistic investigation, to interview all of the employees who worked on radiation control at hunters point to determine the full extent of the fraud. they said it's not our job. if you don't look, you're not going to find things. they didn't look. now, the whistle blowers came to golden gate university, our
clinic, our environmental clinic. we interviewed them, we found them highly credible. there weren't just one or two of them, there were a lot of them. we obtained seven or so declaratio declarations under penalty of perjury where they admitted they committed fraud on behalf of tetratech. we brought that to the navy. now, how is it possible that a handful of second and third-year law students directed by a qualified investigator like myself -- how is it possible that a handful of law students in six months discovered more fraud than the united states navy did in six
years? [applause] >> so they tell us now, trust us. we're going to do it right this time. we're going to do it right this time. we will. we've got lots of experience with fraud now. we're going to do it right. we want you to trust us. i urge you not to trust them. hold them accountable. how is it that this is not going to happen again? two words: community oversight. [applause] >> we have been through their technical documents. we have discovered fraud that they didn't know about.
we will go through their sampling plan. we will be in it for the long run, and ladies and gentlemen, believe me, this will be a long run. this cleanup has to redo 12 years of work. so anybody who tells you that they can, like tetratech did a couple weeks ago, that they can have a sampling panel up and running in a couple of months, is, excuse me, full of bull. and the navy said that they want to be open and transparent, but they have not been. the navy says that they want community participation. they have a technical community liaison. i've spoken to her i don't know how many dozens of times. i've never once gotten a useful fact from her, not once.
the fact of the matter is the navy is not being open and transparent. there's one thing that they could do to be open and transparent, and that is to release the draft sampling plans that they are going to prepare and provide to the e.p.a. to the public at the same time they provide it to the e.p.a. and they are the regulators. this is a plan that will take them a year to put together. this is a plan that they expect us to comment on in 30 days, 60 days. they gave us another 30 days, right? great. we're supposed to really appreciate that. give us the plan when you -- when the navy gives it to e.p.a., and that is what i would urge the board of supervisors to do: pass a resolution saying that it is -- that it is the sense of the
board and the community that in order for the navy to demonstrate it's bona fide that it's go it's going to be open and transparent, bend over backwards and give the community the sampling plan as soon as the navy has presented it to the e.p.a. and actually, if you think about it, that's actually the fastest way to approach it, because if we could do our comments during the initial period, if we could do our comments in 30 days, that will speed things up. if we have to wait 60 days, if we have to insist on more time than that, it's just going to delay the whole project. and remember, this is just parcel g. >> thank you. and at this time, supervisor kim has a question for you. >> supervisor kim: thank you. first of all, i appreciate you
being here and talking a little bit on background. i imagine you're somewhat limited in your ability to answer questions because some of this is going to be involved in either future litigation or courtroom cases. >> that's what they pay me to not do. >> supervisor kim: okay. can i ask you a little bit about what you believe led to the falsification of data within tetratech's rank and file? >> it's a culture. >> supervisor kim: it's a cultural issue? >> yeah. it's a culture of fraud. >> supervisor kim: and what motivated this fraud? >> they had a fixed-price contract, and to the extent that they could reduce their costs, they made more money, and the managers made a bigger bonus. and so if you talk to the whistle blowers, as we have done, what they will tell you is -- and in fact one of the supervisors who was sentenced last week said this, that they were under constant pressure to
get the job done so that the -- so that the property could be turned over to the city so that the property could be developed. everybody wanted to get it done as quickly as possible. and when you do that kind of work quickly, you do it wrong. >> supervisor kim: how many billions of dollars in taxpayer funds did tetratech get? do you know the amount of the contracts that they currently engage? >> oh, the total? >> supervisor kim: total. >> i have no idea. i know we're told that tetratech was paid $250 million at hunters point. >> supervisor kim: just for hunters point? >> just for hunters point. >> supervisor kim: i know, shouldn't we have access to this information? it's a federal contract. >> it's a federal contract, but it's how close to the current date they can get. for example, i asked the navy quite sometime ago how much
their data analysis cost, and i haven't received a response to that. and the reason i asked was because we told them that they should throw out their data 1.5 years ago, and they said no, we don't really believe we need to do that. so they did the data review, it's totally apparent what the result was going to be. but now, that's what they needed to convince themselves that we were right. >> supervisor kim: i understand that culture. i participate, i serve in government, i'm a part of government. you want the best possible answer you can give to your constituents, as well, and so sometimes, you lead yourself to the answer that you want to give, and so i understand how that happens. and it's unfortunate because it's at the detriment of our constituents. do you have a sense of how much the highest paid executives at tetratech make? >> i don't. a lot more than me, i assume. >> supervisor kim: i think a
lot more than anyone in this room. >> a lot more than everyone in this room put together, perhaps. >> supervisor kim: you also mentioned that the only way you thought that we could put an end to this type of falsification is by a community layer of oversight? >> right. >> supervisor kim: i have to tell you this data collection, testing, it's incredibly difficult for someone like me to understand, so i worry about putting a community led council, because they're going to get fed the information that the federal contractor or preechb the federal government -- even the federal government wants them to have. i have a hard time following a lot of this presentation because this is not my background. so i'm just wondering how a community oversight layer will ensure this won't happen again. >> because there are people in the community like the golden
gate institute that can review this to make sure this won't happen again. i've been through lots of sampling plans. we have access to experts who will help us with those sampling plans. we actually make sense out of those hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that they're going to turnover to describe their sampling plan. we have the ability to hold their feet to the fire, and when they say we're going to sample it all, we have the ability to demonstrate whether or not they're keeping their word because we do understand their documents, but we need time to understand their documents, just as they needed time to put them together. and if the navy is serious about community involvement, that's the one thing they can do. they've been unwilling to do it so far, they have not -- they
have not given a good reason why they can't release the sampling plan early, but that's the one thing they can do. >> supervisor kim: thank you. no, i appreciate your response by the way. thanks to the members of the public that are writing me, the ceo, dan patrick makes about 5.9 million. it's a publicly traded company. i'm sickened by the amount of dollars that are taxpayer dollars. there is a whole section that is designed just to take tax prayer dollars and profit off of it. if you're not going to do the work that we ask you to do, especially when it comes to the life and safety and well-being of our neighborhoods, it's criminal.
it's criminal that they have not suspended all of their contracts. it doesn't matter what the excuse is, there's only three companies. whatever the reason is, regardless of their expertise and all of the other good work that they do, there clearly is a culture. it cannot just be these two individuals. you say that there are many more, and there's more investigations that are going to come forward, i would like to see them do zero work on treasure island going forward. i'm certainly going to be doing what i can to push on that. and i just want to say, the one thing i will say is this: it is true that much of the evidence that we look at points to the fact that this neighborhood is safe for the residents in regards to the toxic contamination that may or may not exist in this neighborhood. but what i do know is the data,
and this neighborhood has higher levels of asthma, cancer, and we can say it's not because of contamination, it's because of education, lack of access to fresh and healthy food. i just don't know that we can say with 100% conviction that we have not put the lives of our residents in danger, and we are not doing everything that we can do to ensure that our public taxpayers are safe. i have to stop you because there's so many people that want to speak. >> thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: i do have one quick question, and i do need you to keep it tight and concise.
whatcom peled t what -- what compelled the whistle blowers to come forward. >> they knew what they were doing was wrong, and it ate at them, and they knew people were going to be living there ultimately, and they couldn't live with themselves without coming forward. >> supervisor cohen: are any of the whistle blowers in the chamber, if they could standup. >> yeah, they are here. >> supervisor cohen: i just want to say thank you to the whistle blowers that are here that had the courage -- [applause] -- i just want to acknowledge, that's true leadership, and that's true moral character that you displayed, and i appreciate it on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, let alone the bayview, hunters point community. mr. kr castleman, thank you
for your time today. i know we've got a lot of public comment that folks want to come down and speak. so let me say this: we've got the department of public health, and we've got ocii to present. if you don't mind, i'd like to call an audible, and i'd like to call marie harrison with green action to come up at this time. marie, you already know has been a champion. she was speaking when people wouldn't listen, and quite frankly, when i wouldn't listen. it's a privilege to honor her leadership, miss harrison. >> if you don't mind me -- unfortunately, i have to hook back up, so give me a minute. >> supervisor cohen: no problem. >> i'm back up. >> supervisor cohen: we're happy to see you, and happy to
have you here. >> thank you very much. let me start off my little two cents in here by saying we truly appreciate the fact that you called for the hearing. i have to be honest and say, it is long overdue. >> supervisor cohen: i would agree with you. >> golden gate action, the law students, the investigative reporters have brought these concerns before a lot of folks of fraud, just out and out lying. i mean, i could go take you back to the first r.a.b. meeting, that's the restoration advisory meeting, when it wasn't going the way they wanted it to go. in addition, adding insult to injury, we have, before your time, before your time, we have addressed supervisors, the city, the mayor, the health
department, we have -- i mean, we've got through the whole city officials and politicians, government agencies, to address these issues. one of the things that i find the most amazing is they didn't listen to us because i didn't have a ph.d. behind my name, so i'd like to apologize by not having that ph.d. but i won't do that, i said i was going to be nice. i'm not going to do that, but imagine what my ph.d. is in. i recently had an opportunity to talk to some folks, and with -- i've got to tell you that as a board member now of green action for health and environmental justice, not just as a community member but as a board member, i have not once had to say to green action staff and all their interns, we
are still mandated to follow what we wanted 45 years ago, okay? comprehensive sampling and testing. 45 -- not just when they've been shown to be liars, we're talking 45 years ago, we were asking for these things. testing must be conducted with an independent community oversight and funding for the -- for this providing just to make sure that the community just actually gets the truth. we have community boards that are selected and put together, yet they do not have the ability to get any information out. they speak on our behalf, yet they do not talk to us. you can't do that, and we are asking you as supervisors, along with thanking you for the hearing, but do your due diligence. i've heard some real good
questions coming from you guys. filled my heart with joy. i have to have everything written down for me so i wouldn't leave something out. i'm saying, you own it now, don't get off of it. please don't. let me go on. let me turn this over because we talked about the testing, the independent testing. and remember that all these years, we've been told that we were wrong. we've -- we've actually insisted on getting to the real nits and grits to the work. we have not just the moral and legal authority, but we have the mental ability to just do the job and get it done, and we believe that without the oversight of the community, the same thing is going to happen. i mean, you raise the attention that it took them six years after discovering. please, god, don't make me have to educate you and take you all
back to the beginning, okay? back to the first lawsuit that were filed when they first first started working out there, okay? there's a young lady that actually works with both attorneys, she's going to speak. but let me make sure we get through this. we need a comprehensive cleanup, and we need that because we are still a community of lovers. i know sometimes it doesn't seem like it, but that comprehensive cleanup of all the toxic waste, all of the stuff that they're planning on -- the radio active materials that they're planning on leaving on certain parcels, they're not even some of the
your head down if you want to keep your job. well, those days have got to be past. you guys are representing not just the city, but you're representing real people, and we need to be brought back and made whole. and i mean made whole. we need to be able to sit down and tell folks it was done, and it was done right, and we were there to make sure. there should never be a reckless plan of leaving radio active material buried in the ground out there and you're building houses, you're planning on putting restaurants and playgrounds for children to play. this is beyond a financial gain, this is out and out murder. this is genocide of a community, and we need to put a stop to it now. it is my deepest and sincerest hope that all of you, not just
you guys sitting here, but the rest of the supervisors, hear my words, hear my plea, but know that i will not go away softly in the dark, okay? i cannot do that. we are not those folks that walk away softly in the night. we've hold the line so far and we will continue to hold the line, but we need you guys as our voted in elected officials to hold the line with us. you have got to nbe able to stand toe to toe with these folks and say, the all mighty dollar may have ruined this part of our city, but we will not stand for it. you should know, i am a mother, i am a grandmother, and i am a great grandmother, okay? so that tells you i've been here a few days. even sit down in school a few minutes and got a couple of degrees.
hey, if you had miss minnie for a mother, you'd do the same, but it enabled me to sit still and call a lie when i hear it. most of our folks in our community can stand toe to toe with what's going on in the community, what their family members and community are suffering because they live it, breath it every single day. please don't let all of the legalese throw you. if lawyers is what you need to hear from, we'll bring you something that will tell you the truth. if scientists is what you need, let us bring you some. i'm not even asking you to believe me. i'm saying, listen to some of the young minds that have volunteered, that have come from far and near and right within our community to say miss marie, we're standing with you because we believe that it's our duty to make sure that
the truth gets out. i believe at our last real big hearing, a couple of the students actually said either they knew it and didn't care, or they knew it and just overlooked it and decided not to do anything about it. i'm asking you guys to please, don't ignore us and overlook it. don't decide not to do anything about it. history will not just raise and talk and shout about what happened here in san francisco in bayview-hunters point, but it will talk about san francisco, and it will say the truth about what our supervisors, our representatives did and have done and will do, so i'm asking you, stand with us. for over 45 years, we have been riding -- by the way, you
should know, while i did graduate from high school and college, i don't have a ph.d.. i'm not a scientist, i'm not a doctor. i do have a little bit of legalese but that's just enough to get me in trouble, and just maybe, i can get out if i remember to call bradley in time to say i'm about to get in trouble so don't go nowhere bradley. you know, he has to be there to make sure i don't get in trouble because i get angry. i get mad when i see a three and four-year-old child suffering from asthma and cancer. is that by design for our community? i get angry when my grandson would come home from school up on top of that hill and have all of this gunk in his eyebrows and eye lashes. he just happened to have some of the best eyebrows and eye
lashes i have of seen for a guy. what i'm saying is there were some beautiful children that went to school up there when roman was doing. when they were doing the heavy grading, and somebody said in a hearing, oh, well, the community decided that the alarms that are going off, well, they would be discounted. what community members did that? when? where are the meetings? who selected them to do that? you cannot represent us if you cannot speak to us, and we went to every meeting. i know you know it. some of you guys will remember me from a long time ago, and you'll say god, did you ever stop? no. will you ever stop? no. do i want to stop? yes. yes, i do. i'm tired, but i want to be made whole, and i want to be made whole while my family, my friends, my neighbors, many of
them are still living. i have lost way too many people in the last two years, and it's just been in the last two years that i have found that i, myself, am sick, so you will understand my urgency. you will also understand why i don't plan on backing away from any one of the supervisors. i don't care what district you're in, you're going to be made to know that you are equally as responsible because we have told you the truth. it has been proven out, and we're going to continue to tell the truth and push forward. i know that there's a lot of people, so i'm going to quit. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you very much. [applause] >> supervisor cohen: the last and final presenter is department of public health, amy brownell, and we will then go to public comment. got a stack of public comment cards. if there's any member of the
public that -- does any member of the public that would like to speak, fill out a card or just get in line. thank you. amy, how long is your presentation? [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: 15? slides or minutes? >> supervisor kim: can we pcu the presentation and just go straight to question? >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. we're going to lose quorum because we're going to go to conversation. supervisor kim has some questions. i have a few questions, not many, and perhaps you can weave things of your presentation, your slides, into your answers. supervisor kim, i'll start with you first. no? okay. well, can you start with the fact -- just identify, what is a scan ban?
we've heard this term, and what is a scan ban. >> thank you, chair, supervisor kim. my name is amy brownell. i am a supervisor with the san francisco health department. the scan van is an e.p.a. run van that was used by the united states environmental protection agency. it was used in prior to the transfer of parcel a, it was used to scan not only the roads on parcel a but all of the rest of the shipyard to provide an extra assurance that the parcel was safe as the regulatory agencies and the navy and our own health department concurred at the time that all the information and all the data, and we still believe and have issued statements to that effect that the parcel is safe for the residents, workers, tenants at the shipyard and the
neighbors in the area. >> supervisor cohen: how old is the technology used within the scan van? >> can you -- >> supervisor cohen: how old is the technology in the scan van? i heard it was from the 80's. >> you would have to ask the e.p.a. the actual scans were done in 2002, provider to the transfer. >> supervisor cohen: so i think in all your years with the agency, i think you spend 25 years in the hunters point shipyard? >> correct. >> so please explain it. we've got soil samples, we've got six years of information out there that has not been notified. you as a member of the department of public health, we look to you to help interpret the science, to help interpret and sign off, quite frampgly on the receiving of the parcel, particularly, i'm talking about parcel a, but you can relate my question to parcel g.
so where is this breakdown? >> so as the navy and a contractor explained, the contractor decided to engage in fraudulent testing. the navy discovered the fraudulent testing in 2012. they reported it to the regulatory agencies and to my agency. we were very involved? >> supervisor cohen: so what happened in 2012? was there a hearing at the board of supervisors? what happened? >> when they discovered it in 2012, i don't -- i would have to look up the exact date of when they had meetings with us to say that we've discovered this, we're working on fixing it. again, as the navy and the e.p.a. reported, there was detail process, they kept the regulatory agencies and myself informed, just as they have done for the entire time that i'm working on it and keep reports and information, and they -- as they stated, they thought that they were able to fix all the problems and the err errors, and they issued a
report which was reviewed by all the regulatory agencies, and we were given assurances that the problems had been resolved and the falsification had been resolved. >> supervisor cohen: ? 2012, did this matter go before the health commission? >> during -- during my time, there's been technical issues that have been discussed between the navy and the regulatory agencies and the health department has been informed. it's never risen to the level that we need to bring it to the health commission and board of supervisors. health commission and board of supervisors have occasionally voluntarily called for hearings. there was a hearing on the parcel e-2 landfill proposals for how that was going to be resolved and whether it would be dug up and hauled away or kept in place, so there have been hearings at various times. the falsification, because the navy had such confidence that they had resolved and fixed the
issues in 2014, there didn't seem to be any reasons by any of those agencies -- it was all public record. every document was public record, including that sampling report. there didn't seem to be any reason to bring a hearing because they had thought it had been resolved. >> supervisor cohen: what's the standard that you're using to determine information is worthy of a hearing versus it's not worthy of a hearing. >> to my knowledge there has never been a case where we felt that health and public safety was at risk. there has never been a case in the entire time that i've ever been on this project, including the falsification where we think public health and safety is at risk. >> supervisor kim: could we please be respectful to who's speaking. >> the fraud is an outrage. i totally understand the impact it has had on the community, but we do not believe that public health and safety is at risk. there is a requirement, and
they've already stated, they are going to retest and redo all the work, and the stress of all that, i completely acknowledge that that is very -- it's outrageous that that has happened, but we do not believe it's -- from a scientific standpoint, that there is any public health and safety risk. >> supervisor cohen: now you've heard already from this body a desire to no longer contract with tetratech, so i think that that's a given -- a gir given, hopefully, that the navy will back up our pleas and congress woman pelosi, and hire another contractor to do the retesting on the parcel -- a new scan. but what about -- what about other companies? what's plan b? what about the plan that's presented by the navy is too long or there's no agreement? do we continue to wait and wait until there's an agreement?
is there a plan b? is there another company we can call onto assist us with the testing? >> in all the years that i've been watching this, there can be disagreements between the agencies. i can honestly say there have been disagreements in the last 1.5 years about details, and i'm confident that they will be able to resolve it. the navy has already given the regulatory agencies their proposal, and then, they're going to be working on it and then they're going to present it to the public and have the public comment period. so based on all these years of work, i'm confident that they'll be able to resolve and the retesting will be able to be done by contractors other than tetratech. >> supervisor cohen: i want to talk a little bit about the slide that you didn't present, but i have the slide deck in front of me. >> i can pull it up if you
want. >> supervisor cohen: on the slide on the parcel a timeline, what's the factor contributing to the regulatory agencies independently testing this, on the parcel a timeline. >> yes. i'm sorry. say the question again. >> supervisor cohen: what's the -- why don't you just walk us through the timeline, and we'll start there. >> so the parcel a timeline is to emphasize that the parcel a followed the restoration process that the navy goes through for the entire shipyard. starting in 1992, they investigated chemicals and radiation, and they did that at various areas around the parcel all the way until 2004, when it was transferred. this included treating a small area that had been used as a gardener's shed and pesticide storage. the regulatory agencies reviewed and questioned all the work. the health department reviewed
and questioned it. if you look at the comments and response to comments document, we had a lot of questions about the lead-based paint remediation. we got those resolved, and then two years prior to the transfer, the e.p.a. used the scan van to take pleasurements, and all three regulatory agencies concurred that it was ready for transfer, and the health department hired independent consultants to independently review that, and we presented all of that information to the hearings where the property transfer was accepted. >> supervisor cohen: so let me interject. why were they so sure that parcel a was ready to be transferred? >> because number one, it had never been an industrial parcel. it was mostly residences to start. in the one area where there was small industrial processes, they had investigated the chemical and radiological issues surrounding that, they
had done remediation. again, nontech ra-at the time contractors did the remediation on the parcels, so all of the issues which were very few were handled, and the one building, building 322 that we've talked about extensively, that was reviewed, demolished and taken away, and then u.s.e.p.a. had an independent scan by their phycisist, and it was resolved. >> supervisor cohen: it's certainly been publicly circulated that tetratech is standing by their work and tetratech is willing to pay for the retesting of parcels. i want to acknowledge that congress woman nancy pelosi was able to secure something like $36 million that will go towards the retesting for the bayview-hunters point, so i'm looking for an entity that we can begin to rebuild trust to
help us rebuild and repair that fracktured relationship so that when data is presented that it's coming from a trustworthy source? can the cal department of public health serve in that entity? >> yes. i've worked with the california department of public health radiological health branch. they have manpower, personnel, and equipment who can do independent scans that is from a government agency. they did a lot of work, and supervisor kim is very familiar with it at treasure island. if it were determined that there was a reason to find areas on parcel a or -- >> supervisor cohen: or g or b -- >> oh, yes, on any of the other parcels, they could provide independent review. they've done oversight in the past. during the tetratech rework, they were alongside of the rework on some of the interior buildings, and they have pictures of the california department of public health overseeing that work. >> so are there any numbers
from other areas of the city, such as crissy field or district four that we can moan tore the radiation in the environment to better understand what the goal is for cleanup at the hunters point shipyard? >> there are lots of background radiation examples that can be reviewed. we have an independent -- part of the reason the health department is so confident about the safety of parcel a is there was an aerial radiation survey that was done. i'm forgetting the year at this very moment -- by the departme department of homeland security as a measure, and there were no anomalies found. nothing out of the ordinary found on the entire hunters point shipyard. >> supervisor cohen: sure, but what about parcel g? >> the entire shipyard, parcel a, parcel g, any alphabet super was found to be all normal.
>> supervisor safai: supervisor cohen, through the care, can i just ask one question so what she said? so you just said an aerial scan was done. can you explain what an aerial scan -- because that sounds like it's done from a satellite and it's not actually done from the ground. >> thank you so much, supervisor safai. it's done from aerial helicopters. they attach very, very sensitive instruments on helicopters, and they do a very low pass, at the time they were doing a background scan, and they can detect very, very, very low levels, and they can tell you whether there's background or whether there is any anomalies on the surface. >> supervisor safai: but compared to an actual laboratory testing done by hand, what's the level of preciseness done by the
helicopter. >> the helicopter can tell you up to an exact depth, so that can give you the confidence that the surface is safe, and then, as the navy has stated, the areas are secured and have durable covers -- covers on the surface, so we know that the -- if there is anything buried, you can't detect it on the surface. and then yes, a soil sample is how you go back and check below the surface to remove samples that might be above the levels of concern. >> supervisor safai: right. so there were things that were buried and contaminated soil that were buried, you wouldn't necessarily pick that up from an ariel sur faa. >> correct, and that's why the reevaluations have to be done, and the testing that's going to take some time. >> supervisor safai: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim: can you. i have some questions. i don't want to reask all the questions that i've asked the navy and the e.p.a.
what medical conditions -- health and medical conditions disproportionately affect the bayview and hunters point area? >> as you mentioned, asthma is a very common and unfortunate condition in the bayview areas. there also are various heart conditions that are a problem. if you really wanted to get into the details it would be much more appropriate for me to call on the health officer from the department of public health. my expertise is the work that is done by these navy and regulatory agencies, and the environmental engineering treatments. >> supervisor kim: i understand. what do you think is the general link that -- the department of public health states as to why there's disproportionate levels of asthma and heart relates problems in this neighborhood? >> again, i really appreciate your question, and i really think it would be appropriate if we brought a health officer who can really talk to these details. i will acknowledge that the
damaging stress from this situation can cause health problems. >> supervisor kim: what would? >> damaging stress knowing about falsification and things like that that have happened at the -- >> supervisor kim: so damage and stress from learning about falsification leads to asthma and heart problems in the neighborhood? >> i am not a health officer, so i would just -- >> supervisor kim: could you just explain -- >> i'm just acknowledging that the damage and stress about learning about these kinds of conditions -- stress can contribute to health problems. >> supervisor kim: okay. that's -- that's an extraordinary statement. i understand where you're coming from, but that's not the statement that i expected our department of public health to make today. you have heard very clearly from supervisor cohen and myself, that we would like the navy and e.p.a. to fully retest
parcel a, despite what you have stated in press that there is no scientific evidence that would trigger this. as our representative of the city and county, now hearing from the two representatives that oversee both treasure island and shipyards, will you work to lead the effort on behalf of the city to ensure that the navy and e.p.a. fully retest parcel a? >> we will work cooperatively with yourself and all the agencies. >> will you fight, ask the navy and e.p.a. to fully test parcel a? >> we will continue to work -- >> supervisor kim: can you continue to fight on behalf of our city to ask the navy and e.p.a.? >> we will -- >> supervisor kim: if the answer is no, you can just say no. >> the cdph has the facility and capability to do this public work -- [inaudible]
>> supervisor kim: cdph is not under my jurisdiction. however, san francisco department of public health is, and i'm asking, you've now heard from supervisor cohen and myself. representing us, will you ask the navy to retest parcel a? >> we will have discussions about retesting parcel a. >> supervisor kim: okay. the answer is no. thank you very much. okay. thank you very much. supervisor cohen, did you want to go to public comment? >> supervisor cohen: i did want to go to public comment. >> supervisor kim: are you still sticking with the one minute? >> supervisor cohen: yes. i'm not sure who you guys are up there, but i've got a doctor at the top of my list. [inaudible] o >> supervisor cohen: oh, okay.
>> thank you for the privilege of the podium -- ja >> supervisor kim: okay. we can't hear you. >> thank you for the privilege of the podium, and it's appropriate that i talk about amy brownell. i have submitted many documents to you in the last 18 years, including my presentation to the r.a.b. titled, "parcel a is not suitable for transfer, kwts kwts kwts," in which i detailed it had two areas of sand blast that in other areas of the base it had tested positive for raidium 226. i do want to say quickly that a super fund site is a land in the united states that has been identified and contaminated for
cleanup because it poses a risk to health and the environment. the department of public health has no health and human survey information on its website beyond 2009. there's nothing to date despite -- [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. thank you. thank you, doctor. >> hello. i'm david antoine, and i'm the attorney that blaut trought th matter. [inaudible] >> -- and were largely ignored. it was only when we went to the press after being totally frustrated that something started to happen, and that was
particularly when anthony smith came forward in the summer -- in march of 2016. you've asked a lot of questions about parcel a. with me are the two individuals who are responsible for those news articles everyone read about. [applause] >> one is donald wadsworth. he was president of new world environmental that was responsible for holding -- [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: sorry. i have a quick question. maybe we can move onto the whistle blowers themselves, mr. antoine. >> sure. this is don wadsworth, and this is burt bowers. he was responsible for radiological safety and at some point held a license -- >> supervisor kim: could we have the microphone because no one can hear you. both individuals can just speak at the mic. >> okay. let me introduce them, and
then, you can ask whatever questions you want of them. don wadsworth, he has experience at hunters point for about a decade. he has a nuclear regulatory license issued in his name. he is a health phycisist. his company supplied the rag teches. many of those switched over to the companies that did the cheating. he's involved personally with the parcel a review that was done. this is burt bowers. he also had a decade at hunters point. he worked his way up to be the top radiological safety officer for tetratech, and he was one of the people who was fired from tetratech for objecting to what they were doing. i'll let you ask the questions that you want. >> supervisor kim: all right. can we ask questions? >> you can ask them anything you want. i do not expect i will interrupt or keep them from answering anything. >> supervisor kim: great.
>> my name is don wadsworth, as was indicated. i have a master's agree in health physics and two undergraduate degrees in health physics. i've been practices physics for 40 years. my company, if we've been accused of something like this, i wouldn't have sent a lawyer, i would have stood before you and answered all your questions. honesty in science and with public is vital. trust once lost is hard to get back. we spent ten years, 2000-2009 at hunters point. i personally trained 15 people at rad workers. i find -- your questions are excellent. your understanding of the problems is excellent. don't discount your ability to understand. if it's not being explained to you properly, then you have the
wrong consultant. they approach the methods are really quite sample, and -- >> supervisor kim: so i'm going to ask you a question to continue your time. >> of course. >> supervisor kim: so it would be great if you could first of all finish your sentence, but i would like to know what years you worked on hunters point and what caused you to move forward and blow the whistle as is the term. and then, finally, could you talk a little bit about the cu culture or motivation behind why this happens, and do you think this is widespread in tetratech, and do you think this extends to other federal workers where they get a fixed sum contract and so they're trying to cut costs as much as possible and increase profits for their administration and stakeholders. >> you've got .