Navy plans to re-examine soil at Hunters Point after false data reporting

SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Navy is preparing a comprehensive re-examination of the potentially toxic soils and buildings at San Francisco's former Hunters Point Shipyard, a time-consuming and costly step it says is necessary after finding a pattern of fraudulent manipulation or falsification of data collected by a contractor hired to clean up the former Superfund site.

The work will slow the redevelopment of the second phase of the property by at least a year and is raising concerns among residents who have moved into homes in the burgeoning new neighborhood.

The work will include taking soil samples from around the 450-acre property, which is being redeveloped with more than 12,000 housing units and millions of square feet for retail, offices, and research and development facilities. It will also consist of ``swipe samples'' collected from inside buildings as well as radiological scanning inside and outside buildings, said Derek Robinson, environmental coordinator overseeing the project for the Navy.

``The goal is to have a comprehensive plan that tells us either the property is safe and we are good or we have to do additional work out there,'' Robinson said.

The new tests come after five environmental remediation firms were hired to check data collected by Tetra Tech, a contractor paid between $350 million and $450 million to clean up the shipyard, which for two decades was home to a nuclear warfare research lab.

In a preliminary report, the outside consultants found that nearly half of the data Tetra Tech had collected was flawed. The data includes samples mostly collected between 2006 and 2012. It includes testing samples from 300,000 cubic yards of soil, 20 buildings, 30 former building sites and 28 miles of storm drain lines.

In some cases, soil from parts of the property known to be free of contamination were identified as having been gathered from sites that had been used for radiological research.

``At the end of the day, there is enough uncertainty that we have lost confidence,'' Robinson said. ``We have lost confidence in Tetra Tech data and we need to collect new data.''

David Anton, an attorney with the environmental group Greenaction, said the Navy's commitment to re-examine Tetra tech's work should just be the start.

``I think they are starting to realize that what they have been saying for years is wrong -- they are being forced to recognize that the fraud happened,'' Anton said. ``What they are not doing, which they really need to do, is re-engage the community in working with them on oversight of this.''

The Navy and the developer, FivePoint, emphasized that the portion of the property under investigation does not include the top of the hill, where homes have been sprouting over the past four years. The hilltop was formerly used for housing rather than industrial uses. So far, 309 homes have been completed and another 138 are under construction.

Still, the questions about whether the $1 billion cleanup was bungled is causing trepidation among residents, some of whom have sunk their life savings into getting in on the ground floor of the new neighborhood. Shipyard homeowner Theo Ellington, who grew up nearby in public housing, said ``we have seen report after report and it's becoming troubling.''

``The general sentiment around the Shipyard is folks are worried,'' Ellington said. ``They want their investment protected, but the health concerns are just as important. When you see one report you can brush it off. When you see report after report about the same company, you have to question the validity of the work they did out there.''

Anton said the Navy should re-establish the neighborhood advisory group that monitored the cleanup through 2007.

``The Navy has lost a lot of credibility here because for the last five years they have been saying 'no, no, no, this is perfectly fine. Everything is safe,' '' Anton said. ``Now by their own study, which is inadequate and incomplete, shows the fraud is dramatically more severe than they expected. They need to engage the community, get the RAB (Radiological Advisory Board) back, and make it a real partner.''