probabilistic cost estimate for remediation of ... · francisco ship repair (bae), which continues...

Probabilistic Cost Estimate for Remediation of Environmental Impacts

Pier 70 San Francisco, California

Port of San Francisco San Francisco, California

REVISION 1 6 August 2009

Project No.4554.02

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ESTIMATE .......................................................................... 1

2.0 STRUCTURE OF COST MODEL............................................................................................... 1

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIATION SCENARIOS FOR THE COST MODEL .................................... 3 3.1 CRANE COVE PARK AND SLIPWAY PARK .................................................................... 4

3.1.1 Site History, Potential Impacts, and Future Use ............................................... 4 3.1.2 Remediation of Site Soils ............................................................................... 6 3.1.3 Remediation of Slipway Fill Materials .............................................................. 6 3.1.4 Stabilization or Remediation of Near-Shore Sediments ..................................... 6

3.2 PARCELS 1 AND 3 .................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1 Site History, Potential Impacts, and Future Use ............................................... 7 3.2.2 Remediation of Site Soils ............................................................................... 7 3.2.3 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation ............................................................................. 8

3.3 PARCELS 2 AND 4 .................................................................................................... 8 3.3.1 Site History, Potential Impacts, and Future Use ............................................... 8 3.3.2 Remediation of Site Soils ............................................................................... 8 3.3.3 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation ............................................................................. 9 3.3.4 Steam and Fuel Line Mitigation ...................................................................... 9

3.4 PARCELS 5, 6, 7 AND 8........................................................................................... 10 3.4.1 Site History, Potential Impacts, and Future Use ............................................. 10 3.4.2 Remediation of Site Soils ............................................................................. 10 3.4.3 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation ........................................................................... 10

3.5 SITEWIDE IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER ................................................................. 11 3.6 SITEWIDE AND PROGRAMMATIC COSTS.................................................................. 12

4.0 ESTIMATED REMEDIATION COSTS...................................................................................... 12

5.0 COST MODEL AND OUTPUTS .............................................................................................. 13

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 15

7.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 15

TABLES

FIGURES

APPENDIX A: DRAFT MASTER PLAN MAP

APPENDIX B: DETAILED COST ESTIMATES

PROBABALISTIC COST ESTIMATE FOR REMEDIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Pier 70 San Francisco, California

1.0 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF ESTIMATE

The purpose of the probabilistic cost estimate presented here is to provide a reasonable range for the

probable cost of remediating the known, suspected, and potential undetermined impacts to subsurface

soils, soil gas and groundwater at Pier 70 (Site) due to historic and recent industrial activities at the Site.

The intent of the estimate is to support the redevelopment of Pier 70 in accordance with the Port of San

Francisco’s (Port’s) Pier 70 Draft Preferred Master Plan (17 July 2009). The Master Plan envisions a

largely commercial and industrial redevelopment, with continuing ship repair activities in the northeastern

quadrant of the site and possible residential land uses in two locations along Illinois Street. The map

from the Draft Master Plan showing the various site uses is included in the Appendix A to this report.

The Site consists of approximately 64 acres that were formerly occupied by the Bethlehem Steel San

Francisco Yard. Since that time, the Site has had various tenants, including an auto storage yard, a

recyclable metals collection yard, and a ship repair facility, among others. The Site area in its broadest

context is bounded by 22nd Street to the south, Illinois Street to the west, and San Francisco Bay to the

north and east. Current Site occupants include various tenants, most importantly BAE Systems’ San

Francisco Ship Repair (BAE), which continues to operate a dry dock and ship repair facility in the

northwest portion of the Site. For the purpose of this cost estimate, the BAE facility is referred to as

Parcel 9.

2.0 STRUCTURE OF COST MODEL

For the purposes of the cost model, portions of Pier 70 have been grouped into the following areas (see

Figure 1):

• Crane Cove Park and Slipway Park – Crane Cove Park is a 7.73-acre portion of land that is

currently vacant, with an exposed concrete slipway that is still occupied by a wood support

structure formerly used in ship repair and four older slipways, three of which have been filled

with uncontrolled fill, i.e., soil and debris that were likely not compacted at the time that they

2 6 August 2009

were placed in the slipways. Slipway Park is a 4.89-acre portion of land that is currently occupied

by automobile storage and trucking tenants; this area includes portions of four historic slipways

that have been entirely filled in.

• Parcels 1 and 3 – These two parcels have a combined area of 3.73 acres and are located along

Illinois Street; they will be largely occupied by new structures after redevelopment. These are

the only two parcels that are under consideration for potential residential land use in the future.

• Parcels 2 and 4 – These parcels comprise the historic “core” area of Pier 70 and contain the

majority of the historic structures that are envisioned to be preserved as part of the

redevelopment. They have a combined area of 8.54 acres. Due to historic shipyard activities,

this portion of Pier 70 is likely to have the most notable environmental impacts to soil, soil gas,

and groundwater.

• Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8 – These parcels comprise the “tech campus” area envisioned in the Master

Plan with a total area of 14.21 acres. Due to historic shipyard activities, this portion of Pier 70 is

also likely to have notable environmental impacts to soil, soil gas, and groundwater. It is also

anticipated that the subsurface in the southern portion of this area may be impacted by a

contaminated groundwater plume emanating from the adjacent property located to the south.

• Sitewide Groundwater – There are a number of areas where underground storage tanks (USTs)

are known to have been located, and all known USTs have been removed. However, there may

be residuals impacts in the subsurface, mainly in groundwater and soil gas, that require further

remedial action. In addition, there are some known areas of metals or other impacts to

groundwater as well as potential, yet-to-be-discovered impacts to groundwater due to historic

operations.

Excluded from this cost model are the following items:

• Parcel 9 – This parcel is currently in active use by BAE, a lessee operating a ship repair and dry

docking facility.

• Irish Hill – This area, located to the south of Parcels 3 and 4, will be preserved as open space. It

is not anticipated that any remediation efforts will be required in this area.

• Lead-based paint (LBP) and asbestos containing material (ACM) within existing historic buildings.

Estimated costs for LBM and ACM are included in the summary in Table 2, but are not included in

3 6 August 2009

the cost model, so that the results would not be skewed by these relatively large dollar amounts,

which are significantly higher than the costs for the other environmental remediation

components.

• Offsite groundwater impacts – There is information indicating that groundwater within Parcel 8

and possibly also Parcels 6 and/or 7 is impacted, due to an offsite source located south of Parcels

7 and 8. The cost of onsite institutional controls1 and engineering controls2 needed to address

these impacts so long as they continue to be present are included in the cost model (see Table

2). The cost model does include a limited amount of funds to impose a measure of hydraulic

control or other limited, temporary measures to contain further onsite impacts (e.g., groundwater

extraction wells at property boundary). However, the cost of comprehensive remediation of

groundwater impact from offsite sources is not included. The incremental cost to develop and/or

manage the property due to onsite contamination emanating from an offsite source, including

those institutional and engineering controls included in this cost model, may be recoverable from

the responsible parties.

3.0 DEVELOPMENT OF REMEDIATION SCENARIOS FOR THE COST MODEL

In order to estimate probable remediation costs, the nature and extent of potential environmental

impacts for each of the four areas described above were assessed based on available information

provided by the Port and our professional judgment and experience on similar sites within San Francisco

and the greater Bay Area.3 Some portions of Pier 70, such as the Crane Cove Park area, have been

reasonably well-characterized in the past, while other portions of the Site have little or no sampling data.

For example, five groundwater monitoring wells are located within the 7.73-acre Crane Cove Park area,

whereas another five groundwater monitoring wells are located in the remaining 56 acres of the Pier 70

Site. In addition, there is no documentation available regarding the type of materials that were used for

fill in the various slipways at the site, and little or no environmental characterization has been performed

in Parcels 5 and 6. Figure 1 shows all the locations at which sampling activities have been performed to

date

1 Institutional controls are legal and administrative mechanisms used to limit the exposure of future landowner(s) or

user(s) of the property to hazardous substances present on the property, and to ensure the integrity of the remedial action. Institutional controls must be maintained until the concentrations of hazardous substances in soil, soil gas, and groundwater are at such levels to allow for unrestricted use and exposure. A “Covenant to Restrict Use of Property” is an example of an institutional control.

2 Engineering controls are designed features that serve to mitigate potential exposure by site users to hazardous substances present on the property. Vapor mitigation systems, which mitigate the migration of subsurface vapors into indoor air, are an example of an engineering control.

3 Similar sites include Hunters Point Shipyard, the Mission Bay Redevelopment Area, the Presidio of San Francisco, and the Port of Redwood City’s former Liquid Bulk Terminal site, among others.

4 6 August 2009

Based on the sampling efforts performed to date, the constituents that are contributing to the impacts at

the Site include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), polycyclic

aromatic compounds (PAHs), total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and

metals. Environmental impacts to each of the four areas described above were grouped into the

following categories; not all categories apply to every area.

• Impacted soils (metals, SVOCs, PAHs)

• Impacted fill in slipways

• Impacted near-shore sediments (PCBs, metals)

• Potential vapor intrusion conditions for new and/or existing buildings (due to methane or VOCs)

• Impacted steam and fuel lines (TPH)

• Residual impacts to soil, soil gas, and groundwater from previously-closed USTs (methane, VOCs,

SVOCs, TPH, PCBs)

• Impacted groundwater (TPH, metals, SVOCs)

For each of these categories of impacts, a “low”, “likely” and “high” impact/cost scenario was envisioned,

with the “likely” scenario representing the impacts that we believe are most likely to be present, based on

the available data and our experience at similar sites. The “low” impact scenario represents a slightly

optimistic view of potential environmental impacts, and the “high” impact scenario represents the

possibility that environmental impacts are more extensive than currently known or anticipated to exist.

These scenarios are presented in the Table 1, “Synopsis of Remediation Scenarios”. The process of

developing the remediation scenarios based on a review of available Site information and laboratory

analytical data is described in more detail below. The reports or other references that contained the

analytical data reviewed are listed in the reference section at the end of this report.

As noted previously, the costs for abatement of LBP and ACM within existing historic buildings are

included with the detailed estimates attached to this report as well as in Table 2, however they are not

included in the probabilistic cost model, which is limited in scope to remediation efforts targeting impacts

to soil, soil gas, and groundwater.

3.1 CRANE COVE PARK AND SLIPWAY PARK

3.1.1 Site History, Potential Impacts, and Future Use

The dominant feature of Crane Cove Park is the large, exposed concrete slipway that runs diagonally

across the proposed park area. Adjacent to the east are three smaller historic slipways that were

5 6 August 2009

partially or fully in-filled during the 1960s and 1970s. In addition, there is a small building that is a

former substation (Building 50), which previously contained a number of transformers, as well as a

former laundry building (Building 110). The dominant features of Slipway Park are the four historic

slipways that lie perpendicular to the shoreline, which were constructed as part of the shipyard expansion

during World War II. The slipways have been fully in-filled and paved over. There are no structures in

this area. Currently this area is mostly vacant, with portions leased for vehicle and equipment staging.

Historic activities in both of these areas included those typical of a dry dock and shipyard, including

welding and plating. Impacts to the subsurface in these areas are estimated to be moderate. Dry dock

activities such as welding and plating may have resulted in localized releases of metals. Arsenic has been

encountered in numerous soil samples at concentrations exceeding Environmental Screening Levels

(ESLs) (RWQCB, 2008). PAHs exceed applicable screening levels throughout the Crane Cove Park area.

The ground surface in the Crane Cove Park area is covered with loose sand, gravel, cobbles, and other

material, which may not be a significant environmental concern but may present challenges to

redevelopment. The material used to fill in the various historic slipways in both areas has not been

thoroughly characterized; however some environmental impacts (metals) have been documented. In

recent years the substation (Building 50) was vandalized, after which a PCB cleanup was performed.

PCB-contaminated soil was removed, and remaining concentrations were found to be below the remedial

action objective (AEW Engineering, 2008), therefore it is assumed that no residual PCB impacts remain in

the area. Near-shore sediments were investigated in both areas and found to contain elevated levels of

metals and PCBs. Groundwater impacts in Crane Cove Park are believed to be limited, although

groundwater grab sampling indicated elevated metals concentrations in two out of three locations

sampled in the vicinity of the southern end of the large, exposed slipway. Groundwater impacts in

Slipway Park are discussed as part of the site-wide groundwater discussion below.

Because the Crane Cove Park and Slipway Park areas are planned to be open space, this cost model

assumes that most of the impacts to site soils can be mitigated by capping with a combination of soil and

pavement. However, to support reuse, some removal of impacted soils, debris, and/or fill material may

be necessary. The impacted near-shore sediments will likely require some type of cap or other

development design such as elevated piers and walkways to mitigate against dermal contact by shoreline

users.

6 6 August 2009

3.1.2 Remediation of Site Soils

The “low” cost scenario is based on the assumption that the risks posed by impacted soils can be fully

mitigated by capping4 without requiring excavation and disposal. Existing buildings that will remain as

part of the redevelopment are considered to provide a suitable “cap”. The “likely” cost scenario assumes

that in addition to capping, some hot-spot excavation and disposal will also be necessary. Metals and

PAH concentrations that exceeded ESLs for commercial land use by one order of magnitude (i.e., ten

times the ESL or higher) were assumed to define the areas possibly requiring excavation, and the depth

of excavation was assumed to be 5 feet on average. The “high” cost scenario is based on the

excavations being on average 8 feet in depth and laterally more extensive than anticipated based on

available site data.

3.1.3 Remediation of Slipway Fill Materials

It is not anticipated that the materials used to in-fill the slipways constitute a potential threat to human

health and the environment; therefore no substantial excavation effort is anticipated. The “low” cost

scenario is based on the excavation and removal of the upper one foot of material from a portion of the

in-filled slipways due to environmental impacts (e.g., near-surface metals impacts) and/or to clear out

debris that presents a potential hazard to future users of the proposed open space. The “likely” cost

scenario envisions that a greater volume of material (2-foot depth) will need to be removed to support

site resuse as open space, and the “high” cost scenario assumes a greater lateral extent of excavation.

3.1.4 Stabilization or Remediation of Near-Shore Sediments

Considerable uncertainty remains regarding the source or sources of near-shore5 sediment contamination

in the vicinity of Pier 70 and hence what type of remedial approach may be required. It is assumed that,

at a minimum, some measures may be undertaken to enhance the safety and “user experience” of

shoreline visitors to both of these open space areas. Thus, the “low” cost scenario envisions a “low tech”

approach to covering the near-shore sediments with some type of matting and/or geotextile that can be

suitably anchored into the sediments. The “likely” cost scenario envisions treatment of these sediments

by in-situ application of granular activated carbon, assuming that some sort of treatment is deemed to be

desirable or necessary. The “high” cost scenario envisions capping the sediments with an armored cap to

4 “Capping” consists of covering the site with a durable cover that meets regulatory acceptance; examples of durable

covers may include two feet of clean soil, a building floor slab, or pavement in good condition. Within a historic building, the existing concrete floor may suffice as a cap, although improvements may be necessary if there is a potential vapor intrusion condition.

7 6 August 2009

prevent human or ecological receptor contact and/or to prevent their migration. The costs for the latter

two scenarios are based on information provided in the Feasibility Study prepared for the Navy for the

off-shore portion of Hunters Point Shipyard (Barajas & Associates, 2008).

3.2 PARCELS 1 AND 3


Parcel 1 was historically used for boat building and warehousing. Parcel 3 appears to have been initially

used for residential lodging and office uses. However more recent uses have included parking and

storage, possibly including storage of various wastes. Parcel 1 contains one historic building that is slated

for reuse and another building that is slated to be demolished; Parcel 3 is a paved area currently

occupied by a storage business. After redevelopment, both parcels will be largely occupied by new

buildings, with the historic Twigg/Kneass Building remaining on Parcel 1. Parcels 1 and 3 both face

Illinois Street, and both areas could potentially have residential use after redevelopment; therefore they

have been grouped together for the purposes of this cost model.

Parcel 1 soils contain elevated levels of PAHs in a limited area, whereas Parcel 3 soils contain elevated

levels of metals, primarily nickel. There is also information regarding the potential presence of a former

underground storage tank (UST) on Parcel 1.


The “low” cost scenario is based on the assumption that the risks posed by impacted site soils can be

fully mitigated by capping without significant excavation and disposal. Existing buildings that will

remain as part of the redevelopment are considered to provide a suitable “cap”. The “likely” cost

scenario assumes that in addition to capping, some hot-spot excavation and disposal will also be

necessary. Metals and PAH concentrations that exceeded ESLs for residential land use by one order of

magnitude were assumed to define the areas possibly requiring excavation, and the depth of excavation

was assumed to be 5 feet on average. The “high” cost scenario is based on the excavations being on

average 8 feet in depth and laterally more extensive than anticipated based on available site data.

5 “Near-shore” is defined as within 100 feet of the shoreline for the purposes of this cost model. Environmental

impacts to off-shore sediments have not been fully characterized at this time. However, it is assumed that extensive remediation of these sediments, if required, would not be a part of this Pier 70 scope of work.

8 6 August 2009

3.2.3 Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

This cost item addresses the potential presence of methane, benzene, and/or other volatile constituents

in soil gas due to residuals from the former UST on Parcel 1 and undetermined waste spills on Parcel 3

that may present a potential risk of vapor intrusion (VI) into indoor air of retained historic or new

buildings. The “low” cost scenario assumes that either no impacts to soil gas are found to exist or

impacts are below actionable levels that would require VI mitigation. The “likely” cost scenario assumes

that a VI condition exists on Parcel 1 that requires a vapor mitigation system (VMS) to be incorporated

into the design of Building 1B in the Pier 70 Master Plan (Attachment), and the “high” cost scenario

assumes that a VI condition is also found to exist on Parcel 3, but a VMS is required only for one building

rather than throughout the entire parcel.

3.3 PARCELS 2 AND 4


Parcels 2 and 4 contain the majority of the historic structures that remain on the Site and are anticipated

to be restored and reused as part of the redevelopment. These parcels constitute the core of historic

operations and therefore likely have the greatest extent of subsurface impacts. Historic uses on Parcel 2

included office space, lumber storage, and shipyard-related activities. Historic uses on Parcel 4 dating

back to 1900 included a machine shop and foundry.

A UST was formerly located behind Building 101, thus UST-related residual petroleum contamination may

be present in this area. The powerhouse (Building 102) and adjacent Building 104 may have associated

residual PCB impacts. Welding activities may have occurred on Parcel 2, with potential metals impacts to

soils. A large machine shop (Building 113) is located on Parcel 4 and had a boiler associated with it

(Building 14) and multiple USTs. There are also foundry and warehouse buildings on Parcel 4. Thus

Parcel 4 is expected to have been potentially impacted by metals, PAHs, and other constituents.

However, very limited characterization activities have occurred on Parcel 4. In recent years, Parcels 2

and 4 have been largely unused. When redeveloped, Parcels 2, and 4 will be mostly occupied by

refurbished historic structures.


The “low” cost scenario is based on the assumption that the risks posed by impacted soils can be fully

mitigated by capping without significant excavation and disposal. Existing buildings that will remain as

part of the redevelopment are considered to provide a suitable cap. The “likely” cost scenario assumes

9 6 August 2009

that in addition to capping, some hot-spot excavation and disposal will also be necessary. On Parcel 2,

metals and PAH concentrations that exceeded ESLs for commercial land use by one order of magnitude

were assumed to define the areas possibly requiring excavation, and the depth of excavation was

assumed to be 5 feet on average. There is very limited environmental data for Parcel 4, and it was

assumed that impacts to Parcel 4 are similar to those found on Parcel 2. The “high” cost scenario is

based on the excavations being on average 8 feet in depth and laterally more extensive than anticipated

based on available site data. Alternatively, the “high” cost scenario could include limited excavation of

soils from within buildings during construction.6


This cost item addresses the potential presence of methane, benzene, and/or other volatile constituents

in soil gas due to residuals from the former UST on Parcel 2 (behind Building 101) and Parcel 4 (east of

Building 113) and undetermined waste spills on either parcel that may present a potential risk of vapor

intrusion into indoor air. The “low” cost scenario assumes that only the eastern portion (approximately

one quarter) of Building 113 will require retrofitting to mitigate a potential VI condition. The “likely” cost

scenario assumes that, in addition to a portion of Building 113, Building 14 will also require retrofitting to

mitigate a potential VI condition. The “high” cost scenario assumes that Building 103 will also require

retrofitting to mitigate a potential VI condition. Although Building 103 is located on Parcel 9 (the BAE

leased property) its lies within approximately 50 feet of the location of the former USTs east of Building

113, thus it is possible that soil gas vapors associated with UST residuals may be impacting Building 103.

3.3.4 Steam and Fuel Line Mitigation

This cost item addresses the potential presence of TPH residuals in the fuel lines and possibly a portion of

the steam lines. The length of these lines was estimated based on historic utility drawings for the former

Bethlehem shipyard. The extent of TPH impacts to the steam lines is anticipated to be very low, however

there is a substantial amount of uncertainty regarding this item. Therefore the “low” impact scenario

includes mitigation of 100 lineal feet (lf) of fuel line and 72 feet of steam line for TPH impacts, and the

“likely” and “high” scenarios include half again as many and twice as many lineal feet of lines,

respectively. It should be noted that the removal of asbestos wrapping from the exterior of all the steam

lines Site-wide is not included in the cost model.

6 Soil excavation efforts within buildings, if necessary, are anticipated to be relatively limited in extent, as shallow

bedrock underlies most of the historic structures, particularly Building 113. Such excavation could be necessary for construction of foundation elements related to structural/seismic strengthening of the historic buildings.

10 6 August 2009

3.4 PARCELS 5, 6, 7 AND 8


Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8 have a variety of historic uses. Uses on Parcel 5 have included machine shops,

warehousing, and automobile storage. Parcel 6 initially (circa 1900) included a foundry and in later years

also a machine shop, transformer house, and plating shop. Parcel 7 had structures that supported the

plating shop (Building 12) located on Parcel 5, and Parcel 8 was used as a laydown area and welding

platform. Parcels 6 and 8 are underlain by a total of four historic slipways, which have been completely

filled in and paved over. Parcel 5 is anticipated to be occupied in the future by two historic structures,

which were associated with shipyard activities. Parcels 6 and 7 each contain one or more structures,

which will be demolished and removed. There is essentially no site characterization data for Parcels 5

and 7. Very limited data exists for Parcel 6 and 8, though soil sampling data does indicate the presence

of elevated levels of arsenic in shallow soils throughout Parcels 6 and 8, including the slipway area,

similar to much of the Pier 70 redevelopment area. Future site use is anticipated to be a “tech campus”,

consisting largely of new, multi-story buildings.


Because there is very limited data for Parcels 6 and 8 and virtually no data for Parcels 5 and 7, it was

assumed that impacts to all four of these parcels are similar to those found on Parcel 2, as the overall site

history is similar across these areas. The “low” cost scenario is based on the assumption that the risks

posed by impacted site soils (primarily arsenic but also potentially PAHs) can be fully mitigated by

capping. The “likely” cost scenario assumes that in addition to capping, some hot-spot excavation will

also be necessary, and the depth of excavation was assumed to be 5 feet on average. The “high” cost

scenario is based on the excavations being on average 8 feet in depth and laterally more extensive than

anticipated under the “likely” scenario.


This cost item addresses the potential presence of semi-volatile and/or volatile constituents in soil gas

that may pose a potential risk of vapor intrusion to indoor air; the impacts are assumed to occur due to

the onsite migration of a known plume located offsite, immediately south of Parcels 7 and 8. The cost

scenarios assume that the following new buildings (each with a footprint of approximately 47,600 square

feet) will require a VMS to mitigate against the potential VI condition:

• “low” cost scenario: Building 8A

11 6 August 2009

• “likely” cost scenario: Buildings 8A and 6E

• “high” cost scenario: Buildings 8A, 6E, 6D, and 7A.

3.5 SITEWIDE IMPACTS TO GROUNDWATER

General site histories for the various parcels have been described above. This section focuses on

potential impacts to groundwater, which were not addressed above. There is a high probability that

some residual impacts to groundwater remain related to the various UST removals that have been

performed at the Site. Elevated levels of TPH have been found in groundwater samples collected from

behind Building 101 on Parcel 2 and near the eastern end of Building 113 on Parcel 4. The “low” cost

scenarios for management of UST residuals in the various parcel groups assume that the residual impacts

require limited additional characterization, focused short-term monitoring, and little or no remediation;

the “likely” cost scenarios include limited in-situ remediation and focused short-term monitoring in some

former UST areas; and the “high” cost scenarios include slightly more in-situ remediation and short-term

monitoring than the “likely” scenarios. None of these efforts are anticipated to represent significant

costs.

In addition to the UST residuals, there are potential or known impacts to groundwater due to metals,

SVOCs, and other constituents. For example, two of the three groundwater grab samples that were

collected within Parcel 2 (near the southern end of the dry dock) had elevated metals concentrations.

However, monitoring wells located in the more northern portion of Crane Cove Park did not detect

impacts to groundwater exceeding ESLs. Elevated levels of VOCs, SVOCs and PAHs were detected in

offsite and onsite groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of Parcels 7 and 8. The “low” cost scenario

envisions some effort (e.g., limited groundwater pumping for hydraulic control) to contain onsite impacts

on Parcels 7 and 8 from the offsite plume as well as delineation and monitoring of three (3) small plumes

in various other, currently undetermined, areas of the Pier 70 Site. The “likely” cost scenario envisions all

of the “low” cost items as well as the delineation, remediation, and monitoring of one additional small

plume somewhere onsite. The “high” cost scenario includes some additional remediation efforts,

particularly to further contain or mitigate the impacts of the southern offsite plume. It should be noted,

however, that comprehensive remediation of the onsite (Parcels 7 and 8) impacts due to the offsite

plume is not included in this cost model. It is also assumed that, due to their relatively small size and

limited mobility, any metals plumes that are found within the Pier 70 site will likely be remediated by

means of “hot spot” soil excavation (discussed in previous sections) and require only long-term

monitoring under the groundwater program.

12 6 August 2009

3.6 SITEWIDE AND PROGRAMMATIC COSTS

It is anticipated that this Site will require the creation and implementation of a Risk Management Plan

(RMP) similar in concept to that in use at the Mission Bay redevelopment area within San Francisco. It is

also standard practice for the State and Federal regulatory agencies that may be involved in a

remediation project to require reimbursement for their oversight costs. In addition, the implementation

and enforcement of any Institutional Controls (ICs) that are part of the final remedial action for this Site –

such as prohibitions on drilling groundwater pumping wells or growing of produce in Site soils – would

involve expenditures by the Port and/or the City of San Francisco. “Low”, “nominal” and “high” costs for

these items are shown in Table 2.

4.0 ESTIMATED REMEDIATION COSTS

For each of the categories of potential impacts (impacted soils, impacted groundwater, etc.) in each of

the four areas, detailed cost estimates were prepared for “low”, “likely”, and “high” remediation cost

scenarios. These detailed cost estimates are attached, as is Table 2, “Summary of Scenarios and Costs”.

The costs and associated probabilities shown in Table 2 were inserted into the probabilistic cost model.

Information regarding the types of remedial actions that may be appropriate for the known or suspected

site impacts as well as the unit costs in the detailed cost estimates included in Appendix B of this report

were obtained from our experience on similar projects (e.g., historic shipyards, sites adjacent to San

Francisco Bay); cost estimates prepared by others for similarly impacted sites (e.g., Feasibility Study for

remediation of Bay sediments at Hunters Point Shipyard); measures in place to manage impacts at similar

sites within San Francisco (e.g., Risk Management Plan for Mission Bay redevelopment area); and our

professional judgment.

The probabilities assigned to the “low”, “likely” and “high” remediation cost scenarios are based on our

professional judgment regarding their relatively likelihood of occurrence. For example, for the

remediation of impacted site soils the “likely” cost was assigned a probability of 50 percent, the “low”

cost scenario a probability of 35%, and the “high” cost scenario a probability of 15%. This slight skewing

of the probability distribution toward the capping-only scenario is based on our opinion that low-level

exceedances of only one or two metals that are likely to be found Site-wide could reasonably be

mitigated by a capping-only approach. As another example, for the remediation of groundwater site-

wide, the “likely” cost was assigned a probability of 50 percent, the “low” cost scenario a probability of

15%, and the “high” cost scenario a probability of 35%. This slight skewing of the probability distribution

13 6 August 2009

toward the high-end scenario is based on our judgment that the actual cost is more likely to be toward

the upper end, rather than the lower end, of the range of estimated costs.

It should be noted that a thorough site characterization effort has not been performed but is pending.

Once the site investigation has been completed, a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) will likely be written,

outlining the remediation efforts that are planned based on the data collected. Once the RAP has been

approved by the regulatory agencies, Remedial Design (RD) will begin. The RD process typically includes

engineering design efforts that result in construction contract documents, including plans and

specifications as needed, for the various remedy components. The remedial actions that are actually

performed, based on a future RAP and RD, may therefore vary from the remediation scenarios that

underlie the detailed cost estimates attached to this report. For example, more soil excavation may be

required than currently estimated, but fewer buildings may require vapor mitigation systems. As another

example, input from the regulatory agencies may result in capping/stabilization of near-shore sediments

being replaced with strengthening of the shoreline (e.g., construction of a revetment wall).

Nevertheless, the total remediation costs for the Pier 70 redevelopment site are anticipated to fall within

the estimated probable range shown in Figure 3.

5.0 COST MODEL AND OUTPUTS

The probabilistic cost model was created using decision analysis software, which is capable of not only

calculating the expected, or most likely, total cost of remediation, but also of providing the probability

distribution for the total cost of remediation, performing a sensitivity analysis, and calculating the value of

controlling each of the variables in the model.

Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the cost model, indicating the interrelationships between

various cost estimate components. “Chance” variables are represented as ovals; these are cost

components that have a range of potential values, namely the “low”, “likely”, and “high” cost scenarios

provided in the attached detailed cost estimates and summarized in Table 2. The probabilities for each of

the three scenarios for each cost component are also shown in Table 2, and these values are also

incorporated into the cost model.

Also included are the following outputs from the probabilistic cost model:

• Probability Distribution for Total Remediation Cost (Figure 3) – This is a cumulative probability

distribution, which indicates the likely range of total project cost and also the likelihood that the

14 6 August 2009

total project cost is above or below a certain dollar amount. For example, it estimated that there

is only a 10% likelihood that total Site remediation cost will be below $20 million.

• Sensitivity Analysis (Figure 4) – This graph indicates the effect that the uncertainties in the costs

of the various cost estimate components have on the uncertainty in the total project cost. For

example, the uncertainty in the cost to remediate soils in all areas of the Site, particularly Parcels

5 through 8 and the two parks, contribute the most to the uncertainty in the overall estimate of

total project cost shown in Figure 3.

• Value of Control (Figure 5) – This graph in essence indicates the dollar amount that could

potentially be saved by the project if the uncertainty in cost of a given component could be

eliminated. Due to the high uncertainty in the soil remediation costs, particularly Parcels 5

through 8 and the two parks, the ability to control (i.e., minimize) the cost of these items would

provide the greatest benefit to controlling overall project cost.

As indicated both by the sensitivity analysis (Figure 4) and the value of control analysis (Figure 5), the

greatest contributors to the uncertainty in this cost estimate are the volumes of soil likely to require

excavation and offsite disposal. This uncertainty is driven by the lack of Site characterization data in

certain large parcels comprising the Pier 70 redevelopment area, as well as by the unknown extent to

which sitewide impacts by certain constituents, particularly arsenic, could be managed by a capping-only

remediation alternative.

For those portions of the cost estimate and model in which multiple parcels are grouped together (e.g.,

Parcels 1 and 3), the subtotals for those groups presented in Table 2 may be apportioned to the

individual parcels proportionately based on area, specifically the area of each parcel that is not occupied

by existing or planned buildings. The respective square footages for each parcel or area may be found at

the top of the first page of the cost estimate spreadsheet for each parcel group.7 For the groundwater

remediation portion of the cost estimate, sitewide costs may be apportioned to the individual parcels

based on overall parcel area.

7 The square footages at the top of the first page of each of the cost estimate spreadsheet for each parcel group

exclude building footprints because the soil remediation (new capping and possibly excavation and disposal) is generally not anticipated to extend beneath buildings. Other portions of the estimate (e.g., groundwater remediation, soil vapor intrusion mitigation) address the likely impacts extending beneath buildings due to migration of contaminants via soil gas or groundwater.

15 6 August 2009

6.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Excluding the LBP and ACM remediation dollar amounts, the estimated total probable cost of remediation

for Pier 70 is $27.5 million. As indicated by the probability distribution for total project cost, the costs are

unlikely to be below $15 million or above $50 million.

7.0 REFERENCES

AEW Engineering, Inc., 2008. Final Closure Report, PCB Removal Action, Building 50, Pier 70, Port of San

Francisco. May

Barajas & Associates, Inc., 2008. Feasibility Study Report for Parcel F, Hunters Point Shipyard, California.

April.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2008. Screening for Environmental Concerns

at Sites with Contaminated Soil and Groundwater (Interim Final, Revised). May.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) 2000. Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area San Francisco,

California Phase II Brownfields Targeted Site Assessment Report. November.

Ecology and Environment, Inc. (E&E) 2004. Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area, Expanded

Phase II Targeted Brownfields Assessment Report, San Francisco, California. January.

ERRG, Inc., 2005. Soil Boring Well Installation – Building 50 PCB Remedial Investigation.

November

ERM-West, Inc., 1990. Hazardous Materials Investigation of the Mariposa Facilities Project Area,

July.

Geomatrix. 2004. Source Investigation Report, Volume I of II. March.

Geo/Resources Consultants, Inc. 1989. Data Compilation Report & Appendices A through D Data Logs

Volume 1 of 3 Subchapter 15 Compliance Pier 70 Solid Waste Disposal Site San Francisco, California.

December.

M. Lee Corporation, 2008. Port of San Francisco, Pier 70 Condition Assessment: Conceptual Estimate of

Probable Construction Cost Based on Assessment of Building Conditions (Condition Survey Evaluation).

July.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1997. Subsurface Investigation for Port of San Francisco, Pier 70 San Francisco,

California. December.

16 6 August 2009

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1999. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity Area,

Corner of Illinois Street and 20th Street, San Francisco, California, March.

The Mark Group. 1990. Report of Waste Discharge Pier 70 Solid Waste Disposal Site Port of

San Francisco, California. 20 August.

Treadwell & Rollo. 2008. Site Investigation, Pier 70 Northeastern Shoreline, San Francisco,

California. January.

TablesSynopsis of Remediation Scenarios

Cost Summary

TABLE 1 Synopsis of Remediation Scenarios Cost Estimate for Environmental Remediation Pier 70 San Francisco, California

1 of 2 6 August 2009

Description of Impacts Remediation Approach “Low” Impact/Cost Scenario

“Likely” Impact/Cost Scenario

“High” Impact/Cost Scenario

Crane Cove Park and Slipway Park Impacted soils (metals, PAHs)

Capping, with or without excavation

Capping only Capping and hotspot excavation

Capping and expanded hotspot excavation

Impacted fill in slipways Excavation to remove surface debris

Limited excavation of upper 1 foot of material

Limited excavation of upper 2 ft of material

Expanded excavation of upper 2 ft of material

Impacted sediments, approx. 1,200 ft of shoreline, total

Capping or in-situ treatment to minimize exposure and/or bio-availability to humans and/or eco. receptors

“Low tech” cap, extends 20 ft from shore

In-situ treatment with activated carbon, extends 100 ft from shore; treat upper 12 inches of sediments

Armored cap, extends 100 ft from shore

LBP and asbestos Bldgs. 6, 50, 110, and 52 Per M. Lee est. Parcels 1 and 3 Impacted soils (metals, PAH, SVOCs)




Vapor intrusion mitigation from residual TPH (methane and/or VOCs)

Membrane & venting system (new bldgs.)

None required 1 building @ Parcel 1 1 bldg. @ Parcel 1 and 1 bldg. @ Parcel 3

LBP and asbestos Twigg/Kneass Building Per M. Lee est. Parcels 2 and 4 Impacted soils (metals, PAHs)




Vapor intrusion mitigation from residual TPH (methane and/or VOCs)

Membrane & venting system (new bldgs.); venting-only retrofit for existing buildings

Bldg. 113 – retrofit (partial footprint only)

Bldg. 113 – retrofit Bldg. 14 – retrofit Bldg. 103 – retrofit

Bldg. 113 – retrofit Bldg. 14 – retrofit Bldg. 103 – retrofit

Steam and Fuel Line Mitigation

Excavate and remove impacted lines/soil; close in-place unimpacted lines

Assume extent of impacts is similar to HPS; location of lines per historical (Bethlehem) plans

Low + 50% More lines than shown on drawings

Low + 100% More lines than shown on drawings and/or ACM found

LBP and ACM Bldgs. 101, 102, 104, 113, 114, 115, and 116

Per M. Lee est.

TABLE 1 Synopsis of Remediation Scenarios Cost Estimate for Environmental Remediation Pier 70 San Francisco, California


Description of Impacts Remediation Approach “Low”-impact/cost Scenario

“Nominal”-impact/cost Scenario

“High”-impact/cost Scenario

Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8 Impacted soils (metals, PAH, SVOCs)




Vapor intrusion mitigation (methane and/or VOCs)

Membrane & venting system (new bldgs.)

Bldg. 8A - new Bldg. 8A – new Bldg. 6E – new

Bldg. 8A – new Bldg. 7A – new Bldg. 6D – new Bldg. 6E – new Bldg. 12 (partial) – retrofit

LBP and asbestos Bldgs. 2 and 12 Per M. Lee est. Groundwater Remediation Parcels 1 & 3 - UST Residuals

Short-term monitoring, with or without in-situ remediation

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) in one location

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) and in-situ remediation in one location

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) and in-situ remediation in two locations

Parcels 2 & 4 - UST Residuals


Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) in two locations and in-situ remediation in one location

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) and in-situ remediation in two or three locations

Install and monitor 3 to 4 wells (short-term) and in-situ remediation in two locations

Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 - UST Residuals


Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) in one location

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) in two locations and in-situ remediation in one location

Install and monitor 1 to 2 wells (short-term) and in-situ remediation in two or three locations

All Parcels - Groundwater Remediation (metals, VOCs, etc.)

Short-term monitoring, with or without remediation

Contain onsite impacts on Parcels 7 and 8 from offsite plume; delineate and monitor three (3) small plumes in other areas

Contain onsite impacts on Parcels 7 and 8 from offsite plume; delineate and monitor four (4) small plumes in other areas

More aggressively contain onsite impacts on Parcels 7 and 8 from offsite plume; delineate and monitor four (4) small plumes in other areas

TPH – Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons PAH – Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon VOC – Volatile Organic Compound LBP – Lead-based paint ACM – Asbestos-containing materials UST – Underground Storage Tank

TABLE 2Summary of Scenarios and Costs

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationPier 70

San Francisco, California

LBP and ACM Probable CostParcel / Description Low Likely High Low Likely High Abatement1 of Remediation

Crane Cove Park and Slipway Park1. Impacted Soils 2,794,870$ 4,886,991$ 14,477,365$ 35% 50% 15% 5,593,305$ 2. Mass Excavation & Removal of Fill, Regrading 1,113,648$ 1,872,335$ 3,084,204$ 35% 35% 30% 1,970,355$ 3. Stabilization or Treatment of Near-Shore Sediments 531,750$ 1,900,950$ 2,932,934$ 50% 35% 15% 1,371,148$ 4. LBP and ACM Abatement 5,950,000$ -$ Subtotal 8,660,277$ 8,934,808$

Parcel 1 and Parcel 31. Impacted Soils 348,583$ 1,714,346$ 3,851,996$ 35% 50% 15% 1,556,976$ 2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation -$ 334,400$ 963,550$ 45% 35% 20% 309,750$ 3. LBP and ACM Abatement 528,500$ -$ Subtotal 2,048,746$ 1,866,726$

Parcels 2 and 41. Impacted Soils 750,928$ 4,491,093$ 7,714,225$ 35% 50% 15% 3,665,505$ 2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation 278,682$ 536,919$ 615,969$ 15% 50% 35% 525,851$ 3. Steam and Fuel Line Mitigation 198,219$ 297,329$ 396,438$ 20% 50% 30% 307,240$ 4. LBP and ACM Abatement 17,490,000$ -$ Subtotal 5,325,341$ 4,498,596$

Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 81. Impacted Soils 910,179$ 6,064,037$ 15,064,772$ 35% 50% 15% 5,610,297$ 2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation 762,700$ 1,472,800$ 3,284,600$ 25% 50% 25% 1,748,225$ 3. LBP and ACM Abatement 21,060,000$ -$ Subtotal 7,536,837$ 7,358,522$

Groundwater1. Parcels 1 and 3 - UST Residuals Management 55,500$ 145,500$ 268,500$ 25% 50% 25% 153,750$ 2. Parcels 2 and 4 - UST Residuals Management 201,000$ 414,000$ 537,000$ 15% 50% 35% 425,100$ 3. Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 - UST Residuals Management 70,500$ 201,000$ 414,000$ 15% 50% 35% 255,975$ 4. All Parcels - Groundwater Remediation 1,015,000$ 1,595,000$ 3,335,000$ 15% 50% 35% 2,117,000$ Subtotal 2,355,500$ 2,951,825$

Site-wide and Programmatic CostsA. RMP Compliance (security, dust control, etc.) 200,000$ 400,000$ 600,000$ 25% 50% 25% 400,000$ B. IC Implementation (monitoring & enforcement) 500,000$ 750,000$ 1,000,000$ 25% 50% 25% 750,000$ C. Regulatory Oversight 450,000$ 750,000$ 1,200,000$ 25% 50% 25% 787,500$ Subtotal 1,900,000$ 1,937,500$

Total Likely Remedation Cost (excluding buildings) 25,471,201$ Total Probable Remediation Cost (excl. buildings) 27,547,977$ plus LBP and Asbestos Abatement 45,028,500$ 45,028,500$ 45,028,500$ Total Nominal Remediation Cost 70,499,701$ Total Likely Remedation Cost (Expected Value) 72,576,477$

Notes:LBP - Lead-based paintACM - Asbestos-containing materialsUST - Underground storage tankRMP - Risk Management Plan (a.k.a. Site Management Plan)IC - Institutional Controls1 LBP and ACM costs were estimated as a consistent percentage of rehabilitation costs (M. Lee Corporation, 2008); these costs have not been evaluated for likelihood or weighted for probability as part of this probabilistic cost esimate.

Remediation Cost Probabilities


FiguresSampling Location Map

Cost ModelProbability Distribution

Sensitivity AnalysisValue of Control

IllinoisS

treet

3rdS

treet

TennesseeS

treet

20th Street

teertSdn22

teertSht91

18th Street

Parcel 913.19 Acres

Parcel 67.12 AcresParcel 5

4.95 Acres

Parcel 44.78 Acres

Parcel 23.76 Acres

CraneCovePark

7.73 Acres

Parcel 32.07 Acres

Parcel 81.03 AcresParcel 7

1.11 Acres

SlipwayPark

4.89 Acres

Parcel1

1.66Acres

0.41Acres

6

12

113

2

109

11760

38

14

15

116

105108

36

11

114

115

21

101 104102

111

19

40

110

107103

120119

50

PIER 70 AREASan Francisco, California

SAMPLING LOCATION MAPWITH AERIAL PHOTO

Date 08/06/09 Project 4554.02 Figure 1

0 300 600150

Feet

Legend

Parcel BoundaryPier 70 Site Area

Sample Location and MatrixFree ProductSedimentSoilSoil and GroundwaterSoil and Leachate from SoilGroundwaterLeachate from SoilSurface WaterBuilding

Trea

dwel

l&R

ollo

,C: \G

IS\4

554

-Pi e

r70 \

arcm

ap_d

oc\ 2

009\

4 554

-02-

030.

mxd

Notes:

1. Digital orthophotos from California Spatial Information Library(CASIL) UC Davis, ca. 2005, http://archive.casil.ucdavis.edu/casil/

2. Site boundary, parcels, and acreages from ROMA Design Group,Pier 70 Master Plan, 2 Feb 2009

3. Map displayed in California State Plane Coordinate System, ZoneIII, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), US Survey Feet

References:

1. Geo/Resource Consultants Inc, Data Compilation Report, Dec1989

2. ERM, Hazardous Materials Investigation of the Mariposa FacilitiesInvestigation Area, Jan 1990

3. The Mark Group, Amended Report of Waste Discharge, Aug 19904. Tetra Tech, Subsurface Investigation, Dec 19975. Tetra Tech, Subsurface Investigation at Illinois and 20th Streets,

Apr 19996. Ecology and Environment Inc, Phase II Brownfields Targeted Site

Assessment Report, Nov 20007. Ecology and Environment Inc, Pier 70 Mixed Use Opportunity,

Area Expanded Phase II, Targeted Brownfields AssessmentReport, Jan 2004

8. Geomatrix Consultants, Source Investigation Report, Volume I ofII, Mar 2004

9. ERRG Inc, Soil Boring Well Installation - Building 50 PCB RI, Nov2005

10. Treadwell & Rollo Inc, Site Investigation - Pier 70 NortheasternShoreline, Jan 2008

6 August 2009

FIGURE 2 Cost Model for Total Probable Cost of Remediation

Pier 70, San Francisco, California

Crane Cove andSlipway ParksProbable Cost

Parcels1 and 3

Probable Cost

Pier 70Total Cost ofRemediation

Parcels2 and 4

Probable Cost

Parcels 5, 6,7 and 8

Probable CostSitewide USTResiduals Mgmt.& GroundwaterRemediation

Site-wide &Programmatic

CostsParks -Impacted

Soils

Parks -Mass Exc &Removal of

Fill

Parks -Stab./Treatmt.

Sediments

P 1 & 3 -Impacted

Soils

P 1 & 3 -Vapor Intrusion

Mitigation

P 1 & 3 -UST ResidualsManagement

P 2 & 4 -Impacted

Soils

P 2 & 4 -UST ResidualsManagement

P 2 & 4 -Vapor Intrusion

Mitigation

P 5 thru 8 -Impacted

Soils

P 5 thru 8 -UST ResidualsManagement

P 5 thru 8 -Vapor Intrusion

Mitigation

P 2 & 4 -Steam & FuelLine Mitigation

All Parcels -GroundwaterRemediation

Crane Cove and Slipway Parks

Parcels 1 and 3

Parcels 2 and 4

Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8

Groundwater

Sitewide/Programmatic

Notes: 1. The “Expected Value” is the anticipated likely cost of remediation. However, the actual cost could fall anywhere within the range spanned by

the cumulative probability curve. 2. The cost range shown in this figure excludes abatement of lead based paint (LBP) and asbestos containing materials (ACM) within existing

buildings. 6 August 2009

FIGURE 3 Cumulative Probability Distribution

Total Cost of Remediation Pier 70, San Francisco, California

Total Project Cost ($ million)

Cum

ulat

ive

Prob

abilit

y (p

erce

ntile

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Expected Value = $27.5 million

6 August 2009

FIGURE 4 Sensitivity Analysis

Probable Cost of Remediation Pier 70, San Francisco, California

P 5 thru 8 - Impacted Soils

Parks - Impacted Soils

P 2 & 4 - Impacted Soils

P 1 & 3 - Impacted Soils

P 5 thru 8 - Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

Parks - Stab./Treatmt. Sediments

All Parcels - Groundw ater Remediation

Parks - Mass Exc & Removal of Fill

P 1 & 3 - Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

P 5 thru 8 - UST Residuals Management

P 2 & 4 - Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

P 2 & 4 - UST Residuals Management

P 1 & 3 - UST Residuals Management

P 2 & 4 - Steam & Fuel Line Mitigation

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Total Remediation Cost ($ million)

6 August 2009

FIGURE 5 Value of Control

Probable Cost of Remediation Pier 70, San Francisco, California

Tota

l Pro

ject

Cos

t ($

milli

on)

P 5

thru

8 -

Impa

cted

Soi

ls

Park

s - I

mpa

cted

Soi

ls

P 2

& 4

- Im

pact

ed S

oils

P 1

& 3

- Im

pact

ed S

oils

Park

s - S

tab.

/Tre

atm

t. Se

dim

ents

P 5

thru

8 -

Vapo

r Int

rusi

on M

itigat

ion

All P

arce

ls -

Gro

undw

ater

Rem

edia

tion

Park

s - M

ass

Exc

& R

emov

al o

f Fill

P 1

& 3

- Vap

or In

trusi

on M

itigat

ion

P 2

& 4

- UST

Res

idua

ls M

anag

emen

t

P 5

thru

8 -

UST

Res

idua

ls M

anag

emen

P 1

& 3

- UST

Res

idua

ls M

anag

emen

t

P 2

& 4

- Vap

or In

trusi

on M

itigat

ion

P 2

& 4

- Ste

am &

Fue

l Lin

e M

itigat

ion

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Appendix APier 70 Master Plan

(Map)

3.76 AC

1.66 AC

7.73 AC

13.19 AC

2.07 AC

1.53 AC

0.41 AC

4.89 AC

4.78 AC

4.95 AC

7.12 AC

1.03 AC1.11 AC

1

2

34

5

6

Ship Repair

PG&E

Crane Cove Park

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(25’, 1F)

(40’, 4F)

(55’, 4F)

(55’, 4F)

(85’, 6F)

(50’, 6F)

(72’, 4F) (48’, 2F)(60’, 4F)

(62’,1.5F)

(66’,2.5F)

(44’,1.5F)

(59’,3F)

(57’,3F)

(57’,1F)

(37’,2F)

(80’,6F)

(50’, 5F)

87

MUNI Stop(plan)

Ferry TerminalFerry Terminal

(80’, 8F)

Cal Train Station

Wind Spires

Mirant Power Plant

(52’, 1F)

(60’, 4F)

(20’, 1F)

3.76 AC

1.66 AC

7.73 AC

13.19 AC

2.07 AC

1.53 AC

(0.59 AC)

0.41 AC

4.89 AC

4.78 AC

4.95 AC

7.12 AC

1.03 AC1.11 AC

Cal Train Station

MUNI Stop(plan)

Ferry Terminal

Wind SpiresPublic Access onBeakwater

Mirant Power Plant

(Relocated)

(Relocated)

Eure

ka D

ry D

ock

Dry

Do

ck #

2

1

2

87

34

5

6

Ship Repair

PG&E

Crane Cove Park

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)

(90’, 6F)(80’, 8F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(85’, 6F)

(25’, 1F)

(40’, 4F)

(55’, 4F)

(55’, 4F)

(85’, 6F)

(50’, 6F)

(72’, 4F) (48’, 2F)(60’, 4F)

(62’,1.5F)

(66’,2.5F)

(44’,1.5F)

(59’,3F)

(57’,3F)

(57’,1F)

(37’,2F)

(52’, 1F)

(80’,6F)

(50’, 5F)

(60’, 4F)

(20’, 1F)

1A

1B

5B

5C

5A

6A

6B

6C

6D

6E

7A 8A

2A

3A

2B

3B

2C

Pier 70 Total Site Area 65.32 AC

Ship Repair 13.19 AC

Historic Building Footprints* 6.34 AC (276,100 SF)

New Building Pads 12.11 AC (527,200 SF)

Streets 11.08 AC

Parks, Plazas and Pedestrian Ways 22.60 AC

* Not including inside Ship Repair and Crane Cove Park

Very Significant Resource

Significant Resource

Contributing Resource

Open Space

Ship Repair

Contributing Building Removed

New Building Pads

Pier 70 Master PlanPrepared for the Port of San Francisco by Economic & Planning Systems, ROMA Design Group and Associated Consultants

F E B R U A R Y 2 , 2 0 0 9

H I S T O R I C R E S O U R C E S , D E V E L O P M E N T P A R C E L S A N D O P E N S P A C E A R E A S

ROM

A D

esig

n G

rou

p o

wn

s al

l Co

pyr

igh

ts a

nd

oth

er in

telle

ctu

al p

rop

erty

rig

hts

in t

his

wo

rk p

rod

uct

an

d it

is p

rote

cted

by

Un

ited

Sta

tes

cop

yrig

ht

law

s an

d in

tern

atio

nal

tre

aty

pro

visi

on

s.

1000 200 300’N

Appendix BDetailed Cost Estimates

Detailed Cost EstimateCrane Cove and Slipway Parks

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationArea: Crane Cove Park and Slipway Park

Pier 70San Francisco, California

Description Quantity Units Unit Cost Cost

1. Impacted Soils

1.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Capping onlyTotal area, excluding buildings, Crane Cove Park: 332,131 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Slipway Park: 213,008 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, all parcels: 545,139 sf

Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Selective light demolition 10,095 cy 15.00$ 151,427.56$

(assm. (E) pavement/cap in poor condition)Dispose of demolition debris (non-haz) 10,095 cy 30.00$ 302,855.11$ Import, place, compact 2-ft soil cover 545,139 sf

Import clean fill 40,381 cy 30.00$ 1,211,420.44$ Place, compact 6-inch lifts 40,381 cy 5.00$ 201,903.41$ Hydroseed (native grasses) 12.5 ac 20,000.00$ 250,293.48$

Documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 2,149,900.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 107,495.00$ Project Management 5% 107,495.00$ Contingency 20% 429,980.00$ 1.a. Total 2,794,870.00$

1.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario: Capping + Ltd Hotspot Excavation

Capping - subtotal (from "low" cost scenario above) 1 ls 2,149,900.00$ Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Survey excavation locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 5 ft bgs

Excavation 1 (CCP: west of slipway) 7,500 sfExcavation 2 (CCP: inland end of slipway) 2,500 sfExcavation 3 - 6 (Slipway Park) 40,000 sfTotal Excavation Area 50,000 sf

Excavate soil (total) 9,259 cy 10.00$ 92,592.59$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 12,037 cy 85.00$ 1,023,148.15$ Import clean fill, place and compact 9,259 cy 30.00$ 277,777.78$

Stockpile sampling 10 each 10.00$ 100.00$ (assm. 1 per 1,000 cy, 1 dup.)Laboratory analysis

TPH 10 each 45.00$ 450.00$ CAM 17 metals 10 each 90.00$ 900.00$ SVOCs 10 each 265.00$ 2,650.00$ STLC/TTLC (allowance) 2 each 65.00$ 130.00$

Confirmation sampling 42 each 10.00$ 420.00$ (assm. 4 sides, bottom, 1 dup. for each excavation)Laboratory analysis

TPH 42 each 45.00$ 1,890.00$ CAM 17 metals 42 each 90.00$ 3,780.00$ SVOCs 42 each 265.00$ 11,130.00$

Revision 1 1 of 6 6 August 2009




Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 2,275.00$ 2,275.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Data validation, report 4 hrs 150.00$ 600.00$ Database update 2 hrs 125.00$ 250.00$

Documentation 1 ls 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$ Subtotal 3,619,993.52$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 180,999.68$ Project Management 5% 180,999.68$ Contingency 25% 904,998.38$ 1.b. Total 4,886,991.25$

1.c. "High" Cost Scenario: Capping + Expanded Hotspot Excavations

Capping - subtotal (from "low" cost scenario above) 1 ls 2,149,900.00$ Field supervision 20 days 1,200.00$ 24,000.00$ Survey excavation locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 8 ft bgs

Excavation 1 (CCP: west of slipway) 11,250 sfExcavation 2 (CCP: inland end of slipway) 3,750 sfExcavation 3 - 6 (Slipway Park) 160,000 sfTotal Excavation Area 175,000 sf

Excavate soil (total) 51,852 cy 10.00$ 518,518.52$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 67,407 cy 85.00$ 5,729,629.63$ Surcharge for Cal-haz disposal (10% of volume) 6,741 cy 95.00$ 640,370.37$ Import clean fill, place and compact 51,852 cy 30.00$ 1,555,555.56$


TPH 68 each 45.00$ 3,060.00$ CAM 17 metals 68 each 90.00$ 6,120.00$ SVOCs 68 each 265.00$ 18,020.00$ STLC/TTLC (allowance) 4 each 65.00$ 260.00$


TPH 42 each 45.00$ 1,890.00$ CAM 17 metals 42 each 90.00$ 3,780.00$ SVOCs 42 each 265.00$ 11,130.00$ Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 13,940.00$ 13,940.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Data validation, report 8 hrs 150.00$ 1,200.00$ Database update 4 hrs 125.00$ 500.00$

Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Subtotal 10,723,974.07$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 536,198.70$ Project Management 5% 536,198.70$ Contingency 25% 2,680,993.52$ 1.c. Total 14,477,365.00$





2. Mass Excavation & Removal of Fill, RegradingAssm. removal of upper 2 ft of soil in limited areasAssm. import & placement of clean fill via capping (above)

2.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Limited exc.

Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Excavation - debris, metal slag, soil

(assm. non-RCRA haz. disposal)Excavate soil, 25% of total area, 1 ft depth avg. 5,048 cy 10.00$ 50,475.85$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 6,562 cy 85.00$ 557,758.16$



Survey excavation 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Regrading 15,143 sy 5.00$ 75,713.78$ Database update 1 hrs 125.00$ 125.00$ Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ Subtotal 718,482.79$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 107,772.42$ Project Management 10% 71,848.28$ Contingency 30% 215,544.84$ 2.a. Total 1,113,648.33$

2.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario: Limited exc.


(assm. non-RCRA haz. disposal)Excavate soil, 25% of total area, 2 ft depth avg. 10,095 cy 10.00$ 100,951.70$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 13,124 cy 85.00$ 1,115,516.33$



Survey excavation 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Regrading 5,556 sy 5.00$ 27,777.78$ Database update 2 hrs 125.00$ 250.00$ Documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$





Subtotal 1,291,265.81$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 129,126.58$ Project Management 5% 64,563.29$ Contingency 30% 387,379.74$ 2.b. Total 1,872,335.42$

2.c. "High" Cost Scenario: Extensive exc.


(assm. non-RCRA haz. disposal)Excavate soil, 35% of total area, 2 ft depth avg. 14,133 cy 10.00$ 141,332.39$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 18,373 cy 85.00$ 1,561,722.86$ Surcharge for Cal-haz disposal (20% of volume) 3,675 cy 95.00$ 349,090.99$


TPH 16 each 45.00$ 720.00$ CAM 17 metals 16 each 90.00$ 1,440.00$ SVOCs 16 each 265.00$ 4,240.00$ STLC/TTLC (allowance) 4 each 65.00$ 260.00$

Survey excavation 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Regrading 8,889 sy 5.00$ 44,444.44$ Database update 3 hrs 125.00$ 375.00$ Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 2,156,785.68$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 8% 172,542.85$ Project Management 5% 107,839.28$ Contingency 30% 647,035.70$ 2.c. Total 3,084,203.52$





3. Stabilization or Treatment of Near-Shore SedimentsAssm. purpose is protection of shoreline visitors/usersEst. approx. 1,200 lf of shoreline (500 lf at Crane Cove Park and 700 lf at Slipway Park)Assm. dilneation is complete or not needed

3.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Minimal Action

Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Furnish & install mats/webbing (1,200' x 20') 24,000 sf 12.00$ 288,000.00$ Furnish & install granular material (12 in. thick) 890 cy 50.00$ 44,500.00$ Documentation 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Subtotal 354,500.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 70,900.00$ Project Management 10% 35,450.00$ Contingency 20% 70,900.00$ 3.a. Total 531,750.00$

3.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario:In-situ treatment of sedimentsAssm. 1,200 ft of shoreline, 100 ft from shore, treat to depth of 1 ft.

Field supervision 30 days 1,200.00$ 36,000.00$ In-situ treatment with AC (turnkey service by sub) 120,000 sf 10.00$ 1,200,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Subtotal 1,311,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 262,200.00$ Project Management 5% 65,550.00$ Contingency 20% 262,200.00$ 3.b. Total 1,900,950.00$

3.c. "High" Cost Scenario: Armored capAssm. 1,200 ft of shoreline, 100 ft from shore, stone cap

Field supervision 30 days 1,200.00$ 36,000.00$ Install armored cap (turnkey service by sub) 2.8 ac 529,600.00$ 1,458,953.17$ Fund for long-term O&M (NPV) & monitoring 1 ls 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 100,000.00$ 100,000.00$ Subtotal 2,094,953.17$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 314,242.98$ Project Management 5% 104,747.66$ Contingency 20% 418,990.63$ 3.c. Total 2,932,934.44$





4. LBP and ACM AbatementBasis: M.Lee cost estimate for haz-mat abatement (July 2008)If no estimate by M.Lee, then assm. $50-$75/sf of building footprint area

Building 6: Light Warehouse #6 1 ls 2,910,000.00$ 2,910,000.00$ Building 50: (Pier 68 (Slip #4) Substation #2 1 ls 80,000.00$ 80,000.00$ Building 52: within BAE lease 20,000 sf 50.00$ 1,000,000.00$ Building 110: Yard Washroom & Locker Room 1 ls 260,000.00$ 260,000.00$ Subtotal 4,250,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 425,000.00$ Project Management 10% 425,000.00$ Contingency 20% 850,000.00$ 4. Total 5,950,000.00$

Note:1. LBP and ACM abatement costs are included in Table 2, but are not included in the probabilistic cost model (Figures 2 and 3).


Detailed Cost EstimateParcels 1 and 3

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationArea: Parcel 1 and Parcel 3



1. Impacted Soils

1.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Capping onlyTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 1: 35,010 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 3: 25,700 sfTotal area, excluding buildings: 60,710 sf



Import clean fill 4,497 cy 30.00$ 134,911.11$ Place, compact 6-inch lifts 4,497 cy 5.00$ 22,485.19$ Hydroseed (native grasses) 1.0 ac 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ Subtotal 248,987.96$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 24,898.80$ Project Management 10% 24,898.80$ Contingency 20% 49,797.59$ 1.a. Total 348,583.15$


Capping - subtotal (from "low" cost scenario above) 1 ls 248,987.96$ Field supervision 5 days 1,200.00$ 6,000.00$ Survey excavation location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 5 ft bgs

Excavation 1 (Parcel 1) 10,000 sfExcavation 2 (Parcel 3) 20,000 sfExcavation 3 - 4 (Parcel 3) 5,000 sfTotal Excavation Area 35,000 sf

Excavate soil (total) 6,481 cy 10.00$ 64,814.81$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 8,426 cy 85.00$ 716,203.70$ Import clean fill, place and compact 6,481 cy 30.00$ 194,444.44$









Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 1,605.00$ 1,605.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 500.00$ 500.00$ Data validation, report 4 hrs 150.00$ 600.00$ Database update 2 hrs 125.00$ 250.00$



Capping - subtotal 1 ls 248,987.96$ Field supervision 8 days 1,200.00$ 9,600.00$ Survey excavation location 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 8 ft bgs

Excavation 1 (Parcel 1) 15,000 sfExcavation 2 (Parcel 3) 30,000 sfExcavation 3 - 4 (Parcel 3) 7,500 sfTotal Excavation Area 52,500 sf

Excavate soil (total) 15,556 cy 10.00$ 155,555.56$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 20,222 cy 85.00$ 1,718,888.89$ Surcharge for Cal-haz disposal (10% of volume) 2,022 cy 95.00$ 192,111.11$ Import clean fill, place and compact 15,556 cy 30.00$ 466,666.67$




TPH 28 each 45.00$ 1,260.00$ CAM 17 metals 28 each 90.00$ 2,520.00$ SVOCs 28 each 265.00$ 7,420.00$ Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 4,470.00$ 4,470.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Data validation, report 8 hrs 150.00$ 1,200.00$ Database update 4 hrs 125.00$ 500.00$

Documentation 1 ls 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$ Subtotal 2,853,330.19$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 142,666.51$ Project Management 5% 142,666.51$ Contingency 25% 713,332.55$ 1.c. Total 3,851,995.75$





2. Vapor Intrusion Mitigation

2.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: No VI conditions identified

2.a. Total -$

2.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario: VMS reqd. for 1 building

VMS for Building 1B, Parcel 1 17,000 sf 10.00$ 170,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting system

Construction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 220,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 25% 55,000.00$ Project Management 7% 15,400.00$ Contingency 20% 44,000.00$ 2.b. Total 334,400.00$

2.c. "High" Cost Scenario: VMS reqd. for 2 buildings



Construction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Subtotal 688,250.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 103,237.50$ Project Management 5% 34,412.50$ Contingency 20% 137,650.00$ 2.c. Total 963,550.00$






Twigg/Kneass Building 7,550 sf 50.00$ 377,500.00$ Subtotal 377,500.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 37,750.00$ Project Management 10% 37,750.00$ Contingency 20% 75,500.00$ 3. Total 528,500.00$



Detailed Cost EstimateParcels 2 and 4

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationArea: Parcels 2 and 4



1. Impacted Soils

1.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Capping onlyTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 2: 80,367 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 4: 43,945 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, all parcels: 124,311 sf






Capping - subtotal (from "low" cost scenario above) 1 ls 517,881.65$ Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Survey excavation location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 5 ft bgs

Excavation 1 - 3 (Parcel 2, PAHs) 42,500 sfExcavation 4 - 5 (Parcel 2, metals) 20,625 sfExcavation 6 - 10 (assm. Parcel 3 similar to 2) 34,517 sfTotal Excavation Area 97,642 sf










Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 4,215.00$ 4,215.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Data validation, report 8 hrs 150.00$ 1,200.00$ Database update 4 hrs 125.00$ 500.00$


1.c. "High" Cost Scenario: Capping + Greater Hotspot Excavations per parcel

Capping - subtotal 1 ls 517,881.65$ Field supervision 20 days 1,200.00$ 24,000.00$ Survey excavation locations 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 8 ft bgs

Excavation 1 - 3 (Parcel 2, PAHs) 47,500 sfExcavation 4 - 5 (Parcel 2, metals) 20,938 sfExcavation 6 - 10 (assm. Parcel 3 similar to 2) 10,806 sfTotal Excavation Area 79,243 sf

Excavate soil (total) 23,480 cy 10.00$ 234,795.32$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 30,523 cy 85.00$ 2,594,488.30$ Surcharge for Cal-haz disposal (10% of volume) 3,052 cy 95.00$ 2,230,555.56$ Import clean fill, place and compact 23,480 cy 30.00$ 960.00$



Confirmation sampling 70 each 10.00$ 700.00$ (assm. 4 sides, bottom, 1 dup.)Laboratory analysis

TPH 70 each 45.00$ 3,150.00$ CAM 17 metals 70 each 90.00$ 6,300.00$ SVOCs 70 each 265.00$ 18,550.00$ Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 6,880.00$ 6,880.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Data validation, report 24 hrs 150.00$ 3,600.00$ Database update 8 hrs 125.00$ 1,000.00$

Documentation 1 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Subtotal 5,714,240.83$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 285,712.04$ Project Management 5% 285,712.04$ Contingency 25% 1,428,560.21$ 1.c. Total 7,714,225.12$






2.a. "Low" Cost ScenarioAssm. Needed due to low-level UST residuals @ Bldg. 113

Retrofit VMS for Building 113 (25%), Parcel 4 21,028 sf 7.00$ 147,194.25$ incl. sub-slab venting system, no membraneConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 192,194.25$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 28,829.14$ Project Management 10% 19,219.43$ Contingency 20% 38,438.85$ 2.a. Total 278,681.66$

2.b. "Nominal" Cost ScenarioAssm. needed due to elevated UST residuals @ Bldg. 113


Retrofit VMS for Building 14, Parcel 4 16,315 sf 7.00$ 114,205.00$ incl. sub-slab venting system, no membraneConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Subtotal 346,399.25$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 25% 86,599.81$ Project Management 10% 34,639.93$ Contingency 20% 69,279.85$ 2.b. Total 536,918.84$

2.c. "High" Cost ScenarioAssm. needed due to elevated UST residuals @ Bldg. 113




Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Subtotal 397,399.25$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 25% 99,349.81$ Project Management 10% 39,739.93$ Contingency 20% 79,479.85$ 2.c. Total 615,968.84$





3. Steam and Fuel Line Mitigation

3.a. "Low" Cost ScenarioAssm. scope: only lines within Parcels 2 & 4

Length of fuel line: 100 lf% impacted: 75% 75 lf

Length of steam line: 720 lf% impacted: 10% 144 lfassm. steam line has condensate return line

Total length requiring investigation: 1,540 lfUnimpacted lines (assm. can be closed in-place) 1,321 lf

Perform reconnaissance/survey of lines 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Field supervision 10 days 1,200.00$ 12,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Surveying 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Misc. demolition (pavement, fixtures, boxes) 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Investigation (1 location per 50 ft of line) 31 locs

Wipe sampling 31 ea 20.00$ 620.00$ Laboratory analysis

CAM 17 metals 31 each 90.00$ 2,790.00$ TPH 31 each 45.00$ 1,395.00$

Close in-placePressure grouting of lines 1,321 lf 20.00$ 26,420.00$ Trench plugs 8 ea 250.00$ 2,000.00$

Remove impacted linesExcavation of soil/debris (backhoe, hand) 109 cy 100.00$ 10,888.89$ Trans. & disposal of soil/debris (non-RCRA haz.) 142 cy 85.00$ 12,032.22$


3.b. "Nominal" Cost ScenarioAssm. more lines than shown on Bethlehem drawing

"Low" cost scenario total + 50% 1 ls 297,328.75$ 3.b. Total 297,328.75$

3.c. "High" Cost ScenarioAssm. more lines than shown on Bethlehem drawingAlllow for potential asbestos (ACM) related to steam piping

"Low" cost scenario total + 100% 1 ls 396,438.33$ 3.c. Total 396,438.33$






Parcel 2:Building 101 (UIW Main Office/Admin. Building) 1 ls 3,640,000.00$ 2,590,000.00$ Building 102 (Powerhouse #1) 1 ls 650,000.00$ 650,000.00$ Building 104 (UIW Office/Indust. Relations Bldg.) 1 ls 2,590,000.00$ 2,590,000.00$

Parcel 4:Building 113-114 (Union Iron Work Machine Shop) 1 ls 7,160,000.00$ 7,160,000.00$ Building 115-116 (Foundry and Warehouse) 1 ls 4,500,000.00$ 4,500,000.00$

Subtotal 17,490,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 874,500.00$ Project Management 5% 874,500.00$ Contingency 20% 3,498,000.00$ 4. Total 17,490,000.00$



Detailed Cost EstimateParcels 5, 6, 7 and 8

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationArea: Parcels 5, 6, 7 and 8



1. Impacted Soils

1.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Capping onlyTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 5: 82,722 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 6: 85,267 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 7: 72 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, Parcel 8: 693 sfTotal area, excluding buildings, all parcels: 168,754 sf




Documentation 1.0 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Subtotal 700,138.02$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 35,006.90$ Project Management 5% 35,006.90$ Contingency 20% 140,027.60$ 1.a. Total 910,179.42$

1.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario: Capping + Ltd Hotspot ExcavationAssm. similar to Parcel 2 and proportional to surface area of parcel.

Capping - subtotal (from "low" cost scenario above) 1 ls 700,138.02$ Field supervision 2 days 1,200.00$ 2,400.00$ Survey excavation location 1 ls 500.00$ 500.00$ Utility location 1 ls 500.00$ 500.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 5 ft bgs

Excavations, Parcel 5 64,937 sfExcavations, Parcel 6 66,935 sfExcavations, Parcel 7 56 sfExcavations, Parcel 8 544 sfTotal Excavation Area 132,472 sf




Confirmation sampling 70 each 10.00$ 700.00$ (assm. 4 sides, bottom, 1 dup. for each excavation)





Laboratory analysisTPH 70 each 45.00$ 3,150.00$ CAM 17 metals 70 each 90.00$ 6,300.00$ SVOCs 70 each 265.00$ 18,550.00$ Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 5,615.00$ 5,615.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 500.00$ 500.00$ Data validation, report 3 hrs 150.00$ 450.00$ Database update 2 hrs 125.00$ 250.00$

Documentation 1.0 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Subtotal 4,491,879.28$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 224,593.96$ Project Management 5% 224,593.96$ Contingency 25% 1,122,969.82$ 1.b. Total 6,064,037.03$


Capping - subtotal 1 ls 700,138.02$ Field supervision 20 days 1,200.00$ 24,000.00$ Survey excavation location 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Utility location 1 ls 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$ Excavation (assm. non-RCRA haz), 8 ft bgs

Excavations, Parcel 5 97,405 sfExcavations, Parcel 6 100,402 sfExcavations, Parcel 7 84 sfExcavations, Parcel 8 816 sfTotal Excavation Area 198,708 sf

Excavate soil (total) 58,876 cy 10.00$ 588,763.26$ Transport & dispose of exc. soil off-site 76,539 cy 85.00$ 6,505,834.00$ Surcharge for Cal-haz disposal (20% of volume) 15,308 cy 95.00$ 1,454,245.25$ Import clean fill, place and compact 58,876 cy 30.00$ 1,766,289.77$



Confirmation sampling 70 each 10.00$ 700.00$ (assm. 4 sides, bottom, 1 dup.)Laboratory analysis

TPH 70 each 45.00$ 3,150.00$ CAM 17 metals 70 each 90.00$ 6,300.00$ SVOCs 70 each 265.00$ 18,550.00$ Stepout sampling (allowance) 1 ls 16,080.00$ 16,080.00$ Survey sampling locations 1 ls 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$ Data validation, report 12 hrs 150.00$ 1,800.00$ Database update 8 hrs 125.00$ 1,000.00$

Documentation 1.0 ls 35,000.00$ 35,000.00$





Subtotal 11,159,090.29$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 557,954.51$ Project Management 5% 557,954.51$ Contingency 25% 2,789,772.57$ 1.c. Total 15,064,771.90$






2.a. "Low" Cost ScenarioAssm. needed due to VOCs from DNAPL plume from adjacent property

VMS for Building 8A, Parcel 8 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab venting system, no membraneConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 526,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 78,900.00$ Project Management 10% 52,600.00$ Contingency 20% 105,200.00$ 2.a. Total 762,700.00$

2.b. "Nominal" Cost ScenarioAssm. needed due to VOCs from adjacent property DNAPL plumeAssm plume is more extensive than "low" scenario

VMS for Building 8A, Parcel 8 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

VMS for Building 6E, Parcel 6 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ Subtotal 1,052,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 105,200.00$ Project Management 10% 105,200.00$ Contingency 20% 210,400.00$ 2.b. Total 1,472,800.00$

2.c. "High" Cost ScenarioAssm. needed due to VOCs from adjacent property DNAPL plumeAssm plume is more extensive than "nominal" scenario

VMS for Building 8A, Parcel 8 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

VMS for Building 6D, Parcel 6 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

VMS for Building 6E, Parcel 6 47,600 sf 10.00$ 476,000.00$ incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$


VMS for Building 7A, Parcel 7 48,280 sf 10.00$ 482,800.00$





incl. sub-slab membrane and venting systemConstruction oversight/inspection/documentation 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$

Monitoring program (allowance), NPV 1 ls 125,000.00$ 125,000.00$ Subtotal 2,346,143.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 10% 234,614.30$ Project Management 10% 234,614.30$ Contingency 20% 469,228.60$ 2.c. Total 3,284,600.20$






Parcel 5:Building 2 (Warehouse #2) 1 ls 4,140,000.00$ 4,140,000.00$ Building 12 (Plate Shop #2) 1 ls 12,060,000.00$ 12,060,000.00$

Subtotal 16,200,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 5% 810,000.00$ Project Management 5% 810,000.00$ Contingency 20% 3,240,000.00$ 3. Total 21,060,000.00$



Detailed Cost EstimateGroundwater

Cost Estimate for Environmental RemediationSitewide UST Residuals and Groundwater Remediation



1. Parcels 1 and 3 - UST Residuals ManagementAssm. minimal residuals from previous UST removal on Parcel 1Nominal and high cost scenarios reflect "allowance" for potential additional work

1.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Short-term monitoring to confirm OK

Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ Subtotal 37,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 7,400.00$ Project Management 10% 3,700.00$ Contingency 20% 7,400.00$ 1.a. Total 55,500.00$

1.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario: Limited in-situ treatment

Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Subtotal 97,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 19,400.00$ Project Management 10% 9,700.00$ Contingency 20% 19,400.00$ 1.b. Total 145,500.00$

1.c. "High" Cost Scenario: In-situ treatment

Install & develop 3-4 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Subtotal 179,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 35,800.00$ Project Management 10% 17,900.00$ Contingency 20% 35,800.00$ 1.c. Total 268,500.00$





2. Parcels 2 and 4 - UST Residuals ManagementAssmumptions for "low" cost scenario:

Parcel 2: Install 1-2 wells to confirm OK (behind Bldg. 101)Parcel 4: Minimal residuals management in new park/square

Nominal and high cost scenarios reflect "allowance" for potential additional work

2.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Mostly short-term monitoring to confirm OK

Parcel 2:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Parcel 4:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Subtotal 134,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 26,800.00$ Project Management 10% 13,400.00$ Contingency 20% 26,800.00$ 2.a. Total 201,000.00$


Parcel 2:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Parcel 4:Install & develop 3-4 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Subtotal 276,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 55,200.00$ Project Management 10% 27,600.00$ Contingency 20% 55,200.00$ 2.b. Total 414,000.00$


Parcel 2:





Install & develop 3-4 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Parcel 4:Install & develop 3-4 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Subtotal 358,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 71,600.00$ Project Management 10% 35,800.00$ Contingency 20% 71,600.00$ 2.c. Total 537,000.00$





3. Parcels 5, 6, 7, and 8 - UST Residuals ManagementAssmumptions for "low" cost scenario:

Parcel 5: No actionParcel 7: Install 1-2 wells to confirm OK (from adjacent powerplant)

Nominal and high cost scenarios reflect "allowance" for potential additional workHigh cost scenario reflects impacts from adjacent powerplant requiring mitigation

3.a. "Low" Cost Scenario: Mostly short-term monitoring to confirm OK

Parcel 5:No action 1 ls -$ -$

Parcel 7:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysies at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Subtotal 47,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 9,400.00$ Project Management 10% 4,700.00$ Contingency 20% 9,400.00$ 3.a. Total 70,500.00$


Parcel 5:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$

Parcel 7:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$

Subtotal 134,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 26,800.00$ Project Management 10% 13,400.00$ Contingency 20% 26,800.00$ 3.b. Total 201,000.00$


Parcel 5:Install & develop 1-2 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 4,000.00$ 4,000.00$





Documentation 1 ls 25,000.00$ 25,000.00$ Parcel 7:

Install & develop 3-4 new g.w. monitoring wells 1 ls 16,000.00$ 16,000.00$ Sampling & analysis at new well(s) 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$ Decomissioning of well(s) 1 ls 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ In-situ treatment w/ORC (turnkey by sub) 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000.00$ Documentation 1 ls 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Subtotal 276,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 20% 55,200.00$ Project Management 10% 27,600.00$ Contingency 20% 55,200.00$ 3.c. Total 414,000.00$





4. All Parcels - Groundwater Remediation"Low" cost scenario reflects relatively low impacts across site"Nominal" cost scenario reflects moderate impacts across site"High" cost scenario reflects unexpectedly extensive impacts across site

4.a. "Low" Cost Scenario

Parcel 1:No impacts 1 ls -$ -$

Parcel 2:Delineate, monitor 1 metals plume 1 ls 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$

Parcel 3:Delineate, monitor 1 pest./VOC/SVOC plume 1 ls 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$




Parcels 7/8:Delineate, remediate, monitor DNAPL plume 1 ls 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$

Subtotal 700,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 105,000.00$ Project Management 10% 70,000.00$ Contingency 20% 140,000.00$ 4.a. Total 1,015,000.00$

4.b. "Nominal" Cost Scenario






Parcel 6:Delineate, remediate, monitor 1 small plume 1 ls 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$

Parcels 7/8:Delineate, remediate, monitor 1 small plume 1 ls 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ Delineate, monitor DNAPL plume 1 ls 150,000.00$ 150,000.00$

Subtotal 1,100,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 165,000.00$ Project Management 10% 110,000.00$ Contingency 20% 220,000.00$





4.b. Total 1,595,000.00$

4.c. "High" Cost Scenario: Remediation


Parcel 2:Delineate, remediate, monitor 1 metals plume 1 ls 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$




Parcel 6:Delineate, remediate, monitor 1 small plume 1 ls 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$

Parcels 7/8:Delineate, remediate, monitor 1 small plume 1 ls 250,000.00$ 250,000.00$ Install hydraulic control measures 1 ls 500,000.00$ 500,000.00$ Delineate, remediate, monitor DNAPL plume 1 ls 350,000.00$ 350,000.00$

Subtotal 2,300,000.00$ Planning, engineering, design/construction docs. 15% 345,000.00$ Project Management 10% 230,000.00$ Contingency 20% 460,000.00$ 4.c. Total 3,335,000.00$


probabilistic cost estimate for remediation of ... · francisco ship repair (bae), which continues...

Documents