DIQUE FLOTANTE REPARACION

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DRYDOCK NO.1 MARINE SURVEY, STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Rev. 1)

July 31 2007 PREPARED BY: MOFFATT & NICHOL LEE INCORPORATED KINNETIC LABORATORIES INC. CMS MARINE SERVICES

M&N Project No. 5276-15

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................1 1.2 KEY MARINE SURVEY FINDINGS................................................................................................2 1.3 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING FINDINGS...........................................................................2

2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 5

3 SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 6

4 MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 7 4.1 METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................................................................7

4.1.1 Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles .....................................................................................7 4.1.2 Asbestos Containing Materials .....................................................................................................7 4.1.3 PCB containing materials.............................................................................................................7 4.1.4 Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments............................................................................7

4.2 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................8 4.2.1 Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles .....................................................................................8 4.2.2 Asbestos Containing Materials .....................................................................................................9 4.2.3 PCB Containing Materials .........................................................................................................10 4.2.4 Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments..........................................................................10 4.2.5 Treated Wood..............................................................................................................................11

5 MARINE SURVEY & STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 12 5.1 METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................................12 5.2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION ........................................................................................................12

5.2.1 Hull Condition ............................................................................................................................12 5.2.2 Wing Compartments Condition...................................................................................................12 5.2.3 Towing Hardware Condition ......................................................................................................13 5.2.4 Hull Strength...............................................................................................................................13

5.3 SUITABILITY FOR TOW ..............................................................................................................14 5.3.1 Wet Tow ......................................................................................................................................14 5.3.2 Dry Tow ......................................................................................................................................14

6 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS.......................................................................................................... 15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 ....................................................................................................................................................... 17

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Measured water depths in buoyancy compartments.................................................................... 18 Table 2 - Estimated water volumes in wing compartments ........................................................................ 18 Table 3 – Measured Freeboards at corners of the Drydock ........................................................................ 18

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 – Aft, starboard view of Drydock #1.................................................................................... 19 Photograph 2 – Aft end outriggers (stowed on deck) ................................................................................ 19 Photograph 3 – Typical pontoon deck stiffening & transverse frame truss................................................ 20 Photograph 4 – Typical transverse truss frames and pillars between pontoon deck and bottom shell ....... 20 Photograph 5 – Typical water tight door access opening to wing compartment ........................................ 21 Photograph 6 – Pontoon deck condition showing heavy corrosion............................................................ 21 Photograph 7 – Port forward wing compartment interior damage from grounding.................................... 22 Photograph 8 – Port forward exterior damage from grounding.................................................................. 22 Photograph 9 – Typical corrosion and sediments in a corner wing compartment ...................................... 23 Photograph 10 – Typical patching on inside of starboard wing shell ......................................................... 23 Photograph 11 – Port side typical patching on outside shell ...................................................................... 24 Photograph 12 – Plywood patching (port, forward) ................................................................................... 24 Photograph 13 – Double mooring bitt & chock – typical at four corners................................................... 25 Photograph 14 – Close-up of mooring bit doubler plate – typical Note that the weld securing the doubler plate to the deck plate is missing ................................................................................................................ 25 Photograph 15 – Existing chain around web frames, forward starboard corner ......................................... 26

APPENDIX A..........................................................................................................................................A-1

APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................................... B-1

APPENDIX C..........................................................................................................................................C-1

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CAM COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING

CCR CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

DHS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HSWP HEALTH AND SAFETY WORK PLAN

LBP LEAD BASED PAINT

LCP LEAD CONTAINING PAINT

OSHA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

PAH POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON

PCB POLYCHLORINATED BI-PHENYL

PEL PERMISSABLE EXPOSURE LIMIT

PPM PARTS PER MILLION

PPT PARTS PER THOUSAND

RFP REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SAP SAMPLING AND ANALYSES PLAN

SAR SUPPLIED AIR RESPIRATOR

STLC SOLUBLE THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION

TSI THERMAL SYSTEMS INSULATION

TTLC TOTAL THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION

WET WASTE EXTRACTION TEST

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 INTRODUCTION Drydock No. 1 is a 65 year old all riveted and welded steel floating drydock currently tied up at Pier 68 in the Port of San Francisco. The dry dock hull is approximately 584 ft. long by 128 ft. wide. It shows evidence of severe deterioration and poor maintenance. The Port wants to develop an RFP document that would allow it to obtain credible and competitive bids to dispose of the drydock. The purpose of this investigation is to develop data on certain safety and environmental hazards associated with the drydock that would impact work on the vessel or pose problems with its disposal. These data will be used in the development of the RFP. A team comprised of Moffatt & Nichol, Kinnetic Laboratories, LEE Inc. and Commercial Marine Services was retained by the Port to perform the following tasks:

• Conduct a reconnaissance survey of the drydock to identify suspected environmental/safety hazards and prepare a Health and Safety Work Plan, and an Environmental Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)

• Conduct the Environmental Sampling and Analyses per plan. • Conduct a Marine Survey of the drydock to assess its readiness to undergo a wet or dry

trip-in-tow to a site for dismantling. The reconnaissance survey took place in May 2006 and determined access requirements, particularly to the compartments in the wing walls and the main hull. Safety issues were evaluated for future entry into the compartments by personnel. The Health and Safety Work Plan and the Environmental Sampling and Analyses Plan were submitted to the Port in June 2006. The Sampling and Analyses Plan included the following potential environmental hazards in this investigation: Hazard Location Reporter Lead in Paint Painted Surfaces LEE, Inc. CAM-17 Metals in Corrosion Debris

Corrosion / Debris Piles LEE, Inc.

Asbestos Containing Materials Control Room Panels, Epoxy Deck Coatings, Thermal Systems Insulation, Debris Piles, Gasketing, Weather-stripping and wiring insulation

LEE, Inc.

PCB’s Light Ballasts and machinery oils LEE, Inc. Sediment Accumulation (full scan chemistry)

Hull compartments Kinnetic Laboratories

Water Accumulation (full scan chemistry)

Hull compartments Kinnetic Laboratories

1

Compositing of Samples from multiple similar locations was necessary to control the number of samples and attendant costs for analytical chemistry. The sediment and water samples were obtained from 35 compartments (2 hull compartments and 3 wing compartments were inaccessible). Proportional composites based on compartment dimensions and sediment or water depths were formed, grouping the composites by location and sediment color or water clarity. The amount of sediment or water in each compartment was estimated from depth measurements and compartment dimensions. The Environmental Sampling and Marine Survey took place in March 2007. The results of the LEE, Inc. investigations are reported in Appendix A, and of the Kinnetic Laboratories in Appendix B. The report of the Marine Survey is presented in Appendix C. 1.2 KEY MARINE SURVEY FINDINGS The Marine Survey noted that the drydock was in such poor condition that it is not practical to consider repair to continue in its intended service; the only use for which it should be considered is salvage scrap metal. The estimated scrap value given was about $600,000 (April 2007), but the market value would be considerably less because allowances must be made for the cost to clean and tow the vessel to a site for dismantling. The Marine Survey concluded that the drydock was in satisfactory condition to undergo a terminal inshore Wet Tow to a site for dismantling, provided the tow preparation repairs and the towing plan as recommended in the Commercial Marine Services Report are complied with. Among the recommendations is the requirement to evacuate all floatation compartments and prove that the compartments are tight from the sea. The Marine Survey also noted that even though the drydock could fit on the deck of a “heavy lift” ship for a Dry Tow, the price of mobilizing a suitable Dry Tow vessel to the Port of San Francisco for this purpose would likely prove cost prohibitive when compared to other options. Furthermore there is a high probability that the wasted structure of the drydock would collapse on the deck of the ship due to the stress placed on it during a sea voyage, so only an inshore trip could be considered in any case. 1.3 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING FINDINGS The requirements for cleaning the drydock to remove objectionable materials prior to dismantling will be determined by the acceptance criteria/contract terms of the salvage contractor and of any permits required to move the drydock to the dismantling site. The following cleaning recommendations are based on a discussion with a major metal recycler in the Bay Area. Asbestos was found in the samples of pipe thermal insulation, electric switch panel and wire insulation, woven gaskets on compartment access hatches, control room Transite panels and weather stripping, and in the epoxy deck coating. Asbestos is also assumed to be found in the brake/clutch components of the capstan units, and possibly in the packing glands of the pumps. Certain asbestos-containing materials must be remidiated prior to dismantling the drydock. The removal and disposal of the various ACM’s can be accomplished with commercially available

2

technology as recommended by LEE Inc. Details on the regulatory requirements governing the abatement of the various ACM’s is provided in the Appendix. Lead was detected in paint samples taken from both the exterior and interior surfaces of the drydock. Removal of the intact lead paint is not required according to the recycler. Nevertheless, the lead content of the paints does impact worker protection requirements during the dismantling operation. Typical dismantling operations, including torch cutting of surfaces with intact lead paint, will require worker protection including the use of SAR’s. However, cutting of the heavily corroded areas with only residual paint may not, but this would need to be confirmed by exposure monitoring at the time the work is performed. Piles of corrosion/sediment debris found on various deck surfaces contained copper and lead at elevated levels and their removal is required. While the metal content in the samples was below CCR Title 22 TTLC criteria for hazardous waste, it exceeded the trigger criteria for conducting a WET test in several samples. The results of the WET test on those samples indicated that copper and lead levels exceeded the Title 22 STLC criteria for hazardous waste. Since the occurrence of such elevated levels was not consistent, it may be that there are “hot spots” among the debris piles. However, sampling and analyses during cleaning to aid in segregating elevated lead/copper content debris is not recommended by LEE Inc. as it will likely not prove cost effective, even if the debris piles as a whole must be handled as Class I Hazardous Waste. PCB’s are assumed to be present in the control room light ballasts. There are an estimated 15 ballasts which should be removed. PCB’s were not detected in the samples of oil and grease taken from drydock capstans. Nevertheless, an estimated 25 gallons of gear oils and lubricating grease should be removed during cleaning, as well as other gross petroleum contamination, such as the estimated 10,000 to 15,000 sq ft of oily film on the port wing compartment walls. Preservative treated wood was observed in the drydock fenders, which should be removed. It is assumed that the wood was treated with Creosote, which is considered a Class II Waste in California and its removal managed accordingly. The total volume of sediments in the sampled compartments is estimated to be 1400 cu. yds. In general, these sediments contained elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons with oil & grease values of 9,000-41,000 mg/kg-dry, fuel volatiles of 15,000-42,000 mg/kg-dry and total PAH’s up to 23,000 ug/kg-dry. Total metals concentration were also elevated, especially copper, zinc and mercury, though none exceeded the Title 22 TTLC criteria for hazardous waste (after correction for water contents). Some samples exceeded the trigger for conducting a WET test. The result of the WET test showed that these sediments do not exceed the STLC criteria for hazardous waste. Asbestos was absent, and herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCB’s were all below detection limits in the composite sediment samples. The sediment must be removed prior to dismantling the drydock according to the recycler. The removal of the sediments contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons can be managed with commercially available technology. The total volume of water, which was primarily found in the hull compartments, is roughly estimated to be 1 million gallons. The sampled waters were clear and fresh to slightly brackish (max. 7ppt salinity). Oil & grease and fuel volatiles were low; total PAH’s were below the reporting limit and asbestos, organotins, herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCB’s were all below detection limits. Removal and disposal of the water is recommended by Commercial Marine Services in preparation for the terminal tow. Disposal of the water to the Bay was not

3

being considered by the Port; hence analyses for comparison with Basin Plan water quality criteria were not performed. Consideration may be given to disposal of the clear water to the municipal sewer system in accordance with rules for industrial waste discharge. Since the water overlies sediments with elevated levels of contaminants as noted above, provisions to prevent entrainment of sediment in the clear water discharge will likely be necessary.

4

2 BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION The Port of San Francisco (Port) is developing an RFP for removal and disposal of their floating Drydock No.1 (the Drydock). The Port requested that Moffatt & Nichol assemble a team to perform an initial investigation of the structural and environmental issues with regard to the towing and dismantling of the Drydock. This report describes the results of this investigation. The Drydock was designed by Frederick R. Harris Consulting Engineers and built in 1942 for the US Navy. It is a steel hull structure 584’ long by 128’ wide by 54’ high (Figure 1 and Photograph 1). The wings rise above the deck plate 37 ft 6 in. There are outriggers at either end which were used for access onto the Drydock from the wharf (Photograph 2). When deployed, the outriggers extend the length of the Drydock to 664 ft. The Drydock contains 40 watertight compartments. Eight center, port, and starboard (total 24) hull compartments are referred to on the design plans as buoyancy compartments. The remaining sixteen compartments are wing compartments. The Drydock is “self docking” meaning that the end sections can be detached and used to lift the large middle section to facilitate maintenance and transportation. Also, the end sections could (originally) be detached and stowed on the deck of the middle section. The Drydock is of welded and riveted steel construction. The majority of the joints and connections are welded. However, built-up stiffening beams are riveted and the self-docking connections are bolted. Generally, the bottom, exterior sides and deck plate are (originally) one-half inch thick with longitudinal split 11-inch deep channel sections as stiffeners spaced at 2 feet on center. Transverse stiffening consists of truss frames spaced 8 feet on center between watertight bulkheads (Photographs 3 & 4). Similar shell stiffening and transverse truss frames are found between the inner and outer shell of the wing walls. Interior side plates and bulkheads are 3/8 inch thick with stiffeners spaced at 2 ft on center. Access to the compartments is either through deck hatches or watertight doors. Access to the buoyancy compartments is through hatches in the deck. Access to the wing compartments is through watertight doors in the wings (Photograph 5). Additionally, the port and starboard buoyancy compartments may be accessed through watertight doors in the wing compartment bulkheads. More details of the structure can be found in Reference 1. The Drydock was ballasted and de-ballasted by electric pumps located in the wing compartments. Piping penetrates the wing bulkheads to the compartments. Ballast / de-ballast piping penetrates the exterior shell plate at the base of the wing sections. Ballasting and de-ballasting was controlled at the control house on top of the starboard wing.

5

3 SCOPE OF WORK The investigation involved the following tasks:

1. Material Sampling, Testing and Assessment: A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) and Health and Safety Work Plan (HSWP) were prepared previously in Phase 1 of this project. This task, following the procedures specified in these plans, required obtaining samples of materials on the Drydock and having them tested in a state certified laboratory for contaminants. 2. Marine Survey and Structural assessment: Complete a visual qualitative assessment of the mooring hardware supports and structure to assess the Drydocks suitability and conditions for a wet or dry tow.

6

4 MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT The material sampling testing and assessment addressed the following areas:

a) Lead Paint b) Corrosion / Debris Piles for CAM-17 metals and asbestos c) Asbestos containing materials d) PCB-containing dielectrics and oils e) Sediment and water contained in the compartments

The sampling and documentation of Areas a) through d) was performed by LEE Inc., while the sediment and water characterization, Area e) was done by Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. Methodologies and results from the material sampling and testing are summarized below. The full discussion of sampling and testing protocols and of the results can be found in Appendix A prepared by LEE, Inc. and Appendix B prepared by Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. 4.1 METHODOLOGY 4.1.1 Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles

Samples to be analyzed for lead content were taken of paint on drydock surfaces, and samples to be analyzed for CAM-17 metals were collected from representative piles of debris accumulated on the horizontal surfaces of the decks and wings, as well as sediments in the lower wing compartments. Paint samples were analyzed for lead content using flame atomic absorption spectrometry according to the EPA’s Standard Operating Procedures 1991. Corrosion debris was analyzed using inductively coupled plasma according to EPA 6010B for total metals and EPA 7471 for total mercury for comparison against the CCR Title 22 Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC). If the samples had detection limits or results 10 times the relevant Title 22 Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC), they were analyzed for the metal in question according to the Waste Extraction Test (WET). 4.1.2 Asbestos Containing Materials

Samples to be tested for asbestos were collected from various areas suspected to contain asbestos, including pipe thermal insulation, electric switch panel and wire insulation, the control room panels and weather-stripping, epoxy coatings on the upper decks of the wings and compartment hatch cover gaskets. Asbestos is also included in the analysis of the samples taken of the corrosion debris piles as described above. 4.1.3 PCB containing materials

Electric components possibly containing PCBs were also located, but not tested since the cost of testing exceed the disposal cost assuming they contain PCBs. Samples of greases and oils were collected from capstans, lubrication manifolds and a mound of grease on the upper deck of the port wing wall to be analyzed for PCB contamination. 4.1.4 Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments

Sediment and water samples were taken from 35 accessible hull compartments (22 buoyancy compartments, 13 wing compartments) out of a total of 40 buoyancy and wing compartments.

7

For sediments within the hull compartments, samples for full scan chemistry were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard) since the sediments were visually similar.

• Center buoyancy compartment composite – visually similar rust colored sediments. • Port and starboard buoyancy compartment composite – visually similar Grey colored

sediments. For water within the hull compartments, samples for full scan chemistry were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard). • Center buoyancy compartments composite with clear water. • Center buoyancy compartment with cloudy water. • Port and starboard buoyancy compartment - composite with clear water.

A best estimate of the thickness of the sediment and depth of water in each of the compartments was also tabulated and used to obtain a rough estimate of sediment and water volume. Wing Compartments. Eight of the thirteen compartments sampled contained small areas of standing water. Since the great majority of these spaces were dry, the sediment samples taken were generally dry, caked on material that needed to be fragmented to be removed. Sediments were tan, light grey or reddish brown and usually had moderate to heavy accumulations of rust fragments mixed into them. Center Buoyancy Compartments. All center buoyancy compartments contained water. Sediment samples taken from the center deck compartments were saturated and most were difficult to sample due to their light (1-3 inch deep) accumulations. Sediments were mixes of red and black or red and grey material with one exception which was almost all black in color. Most samples contained high percentages (50-90%) of rust fragments and light to heavy amounts of petroleum product. Port and Starboard Buoyancy Compartments. All port and starboard buoyancy compartments also contained water. Sediment samples taken from these compartments were saturated with water. Sediments were generally grey in color with a silt-like consistency. The sediment samples were tested for percent solids, oil & grease, dissolved sulfides, asbestos, metals, butytins, chlorinated pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition, the sediments were tested for Title 22 elements, some acids and PCBs. Water was analyzed for a similar list of analytes as the sediments, minus the sediment specific constituents. 4.2 RESULTS 4.2.1 Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles

Results for paint samples collected from the corroded, exterior surfaces of the drydock ranged from non-detect to low. The concentrations obtained ranged from <74 parts-per-million (ppm) to, 64,653 ppm with 3 of the 6 samples non-detect at 79 ppm. Results for paint samples collected from the interior walls of the upper compartments of the wing-walls with intact paint ranged from

8

5,180 ppm to 222,025 ppm. The sample results and locations are shown in Appendix A.2, including recommendations for managing the remediation of lead paint depending on the lead level in the paint. While the presence of lead in and of itself is not a major issue for metal recycling, the lead content of paints on the Drydock does impact worker protection requirements during the dismantling operation (e.g., hot work). Torch cutting of surfaces with lead paint is a Level 3 Trigger Task and will require the use of supplied air respirators (SARs). This will be the case for the intact paint on the interior walls of the upper compartments of the wing-walls where lead was detected in the hundreds of thousands of parts-per-million. On the other hand, 5 out of 6 samples from the exterior surfaces yielded values which were non-detect or below the 600 ppm level defined by Consumer Products Safety Commission as “lead-free” for residential paints. While CAL-OSHA does not uses this criterion for defined trigger tasks such as dismantling of the dry-dock, it is anticipated that disturbance of the exterior with the limited areas of residual paint and extensive areas of corrosion is not likely to generate airborne lead levels requiring SAR. Nevertheless, this must be confirmed by exposure monitoring, and in any case some level of respiratory protection would be required until data from monitoring indicated otherwise. The lead content in sampled piles of corrosion debris and sediment was below the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) for lead. Handling of this debris is not likely to result in exposures at or above the Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) for lead. The two sediment samples and one of the four debris samples had results exceeding the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and were re-analyzed by the Waste Extraction Test (W.E.T.). The results for one of the sediment samples and the debris sample exceeded the STLC for lead. Although this will adversely impact disposal options, LEE, Inc. notes that further sampling and testing of the corrosion/debris material during the cleaning phase of the recycling effort to generate composite results that are below the STLC criteria, or to identify and segregate “hot spots” may not be cost effective, when compared to managing the entire quantity of material as a Class I Waste. CAM-17 metals results for the samples of wing-wall sediment and debris piles were all below the relevant TTLC. However, results for one or more metals in all of the samples exceeded 10 times the STLC and these samples were re-analyzed for the corresponding metal by the W.E.T. In addition to the lead findings cited above, the copper content in piles of corrosion debris exceeded the STLC in three of the four re-analyzed samples, but results for all other metals were below the STLC. Again, this will adversely impact disposal options, but it reinforces the recommendation made for the Lead results that all the material be managed as a Class I Waste. 4.2.2 Asbestos Containing Materials

The quantities and locations of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) are described in detail in Appendix A. Asbestos was identified in the samples of pipe insulation (Thermal Systems Insulation: TSI), electric switch panel insulation board, woven gaskets on compartment hatch covers, control room Transite panels, control room wire insulation, epoxy deck coating, and weather-stripping. Asbestos is assumed to be found in the brake/clutch pad components of the capstan motor units, and possibly in the pump packing. Corrosion/Debris pile samples from the wing-wall compartments were non-detect for asbestos. Certain Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACM) must be removed from the Drydock as a part of the dismantling effort and prior to recycling. The TSI on the pipe is a Regulated Asbestos-

9

Containing Material (RACM), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requires 10-day advance notification prior to removal. The TSI removal work is Cal-OSHA Class I asbestos work that requires a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor. The TSI is also California Hazardous Waste that must be transported under a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. The gasket material on the compartment hatch covers should be handled similarly. Removal of other ACMs is Cal-OSHA Class II asbestos work, and the material is Category II, asbestos-containing non-hazardous waste. Complete recommendations for managing the remediation/removal of asbestos are provided in Appendix A.1. 4.2.3 PCB Containing Materials

Light ballasts in the control room are assumed to contain PCB. No PCBs were detected in the samples of oils and greases. Nevertheless, prior to the dismantling operation the capstan gear oils, lubricating greases, and petroleum gross contamination should be removed. There are an estimated 25 gallons of these bulk materials and an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of upper deck port wing compartment walls with an oily film. 4.2.4 Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments

Water The amount of water present in each accessible hull compartment was roughly estimated from water depth measurements, and drydock structure dimensions. Approximately 1 million gallons of water are present in these compartments. Chemical analyses of the composite water samples were carried out. At the request of the Port, only total metals were included in the analyte list since disposal in ambient Bay waters was not being considered and comparisons with Bay Plan criteria was not required. Waters in the hull tanks were clear, fresh to slightly brackish generally of 1-2 ppt (parts per thousand salinity) with the highest 7 ppt. Measurements of pH were typically close to 8.0. Oil & Grease values were low (<5 mg/l) and volatile fuel concentrations were in the general range of 3.5 to 4.9 mg/l. Total PAHs were measured at 2-4 ng/l which is less than the project reporting limit. Asbestos was absent and organotins, herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below project detection limits, Sediment The volume of sediment in each accessible hull compartment was estimated based upon sediment depth measurements and drydock structure dimensions. A total of approximately 1,400 cubic yards of sediment is present in these compartments. Results of chemical analyses were obtained from the three composite sediment samples formed from the Wing Tank samples, and from the Buoyancy Tank (Red) and (Grey) sediments respectively. Water content was highly variable among the three composite samples. The Wing Tank composite sediment sample had low moisture (10%), the Buoyancy Tank (Red) was 30% moisture, and the (Grey) had a soupy consistency with a moisture content of 70 percent. These sediment samples had elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons with oil & grease values of 9,000-41,000 mg/kg-dry, fuel volatiles analyses of 15,000-42,000 mg/kg-dry, and total PAHs ranging up to 23,000 ug/kg-dry.

10

Total metals concentrations of copper and zinc were also elevated in these samples. Just for comparison purposes, ambient Bay sediment quality guidance criteria and Title 22 TTLC values are also tabulated in Appendix B. Note that the TTLC criteria are on a wet weight basis. Copper and zinc values, though elevated, did not exceed the Title 22 TTLC criteria for hazardous waste after correction for moisture content. Sediment from the Wing Tank exceeded the trigger for conducting a WET test based upon STLC criteria. Mercury values were also elevated but were less than the TTLC after correction for moisture content. Two samples (Wing Tank and Buoyancy Tank Grey) exceeded the STLC trigger criteria and thus were subject to a WET Test. The results of the WET Test indicate that none of the composite samples exceed the Title 22 STLC Criteria for hazardous waste. Asbestos was absent and herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below detection limits in the composite sediment samples from the hull tanks,. 4.2.5 Treated Wood

The Drydock has treated wood side bumpers. The preservative is assumed to be cresote. Wood was also observed in the shaft bearings, but these are most likely a tropical hardwood referred to as “ironwood” and are not treated. Creosote treated wood is a Class II Waste in California and is not accepted for disposal at Class III sanitary landfills.

11

5 MARINE SURVEY & STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT The structural assessment consists of two parts; a qualitative assessment of mooring hardware supports and overall structure by Moffatt & Nichol, and an assessment of condition and suitability for wet or dry tow by a marine surveyor. The structural inspection was done on March 26, 27and 28 by an inspection team including a Licensed Structural Engineer from Moffatt & Nichol and a Licensed Marine Surveyor from Commercial Marine Service. 5.1 METHODOLOGY The hull was observed from the outside, both by walking the deck and by boating around the Drydock, and from the inside by accessing wing compartments and adjacent hull ballast side compartments through open hatches. Notes and pictures were taken as necessary to document the condition of the structure. Portable lights were used to observe structure inside the compartments. Electrical fans were used to ensure proper ventilation while accessing the interior compartments. Attempts were made to measure the remaining thickness of plate at several locations, but these were unsuccessful due to heavy pitting. 5.2 STRUCTURAL CONDITION 5.2.1 Hull Condition

The steel deck is extensively corroded (Photograph 6) with many holes through the entire plate thickness. Some areas of the deck were covered by containers and other loose items and not possible to inspect, while others were covered with pallets or other wood. The condition of the deck under those areas is unknown. Although the deck is badly holed, for the most part it was safe for pedestrian loads. The majority of the rain falling onto the deck probably finds its way into the buoyancy compartments via the holes in the deck. Most of the deck hatches are loose and easily removed for observation of the central and buoyancy compartments. All of the compartments contained water – most of it fresh implying that the hull is (for the most part) watertight from the sea. Tables 1 and 2 show the approximate water depths in the buoyancy compartments at the time of inspection as recorded by Kinnetic Laboratories, and the estimated volume of water in the wing compartments respectively. It was not possible to get metal thickness readings due to the heavy metal pitting. However, based on observation, more than half of the original metal thickness appears to have been lost due to corrosion. Freeboard measurements from the pontoon deck were made at 4 locations. These measurements are provided in Table 3. The average freeboard is about 8.2 feet, with a slight list towards the forward/port side. BAE Systems indicated that no pumping had been done to maintain trim for the Drydock. This is further evidence that the hull is more or less watertight from the sea. 5.2.2 Wing Compartments Condition

Four wing compartments and three hull buoyancy compartments were entered. All accessible wing compartments were viewed from the openings to the deck. Wing compartments are extensively corroded and heavily laden with sediment. The corrosion and sediment in the bottom of the wing compartments is 3 to 6 inches thick. Some of the wing compartments have

12

standing water (perhaps due to high water levels in the buoyancy compartments). Stiffeners, channels and wide-flange beams inside of the wing compartments are knife edged in many cases. In 2002, the Drydock broke loose from its moorings and ran aground on Yerba Buena Island. The forward, starboard wing area was damaged when the Drydock ran aground. There is evidence of damage due to the grounding but no visible evidence of any repairs (Photographs 7 and 8). The forward starboard wing compartment appears to be watertight from the sea. The wing compartments above the deck are extensively corroded (Photograph 9), with extensive holing of the plate above the deck level. The upper parts of the wing compartments show numerous repairs. Mostly, these repairs consisted of patching of the corroded plating with welded steel doubler plates (Photographs 10 and 11). In addition, numerous plywood “plugs” have been attached over holes in the wing plating over the years to seal holes (Photograph 12). These repairs are sandwich plywood on the outside and inside with a rubber gasket rubber or a similar material next to the shell to get a watertight seal. The floor plate at the top of the wing sections has been repaired with patch plates. The environmental sub-contractor noted that the intermediate level floor inside of the wings had areas that were unsafe for pedestrian loads. It is not clear whether the intermediate level floor has ever been repaired. 5.2.3 Towing Hardware Condition

Four towing bitts are present on the Drydock, one each at all four corners (Photograph 13). All are double-bitts which straddle transverse deck frames below the deck plate. However, these have no additional under deck stiffening in the longitudinal direction. The bitts are mounted on one inch thick doubler plates that in turn are welded to the deck plating with a continuous perimeter weld as well as ¾ inch plug welds between the two horns. The towing bitts themselves are in fair condition, with some surface corrosion. However, the doubler plates are heavily corroded, especially along the perimeter where they are welded onto the deck plating. In most cases, the perimeter weld is completely gone (Photograph 14). The condition of the towing bitts and the attachment to the deck indicates that they are not suitable for towing. This is consistent with the findings from the Marine Surveyor. 5.2.4 Hull Strength

Originally, the Drydock was designed for a 20.4 foot head seas wave. The conditions shown on the original drawings assume that the end sections are carried by the center section when subjected to the design wave. It is considered impossible to remove the end sections of the Drydock and place them on the deck of the center section for a couple of reasons. First, it is unlikely that either the center section or the end sections can be ballasted / de-ballasted due to extensive holing and lack of pumping. Second, the center section deck is badly weakened due to corrosion and likely to fail under the weight of the end sections. As a consequence the Drydock would have to be towed or transported with the end sections attached to the hull. This will significantly increase hull moments for a given wave. As noted previously, the Drydock has undergone extensive corrosion and this loss of metal reduces the maximum wave it can withstand during a tow. This condition combined with undesirable transportation with the end sections attached further reduces the maximum

13

transportation wave height. As a consequence, the maximum allowable wave height during tow is estimated to be less than about 5 feet. Due to the deteriorated condition of the connections between the end and center sections, some connection strengthening prior to transportation may be desirable. Further analyses should be performed for the Drydock once the tow destination and tow displacement are known. 5.3 SUITABILITY FOR TOW 5.3.1 Wet Tow

The conclusion of the marine surveyor is that the Drydock is not suitable for an open ocean wet tow. With the extensive corrosion and openings in the hull, it is unlikely that the Drydock would survive ocean wave exposure, especially if foul weather is encountered. A local wet tow is possible. Alternative tow arrangements must be provided due to the poor condition of the towing bitts. One possibility is to attach the tow chains through openings in the wing compartments and around the existing transverse web frames. Penetrations in the wing compartments above the deck level (Photograph 15) have already been made in several places on the Drydock. Before the Drydock would be ready for tow, a number of repairs and prepatory steps would have to be completed to fulfill requirements from the USCG. Discussion of these items is presented in Appendix C. 5.3.2 Dry Tow

The conclusion of the Marine Surveyor is that even though the subject vessel could be lifted aboard and fit within the capacity bounds of the deck of a heavy lift “Dry-Tow” vessel such as the M/V “BLUE MARLIN”, the price of moving such a vessel from Norway to the Port of San Francisco would be cost prohibitive when compared with the other options such as a Wet Tow to a local facility for dismantling. There is also the high probability that the wasted structure of the subject dry dock would collapse upon the deck of the ship due to the stress placed upon it by swaying in a seaway therefore only inshore towing routes should be considered in any case. Report prepared by: Jim Brady, CA Structural Engineer SE 3652, July 31, 2007

14

6 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Drawing Nos. D-176-1 and D-176-3 through D-176-24, 21,000 Ton Steel Floating Dry Dock, Frederick R. Harris, Consulting Engineers, 1942

15

FIGURES, TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

16

Figu

re 1

– D

rydo

ck #

1 Pl

an, E

leva

tion

& S

ectio

n Fi

gure

1

17

Compartment LocationDepth

(Inches)4 A 25 A 26 A 67 A 78 A 59 A 610 A 6411 A 2214 A 3516 A 5617 A 2618 A 7520 A 3021 A 4112 B 5013 B 6215 B 6219 B 40

998000

Table 1 - Measured water depths in buoyancy compartments

(A = Forward end of compartment) (B = Aft end of compartment)

Compartment Location Volume (cf)3 W 157 W 7010 W 14412 W 36013 W 28015 W 54616 W 28018 W 1144

00

Table 2 - Estimated water volumes in wing compartments

(W = Wing compartment)

Measured Freeboards

Location FreeboardFwd - starboard 8' - 2.5"Fwd - port 7' - 10"Aft - starboard 8' - 7"Aft - port 8' - 3"

Table 3 – Measured Freeboards at corners of the Drydock

18

Photograph 1 – Aft, starboard view of Drydock #1

Photograph 2 – Aft end outriggers (stowed on deck)

19

Photograph 3 – Typical pontoon deck stiffening & transverse frame truss

Photograph 4 – Typical transverse truss frames and pillars between pontoon deck

and bottom shell

20

Photograph 5 – Typical water tight door access opening to wing compartment

Photograph 6 – Pontoon deck condition showing heavy corrosion

21

Photograph 7 – Port forward wing compartment interior damage from grounding

Photograph 8 – Port forward exterior damage from grounding

22

Photograph 9 – Typical corrosion and sediments in a corner wing compartment

Photograph 10 – Typical patching on inside of starboard wing shell

23

Photograph 11 – Port side typical patching on outside shell

Photograph 12 – Plywood patching (port, forward)

24

Photograph 13 – Double mooring bitt & chock – typical at four corners

Photograph 14 – Close-up of mooring bit doubler plate – typical

Note that the weld securing the doubler plate to the deck plate is missing

25

Photograph 15 – Existing chain around web frames, forward starboard corner

26

APPENDIX A

DRYDOCK #1 – ASBESTOS, LEAD AND CAM-17 METALS INSPECTION AND SAMPLING

A-1

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

REPORT ASBESTOS, LEAD AND CAM-17 METALS INSPECTION

AND SAMPLING DRYDOCK NO.1, PIER 70

JULY 2007

LEE INCORPORATED Engineers Scientists Contractors

SECTION 1 - SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ASBESTOS The quantities and locations of Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) are given on the accompanying asbestos table and plan. Materials Asbestos was identified in the samples of pipe insulation (thermals systems insulation: TSI), electric switch panels insulation board, woven gaskets on deck access panels, control room cement panel siding, control room wire insulation, epoxy coating, and weather-stripping. Asbestos is assumed to be found in the brake/clutch pad components of the capstan motor units, and possibly in the pump packing. Sediment samples from the lower wing-wall compartments were non-detect for asbestos. Removal Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) must be removed from the dry-dock as a part of the dismantling effort and prior to recycling. The TSI on the pipe is Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM), and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) requires 10-day advance notification prior to removal. The TSI removal work is Cal-OSHA Class I asbestos work that requires the use of respiratory protection, 4-day asbestos trained workers under the supervision of a 5-day competent person, all employed by a Cal-OSHA registered asbestos abatement contractor. Removal of other ACMs (i.e., electric switch panel insulation boards, cement panel siding, etc.) is Cal-OSHA Class II asbestos work. Disposal The TSI and access panel gaskets are California Hazardous Waste that must be transported under a duly executed Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Other ACM are Category II, asbestos-containing non-hazardous waste and can be transported under a non-hazardous waste manifest.

1

LEAD The results and locations of lead samples are given on the accompanying table and plan. Materials Results for paint samples collected from the corroded, exterior surfaces of the dry-dock ranged from non-detect at 74 parts-per-million (ppm) to 64,653 ppm with 3 of the 6 samples non-detect at 79 ppm. Results for paint samples collected from the interior walls of the upper compartments of the wing-walls with intact paint ranged from 5,180 ppm to 222,025 ppm. The sample results and locations are shown in the appendices. Removal The presence of lead in and of itself is not a major issue for metal recycling according to staff at Schnitzer Steel in Oakland, and in fact they indicated that their major concern with the dry-dock is the sediment in the lower wing-wall and hull compartments. According to Schnitzer Steel, the dry-dock must be “pre-cleaned” of the sediment as a condition for acceptance at their facility, in addition to removal of the asbestos and any other hazardous materials identified that are excluded by their contract terms and conditions. Nevertheless, the lead content of paints on the dry-dock does impact worker protection requirements during the dismantling operation (e.g., hot work). Torch cutting of surfaces with lead paint is a Level 3 Trigger Task and will require the use of supplied air respirators (SAR). This will be the case for the intact paint on the interior walls of the upper compartments of the wing-walls where lead was detected in the hundreds of thousands of parts-per-million. On the other hand, samples from the exterior yielded mainly non-detect to low (<600 PPM) levels of lead. These exterior areas with residual paint and the heavily corroded areas covering most of the exposed surfaces of the dry-dock are not likely to require SAR, but this must be confirmed by exposure monitoring. The lead content in sampled piles of corrosion debris and sediment was below the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC) for lead. Handling of this debris is not likely to result in exposures at or above the permissible exposure limits (PEL) for lead. This can be argued based on a hypothetical exposure to total “nuisance” dust at the 10 milligram per cubic meter of air (mg/M3) PEL. This is a substantial, vision impairing, cloud of dust that, if formed from the highest lead content debris found, would still only contain 0.3 micrograms of lead per cubic meter of air (ug/M3) as compared with the 30 ug/M3 “action level,” and the 50 ug/M3 PEL.

2

Disposal High lead content paint debris should be segregated from corrosion debris, sediment and other waste and disposed of as Class I lead-containing hazardous waste. The paint debris may also be considered RCRA waste. The two sediment samples and one of the four debris samples had results exceeding 10 times the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) and were re-analyzed by the Waste Extraction Test (W.E.T.). The WET result for one of the sediment samples and one of the debris samples exceeded the STLC for lead. Based on the TTLC and STLC findings together, it may be that there are lead “hot spots” in the deck debris, but that in the aggregate the total lead concentration in the debris is below the STLC. Handling the debris as Class I California Hazardous Waste would seem to be simpler and more cost effective than trying to define the portions of debris with high lead content. CAM-17 METALS (Compliance Assurance Monitoring) CAM-17 metals results for the samples of wing-wall sediment and corrosion debris were all below the relevant TTLC. However, results or detection limits for one or more metals in all of the samples exceeded 10 times the STLC and these samples were re-analyzed for the corresponding metal by the W.E.T. In addition to the lead findings cited above, the copper content in piles of corrosion debris exceeded the STLC in three of the four re-analyzed samples, but results for all other metals were below the STLC. It is recommended that the debris be handled as Class I California Hazardous Waste, as it would be simpler and more cost effective than trying to define the portions of debris with metal content. As with the airborne lead exposure scenario, the copper content in the debris would not generate exposures above the copper PEL under the nuisance dust “worst case scenario” with 1.6 ug/M3 of copper to be found in a 10 mg/M3 dust cloud generated from debris containing 1,600 ppm of copper, the highest concentration detected in the bulk samples. PCBs Light ballasts in the control room are assumed to contain polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). It is estimated that there are 12-15 ballasts including those in lights and behind the instrument panel, but an exact number could not be determined without dismantling equipment. No PCBs were detected in the samples of oils and greases. Nevertheless, prior to the dismantling operation the capstan gear oils, lubricating greases, and petroleum gross contamination should be removed. There are an estimated 25 gallons of these bulk materials.

3

There is an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 square feet of upper deck port wing compartments walls contaminated with an oily film. During torch-cutting the oily film is likely to evolve smoke, or even ignite, which makes it an environmental and worker protection issue during the dismantling phase. This condition may be an issue for the recycler with pre-cleaning a requirement for acceptance. TREATED WOOD Treated wood was observed in the form of the side-bumpers on the dry-dock. Wood was also observed in the form of shaft bearings, but these are most likely a tropical hardwood referred to as “ironwood” and are not treated. Preservative treatment of the wood bumpers was most likely to have been using creosote. Creosote treated wood is Class II waste in California and not accepted for disposal at Class III sanitary landfills.

4

SECTION 2 - SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES The inspections and sampling were performed under previously approved Sampling, Health and Safety Plans. Initial access into the upper compartments on the wing-walls was under a permitted confined space entry procedure, using a 4-gas monitor and self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA). After accessing the Starboard side compartments under this protocol, it was determined that the horn-ventilators on the deck were providing adequate ventilation. Subsequent entries into the upper and lower wing-wall compartments were performed without the use of SCBA but preceded by initial screening with the 4-gas monitor which was also worn inside the compartment during the inspection. Asbestos, lead and CAM-17 Metals analyses were performed by Micro Analytical Laboratories in Emeryville, California. Micro Analytical is a successful participant in the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) Proficiency Analytical Testing (PAT) program, and California Department of Health Services California Department of Health Services Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP) certified lab. PCB gas chromatographic (GC) analysis was performed by Curtis & Tompkins in Berkeley, California. Curtis & Tompkins is a California Department of Health Services National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Certification (NELAC) certified lab. Inspections, and asbestos, lead, CAM-17 Metals and PCB bulk sampling were performed by Al Clancy, MPH, Certified Industrial Hygienist (ABIH CP#3879), Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (IHMM #2381 Master Level), Certified Asbestos Consultant (Cal-OSHA #92-0486), and Lead-Related Construction Certified Inspector (DHS #2239). Inspections and asbestos sampling were also conducted by Monte Deignan, Certified Asbestos Consultant (Cal-OSHA #93-0879). ASBESTOS Samples for asbestos were collected from suspect materials including the control room, epoxy-type coatings on the upper decks of the wings, gaskets on manholes in the upper decks and compartments of the wing-walls, and from the corrosion debris piles below pipes on the main lower deck. No gasket material was observed on valve flanges and other such types of joints, therefore no samples were collected. A minimum sample area of one square inch was collected for suspect ACM where feasible, and samples of corrosion debris consisted of a minimum of one cubic inch. Sample analysis was by polarized light microscopy (PLM). The bulk samples of suspected asbestos-containing materials are first examined by stereoscopic, dissecting microscope for determination of homogeneity and preliminary evaluation of composition and presence of fibers. Fibers noted during stereoscopic examination were mounted in

5

6

various refractive index oils for identification; homogenized portions of the entire samples were also mounted in R.I. oils for identification and quantification of all components. All minerals and/or man-made materials were identified and percentages of each estimated and/or counted. Bulk sample analysis was according to EPA-600/M4-82-020. LEAD AND CAM 17 METALS Samples for lead analysis were collected from paints on dry-dock surfaces, and samples for CAM-17 analysis were collected from representative piles of corrosion debris accumulated on the horizontal surfaces of the deck, and sediment in the wing lower compartments. A minimum sample amount of 5 grams was collected for lead paints, and 100 grams for the corrosion debris. Individual paint samples were collected from various areas on the deck and wings. Paint samples were analyzed for total lead using flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAA) according to the EPA’s Standard Operating Procedures 1991. Corrosion debris sample analysis was by inductively coupled plasma (ICP) according to EPA 6010B for total metals and 7471 for total mercury for comparison against the Total Threshold Limit Concentration (TTLC). Samples with detection limits or results 10 times the relevant Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) were re-analyzed for that metal according to the Waste Extraction Test (W.E.T.). POLYCHLORINATED BI-PHENYLS (PCBs): Bulk samples of oils and greases were collected from the capstans, lubrication manifolds, and a mound of grease on upper deck of the port wing wall. A wipe sample was also collected from the interior sidewalls below the upper deck of the port wing wall that was visibly coated with an oily film. The sample was collected using filter paper soaked in hexane that was wiped over the surface and then placed in a glass jar. PCB sample analysis was performed according to EPA 8082. Samples were given unique identification numbers that were entered in the field notes along with the locations which are shown in Table X. Samples were transported to the laboratory under a duly executed chain-of-custody (COC) that included sample identification numbers and descriptions. COCs accompany the analytical reports that are contained in the appendix to this report.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1

ASBESTOS

LOCATION PLAN AND LAB RESULTS

Asbestos Inspection and Recommendations Facility: Drydock #1, Port of San Francisco 20th and Illinois Streets, San Francisco, CA Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07 Inspectors: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan, CAC

Comments / Notes : 1: The sample logs show the prefix LEE 032607. The LEE part of the prefix is not shown on this page. 2: Construction estimates should not use this estimate for price / cost calculations. A site visit is required for verification by any contractor. 3: The material described is found in small amounts over a wide area. A site inspection is the only way to quantify this item. 1 of 3

Sample # Material Description Locations Area Asbestos % Recommendations

32607-01 Wire Insulation, Tan/ Black Switch Box NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-02 Insulation Board,Brown Starbd Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-03 Non Skid Deck Surface,Brown Starbd Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-04 Epoxy Deck Surface,Green Starbd Wall 680 sf 5% Chrysotile Abate following Class II regulations if disturbed

32607-05 Transite Cement Board, Gray Control Room 480 sf 20% Chrysotile Abate following Class II regulations if disturbed

32607-06 Insulation Fabric, Gray Control Room 28 lf 80% Chrysotile following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-07 Wire Insulation, Gray Control Room Note 3 40% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-08 Wire Insulation, Tan Control Room NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-09 Transite Elec. Debris, 1/2" Starbd Wall Note 3 20% Chrysotile Abate following Class II regulations if disturbed

32607-10 Weatherstrip/ Gasket, Gray Supply Cab 12 lf 70% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-11 Deck Coating, Gray Starbd Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-12 Cement / Mortar, Gray Starbd Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-13 Cement Transite Board, Gray Starbd Wall Note 3 20% Chrysotile Abate following Class II regulations if disturbed

32607-14 Woven Gasket, Gray Starbd Hatch Note 2 70% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-15 Exterior Caulking, Red Starbd Hatch NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required



Sample # Material Description Locations Area Asbestos % Recommendations

32607-16 Resilient Gasket, Black Starbd. Hatch NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-17 Woven Gasket, Brown Starbd. Hatch NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-19 Residual Debris, Brown Main Deck NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-20 Residual Debris, Brown Main Deck NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-21 21 Insulation Board, Brown Port Compt. Note 2 30% Chrysotile Abate following Class II regulations if disturbed

32607-22 2.5 " Pipe Insulation, White Strbd Compt. 450 lf 20% Chry.10% Amos Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-23 Insulation Board Debris, White Starbd Wall Note 3 50% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-24 Insulation Debris, White Starbd Pump Note 3 30% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-25 Woven Gasket, Gray Port Hatch Note 2 50% Chrysotile Abate following Class I regulations if disturbed

32607-26 Exterior Wall Paint, Silver Port Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required

32607-27 Exterior Sealant, Red Brown Port Wall NA None Detected No asbestos removal work required



Sample # Material Description Locations Area Asbestos % Regulatory

32607-04 Epoxy Deck Surface,Green Starbd Wall 680-750 sf 5% Chrysotile Class II regulations apply

32607-05 Transite Cement Board, Gray Control Room 480-650 sf 20% Chrysotile Class II regulations apply

32607-06 Insulation Fabric, Gray Control Room 28-40 lf 80% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-07 Wire Insulation, Gray Control Room 200-360 lf 40% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-09 Transite Elec. Debris, 1/2" Starbd Wall 100-160 sf 20% Chrysotile Class II regulations apply

32607-10 Weatherstrip/ Gasket, Gray Supply Cab 12-16 lf 70% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-13 Cement Transite Board, Gray Starbd Wall 50-100 sf 20% Chrysotile Class II regulations apply

32607-14 Woven Gasket, Gray Starbd Hatch 160-200 lf 70% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-21 Insulation Board, Brown Port Compt. 100-180 sf 30% Chrysotile Class II regulations apply

32607-22 2.5 " Pipe Insulation, White Strbd Compt. 450-550 lf 20%Chry.10% Amos Class I regulations apply

32607-23 Insulation Board Debris, White Starbd Wall 2-10 sf 50% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-24 Insulation Debris, White Starbd Pump 10-20 sf 30% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

32607-25 Woven Gasket, Gray Port Hatch 160-200 lf 50% Chrysotile Class I regulations apply

APPENDIX 2

LEAD

LOCATION PLAN AND LAB RESULTS

Lead Inspection and Recommendations Facility: Drydock #1, Port of San Francisco 20th and Illinois Streets, San Francisco, CA Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07 Inspector: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan, CAC

Comments / Notes : 1 LBP: Lead Based Paint at levels above 5000 ppm. LCP: Lead Containing Paint at levels between 600 and 5000 ppm Paint with lead levels below 600 ppm is classi. ed as Lead Free. Any sample result above the limit of detection may pose a risk if performing certain "Trigger Task Activities", such as grinding, torch cutting, rivet busting.

1 of 1

Sample # Material Description Locations % Lead / ppm Recommendations 32607-A Paint: Gray, Green, Orange Starbd Wing Wall, Stern 22.2% / 222,025 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-B Paint: Brown, Green Starbd Wing Wall, Stern 0.52% / 5180 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LCP

32607-C Paint: White, Gray Starbd Wing Wall, eBox 4.04% / 40,381 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-D Epoxy / Paint: Green Starbd Wing Wall, Deck 0.68% / 6806 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-E Paint: Orange / Silver Starbd Wing Wall, Stern 9.2% / 91,993 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-F Paint: Red / Orange Starbd Wing Wall, Stern 6.47% / 64,653 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-G Paint: Tan / Brown Starbd Wing Wall, 475’ 5.31% / 53,067 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-H Paint: Green Control Room Interior 9.26% / 92,560 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-I Paint: Blue / Gray Control Room Exterior 0.04% / 422 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LFP

32607-J Paint: Black Starbd Wing Wall, Bow 3.98% / 39,818 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-K Paint: Black Main Deck @ 50’ <0.01% / <75 Classified as Lead Free Coating, < report limits

32607-L Paint: Silver Port Wing Wall, Bow <0.01% / <79 Classified as Lead Free Coating, < report limits

32607-M Paint: Tan / Gray Port Wing Wall, Bow 0.25% / 2473 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LCP

32607-N Paint: Brown Port Wing Wall, Bow 1.86% / 18,562 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

32607-O Paint: Silver / Black Port Wing Wall, Bow <0.01% / <74 Classified as Lead Free Coating, < report limits

32607-P Paint: Silver Port Wing Wall, Bow 0.01% / 123 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LFP

40307-A Paint: Gray, Green, Orange Starbd Hatch#3 Gear 14.2% / 142,176 Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LBP

APPENDIX 3

CAM17

LOCATION PLANS, TTLC AND STLC LAB RESULTS

Facility: Drydock #1 Port of San Francisco 20th & Illinois Street San Francisco, CADate : 03-26-07 to 04-04-07 Inspector: Alfred Clancy, CIH

Comments / Notes : Note:1 For the fi rst line listing TTLC values, results or detection limits at or above 10x the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration are shown in Bold text. Gray text is < 10x STLC. For the second line listing STLC values, results or detection limits at or above the Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration are shown in Bold text. Gray text is < STLC.The units for all of the sample results are parts per million (ppm) Version 5: July, 2007

CAM-17 Metals STLC and TTLC Results Listing

Page 1 of 1

Sample ID # Ag As Cd Cr/ CR+6 Cu Pb Sb Se Tl Zn Hg

TTLC Value, ppm 500 500 100 2500 / 500 2500 1000 500 100 700 5000 20STLC Value, ppm 5 5 1 5 25 5 15 1 7 250 0.2

32607-A, TTLC <30 <120 19 25 200 240 <240 <60 <240 3400 3.432607-A, STLC NA 4.8 <0.2 NA NA 7.6 3.0 <0.3 5 190 0.001 32607-B, TTLC <31 <470 21 61 160 90 <250 <12 <250 2400 3.032607-B, STLC NA <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 NA <0.3 <1 <0.3 <4 160 <0.001 32607-CO1,TTLC <120 <470 14 110 250 33 <200 <12 <47 550 0.332607-CO1, STLC <0.3 <0.5 NA 0.5 16 NA <1 <0.3 NA NA NA 32607-CO2,TTLC <120 <470 56 200 1600 33 <200 <12 <47 550 1.432607-CO2, STLC <0.3 <0.5 <0.2 0.5 120 NA <1 <0.3 NA NA NA

32607-CO3,TTLC <120 <470 63 200 830 48 <200 <60 <9 670 0.932607-CO3, STLC <0.3 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 60 1 <1 <0.3 NA NA NA

32607-CO4,TTLC <120 <470 56 140 820 300 <200 <60 <9 880 0.932607-CO4, STLC <0.3 <0.5 <0.2 <0.5 70 30 <1 <0.3 NA NA NA

APPENDIX 4

PCBs LAB REPORTS

PCBs Inspection and Recommendations Facility: Drydock #1, Port of San Francisco 20th and Illinois Streets, San Francisco, CA Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07 Inspectors: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan, CAC


Sample # Material Description Locations Notes Lab #

32707-01 Lube / Grease Pile Top Deck Port Wing Wall PCB 193997-001

40307-01 Wipe of Oily Compartment Walls Top Compartment Hatch #4 Port PCB 193997-002

40307-02 Bulk Lube Grease from Dispensing Canister Top Compartment Fore-Port Side PCB 193997-003

40307-03 Gear Oil in Capstan Gear Box Starboard Side Forward PCB 193997-004

40307-04 Wipe of Compartment Walls Top Compartment Starboard PCB 193997-005

APPENDIX 5

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

AND EQUIPMENT

The interior walls of the drydock are painted steel, with substantial oxidation and corrosion. The floor of the top compartment in the wingwall is also steel with advanced corrosion that has resulted in holes and openings through the floor plane. Working in the compartments represents a possible fall hazard and must be addressed by any contractors at the site. The mechanical equipment in the compartments consist of electrical pumpmotors, capstan motors, valve actuators, switch gear, electrical conduits,and piping. The switch gear is found in multiple switch boxes and contains Transite backing boards and insulators that contain asbestos. The capstan units appearto have brake shoe assemblies that are assumed to contain asbestos.

Photo 1 shows the starboard wingwall compartment, with the corrosion visible on the walls and floor. The inspector is in front of one of the electricalboxes that uses an asbestos containing backing board. The overhead piping consists of conduit and an insulated steam line. Photo 2 shows one of the expansion loops at another part of the same steam line. The insulation on the line contains asbestos and will need to be abated using Class I abatement practices. See the complete report for more information.

Photo 2

Interior Construction Materials and Equipment Facility: Drydock #1, Port of San Francisco 20th and Illinois Streets, San Francisco, CA Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07 Inspectors: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan

Photo 1

The electrical and mechanical equipment for the drydock use a number of components that contain asbestos. The wiring shown in Photo 3 above is typical of the wiring found in sample number LEE 32607-06. The wire insulation contains up to 80% asbestos. Most of the interior walls in the control room are Transite asbestos. Most of the pumps and valves are controlled by switches and relays. The switch gear is found in multiple switch boxes and contains Transite backing boards and switch insulators that contain asbestos.

Photo 4 shows the starboard wing wall compartment, with the capstan moto rand gearbox. A large shaft extends to the capstan drum that is located above the deck. The capstan units appear to have brake shoe assemblies that are assumed to contain asbestos. The brakes are the red colored units at the left side of the photo. The capstan gearbox also contains a significant amount of 90 weight gear oil. Some of the other units have leaked and spilled oil on the floor of the compartments. See the complete report for more information.

Photo 4


Photo 3

The exterior of the drydock is predominantly painted steel. The top of the The exterior of the drydock is predominantly painted steel. The top of the wing walls are coated with a variety of non skid paints and epoxies. A number of steel hatches are placed along the length of both wing walls. Piping, conduits, and vents are also found along the wing walls. A series of electrical switch boxes are found on the top of the wing wall. The control room for the raising and lowering of the dock is located on the stern end of the starboard wing wall. The control room houses the switches, gauges, and systems to run the drydock. The exterior and interior walls of the control room are Transite asbestos board. Many of the wire insulators and the door gaskets contain asbestos.

wing walls are coated with a variety of non skid paints and epoxies. A number of steel hatches are placed along the length of both wing walls. Piping, conduits, and vents are also found along the wing walls. A series of electrical switch boxes are found on the top of the wing wall. The control room for the raising and lowering of the dock is located on the stern end of the starboard wing wall. The control room houses the switches, gauges, and systems to run the drydock. The exterior and interior walls of the control room are Transite asbestos board. Many of the wire insulators and the door gaskets contain asbestos.

Photo 5 shows the deck from the control room. The green colored epoxy Photo 5 shows the deck from the control room. The green colored epoxy coating near the control room contains asbestos. The other gray and brown non skid surfaces were non asbestos. The electrical boxes that contain phenolic backing boards are along the side of the wall. The gaskets and seal used on doors and hatches appear as a woven fabric and most contain asbestos.

coating near the control room contains asbestos. The other gray and brown non skid surfaces were non asbestos. The electrical boxes that contain phenolic backing boards are along the side of the wall. The gaskets and seal used on doors and hatches appear as a woven fabric and most contain asbestos. Photos 6 and 7 are of the starboard wing wall. The paints typically contain high levels of lead but do not contain asbestos. A series of wood rails are located on the outside or on the corners of the walls. The wood appears to be creosote treated.

Photos 6 and 7 are of the starboard wing wall. The paints typically contain high levels of lead but do not contain asbestos. A series of wood rails are located on the outside or on the corners of the walls. The wood appears to be creosote treated. See the complete report for more information. See the complete report for more information. Photo 7 Photo 7

Photo 7


Photo 6 Photo 5


The electrical and mechanical equipment for the drydock use a number of components that contain asbestos. The switch box backing shown in Photo 8 above is typical of the panels found in sample number LEE 32607-21. The board contains up to 20% asbestos. Most of the pumps and valves are controlled by switches and relays. The switch gear is found in multiple switch boxes and contains Transite backing boards and switch insulators that contain asbestos. Photo 9 shows a series of white or gray colored insulation parts that are Transite. Many of the these insulator parts are scattered around the deck and compartments.

Photo 9 shows the starboard wing wall compartment, with the pump motor. A large shaft extends to the pump that is located below the deck. The pumps are located in compartments near the waterline. It is assumed that the pumps may contain packing on the shafts that contain asbestos. Due to the condition and location the pump packing was not sampled. The base of the pump motor also contains a significant amount of lube or gear oil. Some of the other units have leaked and spilled oil on the floor of the compartments. See the complete report for more information. Photo 8 Photo 10

Photo 10 Photo 9 Photo 8

APPENDIX 6

SAMPLING LOCATION SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

Mechanical Compartment


Control Room

Starboard Wing Wall

Port Wing Wall

Bow

Stern

Sampling Location Schematic - 1

Asbestos SurveyMarch- April 2007

PLM-01Wire Ins.

PLM-21Board

PLM-03Deck

PLM-02Board

PLM-04Deck

PLM-05Transite

PLM-06Wire Ins.

PLM-07Wire Ins.

PLM-08Wire Ins.

PLM-09Transite

PLM-10Gasket

PLM-11DeckPLM-12Mortar

PLM-14Gasket

PLM-13TransitePLM-15

CaulkingPLM-16Gasket

PLM-17Gasket

PLM-19Debris

PLM-20DebrisPLM-22

TSI Pipe

PLM-23Debris

PLM-24Insulation

PLM-25Gasket

PLM-27Caulking

PLM-26Paint

Gang Plankto Dock



Control Room

Starboard Wing Wall

Port Wing Wall

Bow

Stern

Sampling Location Schmatic - 2

Lead and Metals SurveyMarch- April 2007

Gang Plankto Dock

326-A

326-B

326-C

326-D

326-E326-F

326-G

326-H

326-I

326-J

326-K

326-L

326-M

326-N

326-O

326-P

403-A

326-CO2

326-CO1

326-CO3

326-CO4

APPENDIX B

WATER AND SEDIMENTATION CHARACTERIZATION

B-1

Final Report

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO DRYDOCK #1 DISPOSAL CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENTS AND WATER IN HULL

COMPARTMENTS

Prepared for: The Port of San Francisco

and Moffatt & Nichol

Prepared by: Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

27 July 2007

This page intentionally left blank

i

Final Report

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO DRYDOCK #1 DISPOSAL

CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENTS AND WATER IN HULL COMPARTMENTS

Table of Contents Page No. 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE.......................................................................................... 3 3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................... 4

3.1 Reconnaissance Study Methods ........................................................................................ 4 3.2 Sampling and Laboratory Analyses Methods ..................................................................... 4

4.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................ 5 4.1 Reconnaissance Study ....................................................................................................... 5 4.2 Sampling and Laboratory Analyses Results ..................................................................... 17

4.2.1 Description of Sediment Samples ............................................................................ 17 4.2.2 Water Samples ......................................................................................................... 17 4.2.3 Composite Sample Formation.................................................................................. 17 4.2.4 Results of Water Sample Testing............................................................................. 21 4.2.5 Results of Sediment Sample Testing ....................................................................... 21

List of Tables Page No. Table 1. Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Sediment .................................6 Table 2. Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Water.......................................7 Table 3. Quality Control Summary for Bulk Sediment and Water Chemistry ..................................8 Table 4. Port of San Francisco Floating Drydock at Pier 70 Hull Compartment

Reconnaissance Inspection 5/19/06..................................................................................9 Table 5. Summary of Sediment Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments................23 Table 6. Summary of Water Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments .....................25 Table 7. Summary of Estimated Volumes of Sediment and Water in Drydock #1 Hull

Compartments..................................................................................................................27 Table 8. Results of Chemical Analyses of Water in Hull Compartments of Drydock #1 ...............28 Table 9. Results (Dry Weight) of Chemical Analyses of Sediments in Hull

Compartments of Drydock #1 ..........................................................................................32 Table 10. Summary of Waste Extraction Tests (WET) conducted on Sediments in Hull

Compartments of Drydock #1 ..........................................................................................35

ii

List of Figures

Page No. Figure 1. Floating Drydock at Berth 70, Port of San Francisco.......................................................10 Figure 2. Numbering Schematic for Drydock #1 Hull Compartments .............................................11 Figure 3. Deck Views, Floating Drydock at Berth 70 ......................................................................12 Figure 4. Typical Structure in Center Compartment .......................................................................13 Figure 5. Typical Water and Sediment in Center Compartment .....................................................13 Figure 6. Typical Port Flood Compartment .....................................................................................14 Figure 7. Typical Starboard Flood Compartment............................................................................14 Figure 8. Starboard Flood Compartment with Thicker Sediment....................................................15 Figure 9. Structure in Wing Compartment.......................................................................................15 Figure 10. Sediment in Wing Compartment ......................................................................................16 Figure 11. Observation of Thicker Sediment in Wing Compartment ................................................16 Figure 12. Internal Views of Wing Compartments of Drydock #1 .....................................................18 Figure 13. Wing Compartment Samples – Numbers 1, 15, and 21 ..................................................18 Figure 14. Wing Compartment Samples – Numbers 3, 16, and 19 ..................................................18 Figure 15. Center Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 5, 8, and 10 ........................................19 Figure 16. Center Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 14, 17, and 20 ....................................19 Figure 17. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 4, 7, and 9 ......................20 Figure 18. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 10 and 12........................20 Figure 19. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 16, 19, and 21 ................20 APPENDICES Appendix A. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Report Appendix B. Analytical Laboratory Data Sheets (On CD)

1

Final Report PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO DRYDOCK #1 DISPOSAL

CHARACTERIZATION OF SEDIMENTS AND WATER IN HULL COMPARTMENTS

Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc.

27 June 2007 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drydock # 1 is an old floating drydock currently tied up at Berth 70 in the Port of San Francisco. The drydock is approximately 584 feet long by 128 feet wide. The Port of San Francisco desires to develop an RFP document that would allow the Port to obtain credible and competitive bids for the ultimate disposal of Drydock # 1. The purpose of this project is to develop data on safety and environmental hazards associated with this drydock that will be needed to structure an RFP for potential bidders. Kinnetic Laboratories, working in the Moffatt & Nichol team was responsible for sampling sediments and water present in the hull compartments in order to determine whether environmental hazards exist that would impact work on the vessel or pose problems with the disposal of these sediments. The Port of San Francisco arranged for a reconnaissance inspection of Drydock #1 on May 19, 2006 to determine access to the vessel, particularly access to the compartments below decks. Safety issues were also evaluated. Entry by personnel was not attempted but manholes and hatches were opened for visual inspections from the deck. Based upon observations during the reconnaissance, sampling of sediments and water within the drydock holds was carried out on March 27-30, 2007. For sediments within the hull compartments, samples for full scan chemistry were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard) as sediments were visually similar. • Center deck flotation compartments - Red rust colored sediments. • Port and starboard deck flotation compartments - Grey colored sediments.

For water within the hull compartments, samples for full scan chemistry were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard). • Center deck flotation compartments - Red rust colored sediments with clear water. • Center deck flotation compartment with cloudy water. • Port and starboard deck flotation compartments - Grey colored sediments with clear water.

Three sediment samples for full scan chemistry were obtained by compositing individual compartment samples together. One sample (“Wing Compartment”) was formed from the port and starboard wing compartments and represents about 200 cubic yards of material. A second sample (“Deck Compartment Grey”) was formed from the port and starboard deck compartments and represents approximately 1200 cubic yards of material. The final sample (“Deck Compartment Red”) was formed from the center deck compartments and represents approximately 40 cubic yards of material. Four water samples for full scan chemistry were obtained by compositing individual compartment samples together. One sample (“Wing Tank”) was formed from the port and starboard wing compartments that contained water. A second sample (“Deck Tank Grey”) was formed from the port and starboard deck compartments. The third sample (“Deck Tank Red”) was formed from the center deck compartments. The final sample (“Cloudy Water”) was from one center compartment (#8). A best estimate of the thickness of the sediment in each of the compartments was also tabulated and used to obtain a rough estimate of sediment volume.

2

Wing Compartments. Eight of the thirteen compartments sampled contained small areas of standing water. Since the great majority of these spaces were dry, the sediment samples taken were generally dry, caked on material that needed to be fragmented to be removed. Sediments were tan, light grey or reddish brown and usually had moderate to heavy accumulations of rust fragments mixed into them. Center Deck Flotation Compartments. All center deck compartments contained water. Sediment samples taken from the center deck compartments were saturated and most were difficult to sample due to their light (1-3 inch deep) accumulations. Sediments were mixes of red and black or red and grey material with one exception which was almost all black in color. Most samples contained high percentages (50-90%) of rust fragments and light to heavy amounts of petroleum product. Port and Starboard Deck Flotation Compartments. All port and starboard deck compartments also contained water. Sediment samples taken from these compartments were saturated with water. Sediments were generally grey in color with a silt-like consistency. Results of Water Sample Testing The amount of water present in each hull compartment was roughly estimated from depth measurements, observations, and drydock structure dimensions and was tabulated for each compartment. Approximately 1 million gallons of water are present in these hull compartments. Chemical analyses of the composite water samples were carried out. At the request of the Port, only total metals were included in the analyte list since disposal in ambient Bay waters was not being considered and comparisons with ambient salt water criteria was not required. Waters in the hull tanks were clear, fresh to slightly brackish generally of 1-2 ppt (parts per thousand salinity) with the highest being 7 ppt. Measurements of pH were typically close to 8.0 (Table 6). Oil & Grease values were below the project detection limit (<5 mg/l) and volatile fuel concentrations were in the general range of 3.5 to 4.9 mg/l. Total PAHs were measured at 2-4 ng/l which is less than the project reporting limit. Asbestos was absent and organotins, herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below project detection limits. Only total metals were requested to be analyzed as part of this screening program. All measured concentrations of trace metals were very low. With the exception of copper and mercury, all total metals concentrations were below dissolved criteria described in Table 3-3 of the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan. Total copper measurements only slightly higher than the current dissolved criteria for the 4-day average (3.1 ug/L) and 1-hour average (4.8 ug/L) but were less than both the acute and chronic site specific criteria in a Basin Plan amendment that is under review. Total mercury concentrations were only slightly higher than Basin Plan criteria. Results of Sediment Sample Testing Rough estimates of the volumes of sediment present in each hull compartment inspected were also tabulated for each compartment. A total of approximately 1,400 cubic yards of sediment was estimated to exist within these hull compartments based upon estimates of sediment depth obtained from measurements and from observations with hull structure members of known dimensions. Results of chemical analyses were obtained from the three composite sediment samples formed from the Wing Tank samples, and from the Deck Tank (Red) and Deck Tank (Grey) sediments respectively. Water content was highly variable among the three composite samples. The Wing Tank composite sediment sample had low moisture (10%), the Deck Tank (Red) was 30% moisture, and the Deck Tank (Grey) had a soupy consistency and was had a moisture content of 70 percent.

3

These sediment samples contained elevated levels of petroleum hydrocarbons with Oil & Grease values of 9,000-41,000 mg/kg-dry, fuel volatiles analyses of 15,000-42,000 mg/kg-dry, and total PAHs ranging up to 23,000 ug/kg-dry. Total metals concentrations were also elevated in these samples. Just for comparison purposes, ambient Bay sediment quality guidance criteria and Title 22 TTLC values are also tabulated. Note that the TTLC criteria are on a wet weight basis. Copper (512-1366 mg/kg-dry) and zinc (1468-9266 mg/kg-dry) values were particularly elevated though neither exceeded the Title 22 TTLC criteria for hazardous waste after corrections for moisture contents. Mercury values were also elevated but were less than the TTLC when converted to a wet weight basis. Two samples (Wing Tank and Deck Tank Grey) exceeded ten times the STLC criteria (0.2 mg/l) and thus were subjected to a WET test. The results of these WET tests showed that these sediment samples did not exceed STLC criteria. Asbestos was absent and herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below detection limits in the composite sediment samples from the hull tanks, 2.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Drydock # 1 is an old floating drydock currently tied up at Berth 70 in the Port of San Francisco (Figure 1). The Drydock is approximately 584 feet long by 128 feet wide. It consists of cross-sectional units joined together to form the drydock. Each cross-section has two wing compartments port and starboard, two main flotation compartments one on each side, and a central member compartment along the centerline of the vessel, each compartment is sealed from the others with bulkheads. When the drydock was in operation, the sectional compartments were flooded to sink the drydock for acceptance of vessels to service, and were then pumped out to re-float the drydock. An overall picture of Drydock #1 is shown in Figure 1, including piles of exfoliated rust debris on deck. At each end of the drydock, a folded outrigger structure rests on the deck covering each of the bow and stern compartments. This structure was designed to be deployed outboard for additional work space when a ship was in the drydock. The Port of San Francisco desires to develop an RFP document that would allow the Port to obtain credible and competitive bids for the ultimate disposal of Drydock # 1. The purpose of this project is to develop data on safety and environmental hazards associated with this drydock that will be needed to structure a RFP for potential bidders. Kinnetic Laboratories, working in the Moffatt & Nichol team, was responsible for sampling sediments and water present in the hull in order to determine whether environmental hazards exist that would impact work on the vessel or disposal of these sediments. At this stage of the investigation, direction from the Port of San Francisco was to generally characterize sediments and water in the various hull compartments, but not to exhaustively sample, analyze, and determine composition and volumes in each hull compartment. Therefore, the scope of work was to first do an initial reconnaissance survey of access to these compartments along with an evaluation of associated safety issues. Then a plan was developed and implemented to characterize these sediments and waters by sampling and chemical analyses. Compositing of samples from multiple, similar hull compartments was used to control the number of samples and attendant costs for analytical chemistry.

4

3.0 METHODS 3.1 Reconnaissance Study Methods The reconnaissance study consisted of an inspection of Drydock #1, with emphasis on determining access through manholes and hatches to the interior hull compartments. Entry by personnel was not attempted but manholes and hatches were opened for visual inspections from the deck. Hull compartments were inspected from above by aid of a 2-million candlepower handheld spotlight. Photographs were taken with a digital camera. A lead line was used to measure the depth of the water in each compartment that was opened, and the distance to the bottom materials as a rough estimate of the amount of sediment within the compartment. A salinity probe was used in a few of the compartments to determine whether the water present was saltwater or fresh, rainwater in origin. 3.2 Sampling and Laboratory Analyses Methods In order to characterize sediments and water within the hull compartments an approach was developed to obtain measurements of sediment thickness and both water and sediment samples working from above through the existing manholes and access doors because of observed and unknown safety hazards. The number of accessible hull compartments was 35 (22 deck compartments; 13 wing compartments). Individual compartments were sampled for sediment and water through one or two points (manhole or door). Some deck compartments had more than one manhole that were designated as A or B (A closest to bow). One sample from each compartment was archived for possible future analysis. Grab samples were used to obtain water samples. The water depths and estimated sediment depths were taken with lead line measurements. Due to variable sediment thickness found in some compartments, depth of sediment was further refined using visual estimations based on known structural dimensions within the compartments. Sediment sampling was also done with grab sampling techniques. Using a long sampling pole, scrapes of sediment samples within the hull compartments were taken with large stainless steel spoons, with a petite ponar grab at two sites, and with "breadbox" grabs at the remaining sites. Sediment and water samples were taken from each accessible hull compartment of the dry dock. Since the contaminants of concern are unknown to begin with, some wide scan lists of analytes were done. Doing full analytical work on all samples would be very expensive and probably not be cost effective. Therefore a compositing scheme was devised. Proportional composites based on compartment dimensions and sediment or water depths were formed from compartments grouped by position and sediment color (red or grey) and in the case of water - clarity. Samples for full scan chemistry of sediments were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard) as sediments were visually similar. • Center deck flotation compartments - Red rust colored sediments. • Port and starboard deck flotation compartments - Grey colored sediments.

Samples for full scan chemistry of water were obtained as follows:

• Wing compartment composite (both port and starboard). • Center deck flotation compartments - Red rust colored sediments with clear water. • Center deck flotation compartment with cloudy water. • Port and starboard deck flotation compartments - Grey colored sediments with clear water.

5

The sediment samples were analyzed for percent solids, oil & grease, dissolved sulfides, asbestos, metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, Zn), butyltins (tri-, di-, mono-, and tetra-), chlorinated pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel, motor oil, and bunker fuel, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In addition, the sediment was tested for Title 22 elements including metals (Sb, Ba, Be, Co, Mo, Tl, V), 2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid, 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxy propionic acid, pentachlorophenol, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Water was analyzed for a similar list of analytes as the sediment minus the Title 22 elements and sediment specific constituents. Chemical analyses were run by State Certified analytical chemistry laboratories. Metals and organics analyses were carried out by CRG Marine Laboratories, asbestos analyses in sediment and water samples from the hull compartments were conducted by TEM Laboratories, and conventional parameters (pH, percent solids, oil and grease, and dissolved sulfides) by Soil Control Lab. USEPA approved analytical protocols were used to analyze both the water and the sediment samples obtained from the interior of the hull compartments of Drydock #1. Analytical methods, target reporting limits, and QA/QC requirements are summarized in Tables 1 to 3. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Reconnaissance Study The Port of San Francisco arranged for a reconnaissance inspection of Drydock #1 on May 19, 2006. The purpose of the reconnaissance was to determine access to the vessel, particularly access to the compartments below decks. Safety issues were also evaluated. Access to the below deck compartments was gained by way of manholes on the deck. One set of manholes in the middle of the vessel accessed the center compartments. Two other sets accessed the port and starboard flotation compartments. These latter manholes were in lines located toward the center of the vessel. Access to the wing compartments was by interior doors. Entry to below deck compartments was not attempted. Access to the bow and stern section compartments was blocked by the outrigger section laying on the deck and blocking the manholes. An aerial photograph of Drydock #1 is shown in Figure 1. The schematic numbering of the hull compartments is shown in Figure 2. Deck views are shown in Figure 3. A few sample photographs of the vessel compartments are shown in Figures 4 through 12, and results are summarized in Table 4. Considerable structure was observed within the below deck compartments, access ladders were badly rusted, unknown rust and overhead hazards probably exist all making confined space entry problematic. Estimated water levels in the below deck compartments ranged from 1 to 5 feet deep and were essentially freshwater, with only the second forward compartment having detectable salinities of 1-7 ppm. The majority of the 18 accessible deck manhole inspections showed light (6 inches or less) of rust colored sediment material. Moderate thickness (estimated at 12-18 inches) of sediment occurred in 2 or 3 of the compartments. Wing compartments contained grey sediment mixed with exfoliating rust fragments.

6

Table 1. Summary of Analytical methods and Detection Limits for Sediment

Required Analysis Analytical Methods Project Detection Limits

Percent Moisture EPA 160.3 0.1% pH EPA 150.1 0.1 resolution Asbestos TEM - Dissolved Sulfides Plumb, 1981/TERL1 0.1 mg/Kg Oil & Grease EPA 1664HEM 100 mg/Kg TPH diesel, motor oil, bunker fuel EPA 8015C 1 mg/Kg Antimony EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Arsenic EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Barium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Beryllium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Cadmium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Chromium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Cobalt EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Copper EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Lead EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Molybdenum EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Mercury EPA 245.7 0.02 mg/Kg Nickel EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Selenium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Silver EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Thallium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Vanadium EPA 6020 0.1 mg/Kg Zinc EPA 6020 1 mg/Kg Butyltins in Sediment Analysis Krone et al., 19892 3 ug/Kg Dibutyltin Krone et al., 19892 3 ug/Kg Monobutyltin Krone et al., 19892 3 ug/Kg Tributyltin Krone et al., 19892 3 ug/Kg 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acid (2,4-D) EPA 8151A 50 ug/Kg 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy propionic acid (Silvex) EPA 8151A 50 ug/Kg

Pentachlorophenol EPA 8270C(m) 100 ug/Kg PAHs EPA 8270C(m) 10 ug/Kg Organochlorine Pesticides EPA 8270C(m) 10 ug/Kg PCBs EPA 8270C(m) 20 ug/Kg

1 Russell H. Plumb, Jr.; (1981) Procedures for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water Samples, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1981.

2 Krone CA, Brown, DW, Burrows, DG, Chan, S-L, Varanasi, U (1989). Butyltins in sediment from marinas and waterways in Puget Sound, Washington State, U.S.A. Mar Poll Bull 20:528-31.

7

Table 2. Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Water

Required Analysis Analytical Methods Project

Detection Limits

pH EPA 150.1 0.1 Asbestos TEM - Dissolved Sulfides SM 4500-S2 D 0.1 mg/Kg Oil & Grease EPA 1664HEM 5 mg/l TPH diesel, motor oil, bunker fuel EPA 8015C 50-200 ug/L Arsenic EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Cadmium EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Chromium EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Copper EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Lead EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Mercury EPA 245.7 0.02 ug/L Nickel EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Selenium EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Silver EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Zinc EPA 1640 0.1 ug/L Butyltins in Water Analysis Krone et al., 19891 3 ng/L Dibutyltin Krone et al., 19891 3 ng/L Monobutyltin Krone et al., 19891 3 ng/L Tributyltin Krone et al., 19891 3 ng/L 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acid (2,4-D) EPA 8151A 0.25 ug/L 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy propionic acid (Silvex) EPA 8151A 0.25 ug/L

Pentachlorophenol EPA 625 1 ug/L PAHs EPA 625 0.01 ug/L Organochlorine Pesticides EPA 625 0.01 ug/L PCBs EPA 625 0.02 ug/L

1 Krone CA, Brown, DW, Burrows, DG, Chan, S-L, Varanasi, U (1989). Butyltins in sediment from marinas and waterways in Puget Sound, Washington State, U.S.A. Mar Poll Bull 20:528-31.

8

Table 3. Quality Control Summary for Bulk Sediment and Water Chemistry

Analyte Blanks Laboratory

Splits (Duplicates)

MS/MSD1 LCS/BS2 Surrogates SRMs3

Sediment Matrices Dissolved Sulfides — — — Oil and Grease — — — Percent Solids — — — — — pH — — — — TPH-D, MO, BF — — Total Metals — — Speciated Butyltins — — 2,4,D and Silvex — — Pentachlorophenol — — — Organochlorine Pesticides — — — PAHs — — — PCBs — — — —

Water Matrices Dissolved Sulfides — — — Oil and Grease — — — TPH-D, MO, BF — — — Total Recoverable Metals — — Speciated Butyltins — — 2,4,D and Silvex — — Pentachlorophenol — — Organochlorine Pesticides — — PAHs — — PCBs — — —

1 Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate. 2 Laboratory Control Sample/Blank Spike. 3 Standard Reference Material (Certified Reference Material).-

9

Table 4. Port of San Francisco Floating Dry Dock at Pier 70 Hull Compartment Reconnaissance Inspection 5/19/06

Compartment Location Approx. Water

depth (feet)

Approx. Sediment

Depth (feet)

Notes

1 Forward - Starb Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - nearest to dock 3 Forward - Port Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - nearest to dock 2 Forward - Center Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - nearest to dock 4 2nd back - Starb 2 < 0.5 7 ppm salt 6 2nd back - Port 4 < 0.5 1 ppm salt 5 2nd back - Center -- < 0.5 Fresh

7 3rd back - Starboard 5 < 0.5 Fresh

9 3rd back - Port 4 < 0.5 Fresh 8 3rd back - Center 3 < 0.5 Fresh

10 4th back - Starboard 4 < 0.5 Fresh

12 4th back - Port 4 < 0.5 Fresh 11 4th back - Center 5 < 0.5 Fresh


15 5th back - Port 4 < 0.5 Fresh 14 5th back - Center 2 < 0.5 Fresh


18 6th back - Port -- -- Inaccessible 17 6th back - Center 2 < 0.5 Fresh

19 7th back - Starboard 2.5 < 0.5 Fresh

21 7th back - Port 3 1.0+ Fresh 2 7th back - Center 1.5 < 0.5 Fresh

22 Aft - Starboard Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - furthest from dock

24 Aft - Port Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - furthest from dock

23 Aft - Center Inaccessible -- Covered by Outrigger - furthest from dock

10

Figure 1. Floating Drydock at Berth 70, Port of San Francisco

11

Figure 2. Numbering Schematic for Drydock #1 Hull Compartments

12

Figure 3. Deck Views, Floating Drydock at Berth 70

13

Figure 4. Typical Structure in Center Compartment

Figure 5. Typical Water and Sediment in Center Compartment

14

Figure 6. Typical Port Flood Compartment

Figure 7. Typical Starboard Flood Compartment

15

Figure 8. Starboard Flood Compartment with Thicker Sediment

Figure 9. Structure in Wing Compartment

16

Figure 10. Sediment in Wing Compartment

Figure 11. Observation of Thicker Sediment in Wing Compartment

17

4.2 Sampling and Laboratory Analyses Results 4.2.1 Description of Sediment Samples Sediment samples taken from the individual hull compartments are tabulated in Table 5 along with sample descriptions. A best estimate of the thickness of the sediment in each of the compartments is also tabulated in Table 5 for use in obtaining a rough estimate of sediment volume. A brief summary of these sample descriptions and sample photographs of the samples follow below. Wing Compartments Eight of the thirteen compartments sampled contained small areas of standing water. Since the great majority of these spaces were dry, the sediment samples taken were generally dry, caked on material that needed to be fragmented to be removed. Sample photographs of the interior of two of these compartments are shown in Figure 12. Sediments were tan, light grey or reddish brown and usually had moderate to heavy accumulations of rust fragments mixed into them. Photographs of some of the samples can be seen in Figures 13 and 14. Center Deck Flotation Compartments All center deck compartments contained water. Sediment samples taken from the center deck compartments were saturated and most were difficult to sample due to their light (1-3 inch deep) accumulations. Sediments were mixes of red and black or red and grey with one exception which was almost all black in color. Most samples contained high percentages (50-90 %) of rust fragments and light to heavy amounts of petroleum product. Representative photographs of the samples can be seen in Figures 15 and 16. Port and Starboard Deck Flotation Compartments All port and starboard deck compartments also contained water. Sediment samples taken from these compartments were saturated. Sediments were generally grey in color with a silt-like consistency. Photographs of some of the samples can be seen in Figures 17, 18, and 19. 4.2.2 Water Samples Water samples taken from the hull compartments are summarized in Table 6 along with observations of water clarity and summary results of pH and salinity measurements. A measurement of water depth or estimated volume in each compartment is also provided. 4.2.3 Composite Sample Formation Proportional composite samples based on dimensions and sediment or water depths were formed from compartments grouped by position and sediment color (red or grey) and in the case of water - clarity. Three sediment samples for full scan chemistry were obtained by compositing individual compartment samples together. One sample (“Wing Tank”) was formed from the port and starboard wing compartments and represents about 200 cubic yards of material. A second sample (“Deck Tank Grey”) was formed from the port and starboard deck compartments and represents approximately 1200 cubic yards of material. The final sample (“Deck Tank Red”) was formed from the center deck compartments and represents approximately 40 cubic yards of material.

18

Figure 12. Internal Views of Wing Compartments of Drydock #1

Figure 13. Wing Compartment Samples - Numbers 1, 15, and 21

Figure 14. Wing Compartment Samples - Numbers 3, 16, and 19.

19

Figure 15. Center Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 5, 8, and 10

Figure 16. Center Deck Compartment Samples – Numbers 14, 17, and 20

20

Figure 17. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples - Numbers 4, 7 and 9

Figure 18. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples - Numbers 10 and 12

Figure 19. Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples - Numbers 16, 19, and 21

21

Four water samples for full scan chemistry were obtained by compositing individual compartment samples together. One sample (“Wing Tank”) was formed from the port and starboard wing compartments containing water and represents approximately 10,000 cubic feet of water. A second sample (“Deck Tank Grey”) was formed from the port and starboard deck compartments containing approximately 207,000 cubic feet of clear water. The third sample (“Deck Tank Red”) was formed from the center deck compartments containing approximately 15,000 cubic feet of clear water. The final sample (“Cloudy Water”) was from one center compartment (#8) containing approximately 7,000 cubic feet of cloudy water. Individual compartment samples were also archived for future analyses if necessary. 4.2.4 Results of Water Sample Testing The amount of water present in each hull compartment was roughly estimated from depth measurements, observations, and drydock structure dimensions. These rough estimates are tabulated in Table 7 which shows that a total of approximately 1 million gallons of water are present in these hull compartments. Results of chemical analyses of the composite water samples are given in Table 8. At the request of the Port, only total metals were included in the analyte list since disposal in ambient Bay waters was not being considered and comparisons with ambient salt water criteria was not required. Waters in the hull tanks were clear, fresh to slightly brackish generally of 1-2 ppt (parts per thousand salinity) with the highest being just over 7 ppt. Measured pH values were typically close to 8.0 (Table 6). Oil & grease values were low (<5 mg/l) and volatile fuel concentrations were in the general range of 3.5 to 4.9 mg/l (Table 8). Total PAHs were measured at 2-4 ng/l which is less than the project reporting limit. Asbestos was absent and organotins, herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below project detection limits. Only total metals were requested to be analyzed as part of this screening program. All measured concentrations of trace metals were very low. With the exception of copper and mercury, all total metals concentrations were below dissolved criteria described in Table 3-3 of the San Francisco Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Basin Plan. Total copper measurements only slightly higher than the current dissolved criteria for the 4-day average (3.1 ug/l and 1-hour average (4.8 ug/l) but were less than both the acute and chronic site specific criteria in a Basin Plan amendment that is under review. Total mercury concentrations were only slightly higher than Basin Plan criteria. 4.2.5 Results of Sediment Sample Testing Rough estimates of the volumes of sediment present in each hull compartment inspected are also given in Table 7. A total of approximately 1,400 cubic yards of sediment was estimated to exist within these hull compartments based upon rough estimates of sediment depth from measurements and from observations with hull structure members of known dimensions. These rough depths tabulated in Table 5 were then multiplied by the known compartment bottom areas to reach these estimates of sediment volume. Results of chemical analyses of the three composite sediment samples are given in Table 9. These composite sediments were those formed from the Wing Tank samples, and from the Deck Tank (Red) and Deck Tank (Grey) sediments respectively. Water content was highly variable among the three composite samples. The Wing Tank composite sediment sample had low moisture (10%), the Deck Tank (Red) was 30% moisture, and the Deck Tank (Grey) had a soupy consistency and was had a moisture content of 70 percent. These sediment samples were elevated in petroleum hydrocarbons with Oil & Grease values of 9,000-41,000 mg/kg-dry, fuel volatiles analyses of 15,000-42,000 mg/kg-dry, and total PAHs ranging up to 23,000 ug/kg-dry. Total metals concentrations were also elevated in these samples as shown in Table 9. Just for comparison purposes, ambient Bay sediment quality guidance criteria and Title 22 TTLC values are also tabulated in Table 9. Note that the TTLC criteria are a wet weight basis. Copper (512-1366 mg/kg-dry) and zinc (1468-9266 mg/kg-dry) values were particularly elevated though neither exceeded the Title 22 TTLC criteria for hazardous waste after corrections for moisture contents.

22

Mercury values were also elevated but were less than the TTLC when converted to a wet weight basis. Concentrations of mercury in two samples (Wing Tank and Deck Tank Grey) exceeded ten times the STLC criteria (0.2 mg/l wet weight), and were subjected to a WET test. The results of these WET tests (Table 10) showed that these sediment values did not exceed STLC criteria. Asbestos was absent and herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs were all below detection limits in the composite sediment samples from the hull tanks,.

23

Table 5. Summary of Sediment Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments

Compartment Location Date Time Thickness (Inches) Color Notes

1 W 29-Mar-07 0732 3-4 floor / 1-2 wall Grey Rust, tan, grey fragments, sampled bottom

3 W 27-Mar-07 1340 6-8 floor / 2-3 wall grey tan Sampled by Moffatt Nichol inside compartment, light rust fragments

4 W 30-Mar-07 0715 6-8 floor / 1-2 wall Grey Not sampled- no good access

7 W 29-Mar-07 0800 3-4 floor / 1 wall Grey Rust, tan, grey fragments, unable to sample door, moved to side manhole, bottom sample

10 W 29-Mar-07 0850 4-6 floor / 1-2 wall Grey Sampled from wall rust, tan, grey fragments, photo taken of back wall in sunlight

12 W 29-Mar-07 1140 2-4 floor / 0-1 wall reddish tan Heavy rust fragments 13 W 29-Mar-07 0925 4-6 floor / 1wall Grey Sampled bottom rust, tan, grey, slightly darker material 15 W 29-Mar-07 1120 4-6 floor / 1-2 wall light grey Door area not sampleable- moved to holes cut in side

16 W 29-Mar-07 0940 4-6 floor / 1 wall Grey Sampled wall and struts, tan sediment in heavy rust fragments

18 W 29-Mar-07 1100 2-4 floor / 0-1 wall Grey Not sampleable, heavy rust fragments deposited, light coating of sediment. 1/8-1/4"

19 W 29-Mar-07 1045 6-8 floor / 1-2 wall red brown Reddish brown sediment, slight rust fragments, floor sample

22 W 29-Mar-07 1025 4-6 floor / 1 wall red brown Reddish brown sediment, slight rust fragments, floor sample

24 W 29-Mar-07 1045 6-8 floor / 1-2 wall red brown Light reddish brown, slight rust fragments, floor sample 6 B 28-Mar-07 0910 8 Grey 6A to thin to sample 7 B 28-Mar-07 0936 6 Grey Dark grey, moderate sheen 9 B 28-Mar-07 1305 3 grey tan Light rust surface, no noticeable sheen (no photo) 12 B 28-Mar-07 1230 20 light grey tan Moderate rust surface, no noticeable sheen 13 B 28-Mar-07 1025 8 grey Very light rust surface, light sheen

15 B 28-Mar-07 1215 4 grey Dark grey w/ black areas, moderate to heavy sheen, particular mal-odor

16 B 28-Mar-07 1045 20 grey tan Large (10"-18") rust fragments, no noticeable sheen 17 B 27-Mar-07 0931 1 red Heavy rust and oil sheen with free product

19 B 27-Mar-07 0805 6 grey Varying sediment Thickness- rust color on top layer, slight sheen

4 A 28-Mar-07 0815 3 grey Light rust surface, light oil sheen 5 A 28-Mar-07 0750 1 red/grey Rust with "grey" sediment mixed , moderate sheen

24

Compartment Location Date Time Thickness (Inches) Color Notes

7 A 28-Mar-07 0936 14 grey Moderate streaking (black), light sheen, light rust surface 8 A 27-Mar-07 1400 1 red Heavy rust with moderate-heavy sheen, light free product

9 A 28-Mar-07 1305 12 grey tan Light rust surface, light streaking (black), no noticeable sheen

10 A 28-Mar-07 1004 4 grey Light rust surface, light oil sheen 11 A 27-Mar-07 1400 1 red Heavy rust and slight sheen 14 A 27-Mar-07 1140 2 red Heavy rust and oil sheen with free product 16 A 28-Mar-07 1045 6 grey Very light rust surface, trace sheen 17 A 27-Mar-07 1000 2 red Heavy rust and oil sheen with free product 18 A 28-Mar-07 1200 6 grey Dark grey, very light rust surface, moderate sheen 20 A 27-Mar-07 0822 3 red Heavy rust color, heavy oil sheen in sample, free product 21 A 27-Mar-07 0915 18 grey Rust colored surface * Location “W’ indicates wing side of compartment, Location "A" indicates "fore" side and "B" indicates "aft" side

25

Table 6. Summary of Water Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments

Compartment Location Date Time Depth or Volume pH Salinity

(ppt) Water Clarity

Sediment Color

Grab Sample Date / Time

Notes

4 A 26-Mar-07 1015 29” 7.9 7.4 clear Grey 3-29 / -- 18.5° 5 A 26-Mar-07 1018 29” 7.9 1.5 clear Red 3-30 / 0900 10.9° 6 A 26-Mar-07 1020 68” 7.7 1.3 clear Grey 3-29 / 1348 19.4° 7 A 26-Mar-07 1024 70” 8.1 0.7 clear Grey 3-29 / 1405 16.9° 8 A 26-Mar-07 1030 50” 6.9 1.5 cloudy Red 3-30 / 0800 10.6° 9 A 26-Mar-07 1027 60” 7.9 1.6 clear Grey 3-29 / 1415 15.2° 10 A 26-Mar-07 1032 64” 7.9 2.0 clear Red Grey 3-29 / 1418 10B bolted closed 11 A 26-Mar-07 1034 22” 8.0 3.3 clear Red 3-30 / 0915 12.0°

14 A 26-Mar-07 1055 35” 8.2 5.4 clear Red 3-30 / 0921 "film" on surface when grab was taken

16 A 26-Mar-07 1100 56” 7.9 2.2 clear Grey 3-29 / 1441 16B grey, 15.2° 17 A 26-Mar-07 1105 26” 8.6 6.9 clear Red 3-30 / 0930 12.3° 18 A 26-Mar-07 1103 75” 8.4 0.9 clear Grey 3-29 / 1500 14.2° 20 A 26-Mar-07 1130 30” 8.5 0.5 clear Red 3-30 / 0940 21 A 26-Mar-07 1115 41” 8.4 2.6 clear Grey 3-29 / 1454 21B bolted closed 12 B 26-Mar-07 1050 50” 8.2 2.1 clear Grey 3-29 / 1422 12A under gangway, 15.3° 13 B 26-Mar-07 1057 62” 8.2 2.4 clear Grey 3-29 / 1428 13A bolted closed, 14.8° 15 B 26-Mar-07 1059 62” 8.0 1.2 clear Grey 3-29 / 1435 15A bolted closed, 15.2° 19 B 26-Mar-07 1141 40” 8.2 2.7 clear Grey 3-29 / 1448 19A bolted closed, 14.7°

Composite Grey (sides) * measured by lab

Composite Red (center) 26-Mar-07 940 na 8.3 4 clear na 3-30 / 0940 13.8°

3 W 26-Mar-07 1040 150 cu ft. 7.8 2.6 clear na 3-30 / 1040 12.4° 7 W 26-Mar-07 1005 700 cu ft. 7.9 0.7 clear na 3-30 / 1005

10 W 26-Mar-07 1015 144 cu ft. 7.8 0.2 clear na 3-30 / 1015 "dust" particles on surface (film) 14.7°

12 W 26-Mar-07 1030 360 cu ft. 8.1 2.1 clear na 3-30 / 1030 13.1° 13 W 26-Mar-07 1130 280 cu ft. 7.8 na clear na 3-30 / 1130 13.2° 15 W 26-Mar-07 1115 546 cu ft. 8.0 1.2 clear na 3-30 / 1115 12.5° 16 W 26-Mar-07 1140 280 cu ft. 7.7 2.2 clear na 3-30 / 1140 15.9°

26

Compartment Location Date Time Depth or Volume pH Salinity

(ppt) Water Clarity

Sediment Color

Grab Sample Date / Time

Notes

18 W 26-Mar-07 1120 1144 cu ft 8.0 0.8 clear na 3-30 / 1120 12.6° Composite W 26-Mar-07 1140 na 8.2 1.5 clear na na 13.3°

* “Grey” signifies side compartments * “Red” identifies center compartments * “W” signifies wing compartment * The water composite was created with volumes collected in proportion to the compartment volumes * Water depth in wing compartments is recorded in cubic feet * Location “A” indicates “fore” side of compartment and “B” indicates “aft” side

27

Table 7. Summary of Estimated Volumes of Sediment and Water in Drydock #1 Hull

Compartments

Compartment Estimated Sediment Volume (cubic yards)

Estimated Water Volume (gallons)

1W 7 Dry 3W 14 1,100 4W 15 Dry 7W 16 5,200 10W 25 1,100 12W 12 2,700 13W 23 2,100 15W 23 4,100 16W 23 2,100 18W 14 8,600 19W 15 Dry 22W 9 Dry 24W 12 Dry Total of Wing Compartments 208 27,000 5 2 14,000 8 5 53,000 11 5 22,000 14 11 37,000 17 8 28,000 20 7 15,000 Total of Center Compartments 38 169,000 4 19 27,000 6 50 48,000 7 134 110,000 9 101 83,000 10 50 87,000 12 247 71,000 13 107 88,000 15 54 88,000 16 174 79,000 18 80 120,000 19 37 33,000 21 111 33,000 Total of Side Compartments 1,164 867,000 Total of All Compartments 1,410 1,063,000

28

Table 8. Results of Chemical Analyses of Water in Hull Compartments of Drydock #1

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

Cloudy Water

CONVENTIONALS pH (pH units) 7.8 Salinity (SU) 2 Oil and Grease (mg/l) 3.9J 5.0U 1.8J 2.2J Water Soluble Sulfides (mg/l) 0.10U 0.10U 0.10U 0.10U ASBESTOS Identified Structures (>10µm) Chrysotile Asbestos NSD1 NSD NSD NSD Amphibole Asbestos NSD NSD NSD NSD Other Non-asbestos NSD NSD NSD NSD Asbestos Structure Concentration (>10µm) Chrysotile Asbestos (MFL2) <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U Amphibole Asbestos (MFL) <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U Total Asbestos (MFL) <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U <0.2U TOTAL METALS (ug/L) Arsenic 0.6 0.04 0.9 0.5 Cadmium 0.2U 0.025 0.2U 0.2U Chromium 1.4 0.225 2.3 1.2 Copper 5.5 1.41 5.8 2.4 Lead 0.39 0.069 0.09 0.05U Mercury 0.05 0.01U 0.04 0.01U Nickel 0.5 0.156 0.8 1 Selenium 1.9 0.01 3.2 2 Silver 0.5U 0.02U 0.5U 0.5U Zinc 26.5 0.447 22.9 4.4 BUTYLTINS (ng/L) Monobutyltin 1U 1U 1U 1U Dibutyltin 1U 1U 1U 1U Tributyltin 1U 1U 1U 1U Tetrabutyltin 1U 1U 1U 1U SEMIVOLATILE FUEL (ug/L) Fuel Oil #6 (C10-C28) 3500 1800 3400 4900 Jet-A (C9-C17) 94U 47U 50U 200 Diesel Range Organics (C10-C28) 1500 570 1000 2000 Motor Oil (C16-C36) 2000 760 1400 2400 HERBICIDES (µg/L) 2,4-D 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 2,4-DB 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 5.0U 2,4,5-T 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U Dalapon 13U 13U 13U 13U Dicamba 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U 0.50U Dichbrprop 5U 5U 5U 5U Dinoseb 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U 2.5U MCPA 500U 500U 500U 500U MCPP 500U 500U 500U 500U

29

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

Cloudy Water

CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (ng/L) 2,4'-DDD 100U 100U 100U 100U 2,4'-DDE 100U 100U 100U 100U 2,4'-DDT 5U 5U 5U 5U 4,4'-DDD 5U 5U 5U 5U 4,4'-DDE 5U 5U 5U 5U 4,4'-DDT 100U 100U 100U 100U Total DDT 0 0 0 0 Aldrin 100U 100U 100U 100U BHC-alpha 5U 5U 5U 5U BHC-beta 100U 100U 100U 100U BHC-delta 100U 100U 100U 100U BHC-gamma 5U 5U 5U 5U Chlordane-alpha 5U 5U 5U 5U Chlordane-gamma 5U 5U 5U 5U cis-Nonachlor 5U 5U 5U 5U DCPA (Dacthal) 10U 10U 10U 10U Dicofol 100U 100U 100U 100U Dieldrin 100U 100U 100U 100U Endosulfan Sulfate 5U 5U 5U 5U Endosulfan-I 100U 100U 100U 100U Endosulfan-II 100U 100U 100U 100U Endrin 100U 100U 100U 100U Endrin Aldehyde 100U 100U 100U 100U Endrin Ketone 100U 100U 100U 100U Heptachlor 100U 100U 100U 100U Heptachlor Epoxide 5U 5U 5U 5U Methoxychlor 5U 5U 5U 5U Mirex 100U 100U 100U 100U Oxychlordane 100U 100U 100U 100U Perthane 100U 100U 100U 100U Toxaphene 50U 50U 50U 50U trans-Nonachlor 5U 5U 5U 5U Total Chlordane 0 0 0 0 ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS (ng/L)) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 100U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 100U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 200U 200U 200U 200U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 200U 2-Chlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 100U 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 200U 2-Nitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 200U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 200U 200U 200U 200U 4-Nitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 200U Pentachlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 100U Phenol 200U 200U 200U 200U Total Phenolic Compounds 0 0 0 0

30

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

Cloudy Water

POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (ng/L) 1-Methylnaphthalene 5U 5U 5U 5U 1-Methylphenanthrene 100U 100U 100U 100U 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 5U 5U 5U 5U 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 5U 5U 5U 5U 2-Methylnaphthalene 5U 5U 5U 5U Acenaphthene 5U 5U 5U 5U Acenaphthylene 5U 5U 5U 5U Anthracene 100U 100U 100U 100U Benz[a]anthracene 5U 5U 5U 5U Benzo[a]pyrene 5U 5U 5U 5U Benzo[b]fluoranthene 5U 5U 5U 5U Benzo[e]pyrene 5U 5U 5U 5U Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 5U 5U 5U 5U Benzo[k]fluoranthene 5U 5U 5U 5U Biphenyl 5U 5U 5U 5U Chrysene 5U 5U 5U 5U Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 5U 5U 5U 5U Dibenzothiophene 5U 5U 5U 5U Fluoranthene 5U 5U 5U 5U Fluorene 5U 5U 5U 5U Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 5U 5U 5U 5U Naphthalene 4.1J 2.4J 1.9J 4J Perylene 5U 5U 5U 5U Phenanthrene 100U 100U 100U 100U Pyrene 100U 100U 100U 100U Total Low Weight PAHs 4.1 2.4 1.9 4 Total High Weight PAHs 0 0 0 0 Total PAHs 4.1 2.4 1.9 4 PCB CONGENERS (ng/L) PCB018 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB028 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB031 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB033 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB037 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB044 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB049 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB052 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB066 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB070 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB074 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB077 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB081 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB087 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB095 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB097 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB099 100U 100U 100U 100U

31

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

Cloudy Water

PCB101 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB105 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB110 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB114 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB118 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB119 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB123 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB126 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB128+167 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB138 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB141 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB149 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB151 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB153 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB156 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB157 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB158 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB168+132 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB169 100U 100U 100U 100U PCB170 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB177 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB180 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB183 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB187 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB189 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB194 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB200 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB201 5U 5U 5U 5U PCB206 5U 5U 5U 5U Total Detectable PCBs 0 0 0 0

1NSD = No Structures Detected 2MFL = Millions of Fibers per Liter U = Not Detected. The compound was analyzed for but was not detected above analytical reporting limits. The associated

value is the sample reporting limit. J = The associate value is an estimated quantity. In some cases the “J” value is a reported measurement below the reporting

limit but above the method detection limit.

32

Table 9. Results (Dry Weight) of Chemical Analyses of Sediments in Hull Compartments of Drydock #1

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

ERL ERM Title 22 TTLC

CONVENTIONALS pH (pH units) 5.2 7.3 7.1 Percent Solids (%) (Soil Control Lab) 89.8 70.3 29.1 Total Solids (%) (Test America) 88 59 28 Oil and Grease (mg/kg dry) 31000 41000 9200 Water Soluble Sulfides (mg/kg dry) 0.45U 0.053U 0.15U ASBESTOS Chrysotile Fibers 4 NSD 17 Bundles NSD NSD NSD Concentration (weight %) 0.001 <0.001U 0.006 Amphibole Fibers NSD NSD NSD Bundles NSD NSD NSD Concentration (weight %) <0.001U <0.001U <0.001U TOTAL METALS (mg/kg dry) Antimony 1.863 2.941 0.84 Arsenic 28.0 33.4 29.5 8.2 70 500 Barium 188.8 164 534.6 Beryllium 0.296 0.084 0.569 Cadmium 0.825J 0.787 8.02 1.2 9.6 100 Chromium 133 191 164 81 370 2500 Cobalt 27.086 27.946 18.986 Copper 512 1366 666 34 270 2500 Lead 171J 182 113 46.7 218 1000 Mercury 10.3J 2.40 9.85 0.15 0.71 20 Molybdenum 15.35 274 13.44 Nickel 125J 87.6 110 20.9 51.6 2000 Selenium 0.834 0.451 1.71 100 Silver 0.25U 0.025U 0.205 1 3.7 500 Thallium 0.084 0.082 0.191 Vanadium 70.231 16.771 102.361 Zinc 1468 1277 9266 150 410 5000 BUTYLTINS (µg/kg dry) Monobutyltin 3U 3U 3U Dibutyltin 280 226 619 Tributyltin 233 5406 5523J+ Tetrabutyltin 3U 20.8 41.9 SEMIVOLATILE FUEL (mg/kg dry) Fuel Oil #6 (C10-C28) 42000 23000 15000 Jet-A (C9-C17) 1500 1500 710 Diesel Range Organics (C10-C28) 14000 7600 5100 Motor Oil (C16-C36) 20000 10000 7400 HERBICIDES (µg/kg dry) 2,4-D 100U 100U 100U

33

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey


2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 10U 10U 10U CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (µg/kg dry) 2,4'-DDD 100U 100U 100UJ 2,4'-DDE 100U 100U 100UJ 2,4'-DDT 5U 5U 5U 4,4'-DDD 5U 5U 5U 2 20 1000 4,4'-DDE 5U 5U 5U 2.2 27 1000 4,4'-DDT 100U 100U 100UJ 1 7 1000 Total DDT 0 0 0 1.58 46.1 1000 Aldrin 100U 100U 100UJ 1400 BHC-alpha 5U 5U 5U BHC-beta 100U 100U 100UJ BHC-delta 100U 100U 100UJ BHC-gamma 5U 5U 5U Chlordane-alpha 5U 5U 5U Chlordane-gamma 5U 5U 5U cis-Nonachlor 5U 5U 5U DCPA (Dacthal) 10U 10U 10U Dicofol 100U 100U 100U Dieldrin 100U 100U 100UJ 0.02 8 8000 Endosulfan Sulfate 5U 5U 5U Endosulfan-I 100U 100U 100UJ Endosulfan-II 100U 100U 100UJ Endrin 100U 100U 100UJ 200 Endrin Aldehyde 100U 100U 100UJ Endrin Ketone 100U 100U 100UJ Heptachlor 100U 100U 100UJ Heptachlor Epoxide 5U 5U 5U Methoxychlor 5U 5U 5U Mirex 100U 100U 100UJ Oxychlordane 100U 100U 100UJ Perthane 100U 100U 100UJ Toxaphene 50U 50U 50U trans-Nonachlor 5U 5U 5U Total Chlordane 0 0 0 0.5 6 ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS (µg/kg dry) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 2,4-Dichlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 2,4-Dimethylphenol 200U 200U 200U 2,4-Dinitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 2-Chlorophenol 100U 100U 100U 2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 2-Nitrophenol 200U 200U 200U 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol 200U 200U 200U 4-Nitrophenol 200U 200U 200U Pentachlorophenol 100U 100U 100U Phenol 200U 200U 200U

34

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey


Total Phenolic Compounds 0 0 0 POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (ug/kg dry) 1-Methylnaphthalene 36.4 61.5 28.9J 1-Methylphenanthrene 319 570 100U 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 137 841 5U 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 35.5 292 38.1J 2-Methylnaphthalene 43.4 40 36.9J 70 670 Acenaphthene 328 56.6 62.7J 16 500 Acenaphthylene 14.6 5.3 40.2J 44 640 Anthracene 192 840 100U 85.3 1100 Benz[a]anthracene 1105 463 654J+ 261 1600 Benzo[a]pyrene 990 323 2005J+ 430 1600 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 1262 462 2031J+ Benzo[e]pyrene 1277 315 2843J+ Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 565 114 1727J Benzo[k]fluoranthene 1099 381 1084J+ Biphenyl 24.3 11 20.4J Chrysene 2542 826 1926J+ 384 2800 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 141 41 470J 63.4 260 Dibenzothiophene 228 56 5U Fluoranthene 4672 1183 1346J+ 600 5100 Fluorene 217 168 5U 19 540 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 522 148 1916J Naphthalene 64.9 27.8 29.8 160 2100 Perylene 461 131 1408J+ Phenanthrene 4064 727 100U 240 1500 Pyrene 3368 1060 2857J+ 665 2600 Total Low Weight PAHs 5702 3695 257J Total High Weight PAHs 18003 5446 20268J+ Total PAHs 23705 9142 20525J+ 4022 44792 PCB CONGENERS (µg/kg dry) PCB018 100U 100U 100UJ PCB028 100U 100U 100UJ PCB031 100U 100U 100UJ PCB033 100U 100U 100UJ PCB037 100U 100U 100UJ PCB044 100U 100U 100UJ PCB049 100U 100U 100UJ PCB052 100U 100U 100UJ PCB066 100U 100U 100UJ PCB070 100U 100U 100UJ PCB074 100U 100U 100UJ PCB077 100U 100U 100UJ PCB081 100U 100U 100UJ PCB087 100U 100U 100UJ PCB095 100U 100U 100U PCB097 100U 100U 100UJ

35

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey


PCB099 100U 100U 100UJ PCB101 100U 100U 100UJ PCB105 5U 5U 5U PCB110 5U 5U 5U PCB114 100U 100U 100U PCB118 5U 5U 5U PCB119 100U 100U 100U PCB123 5U 5U 5U PCB126 100U 100U 100U PCB128+167 5U 5U 5U PCB138 5U 5U 5U PCB141 100U 100U 100U PCB149 5U 5U 5U PCB151 5U 5U 5U PCB153 5U 5U 5U PCB156 5U 5U 5U PCB157 100U 100U 100U PCB158 5U 5U 5U PCB168+132 5U 5U 5U PCB169 5U 5U 5U PCB170 100U 100U 100U PCB177 5U 5U 5U PCB180 5U 5U 5U PCB183 5U 5U 5U PCB187 5U 5U 5U PCB189 5U 5U 5U PCB194 5U 5U 5U PCB200 5U 5U 5U PCB201 5U 5U 5U PCB206 5U 5U 5U Total Detectable PCBs 100U 100U 100U

U = Not Detected. The compound was analyzed for but was not detected above analytical reporting limits. The associated value is the sample reporting limit.

UJ = Estimated detection limit. The compound was analyzed for but was not detected. The associated value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise.

J = The associated value is an estimated quantity. In some cases the “J” value is a reported measurement below the reporting limit but above the method detection limit.

J+ = The associated value is a high estimate. Table 10. Summary of Waste Extraction Tests (WET) conducted on Sediments in Hull

Compartments of Drydock #1

Analyte Wing Tank

Deck Tank Red

Deck Tank Grey

Title 22 STLC

METALS (mg/l) Mercury 0.01U 0.01U 0.01U 0.2 Zinc 37 250

U = Not Detected. The compound was analyzed for but was not detected above analytical reporting limits. The associated value is the sample reporting limit.

36

This page intentionally left blank

A-1

APPENDIX A: QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL REPORT

Kinnetic Laboratories conducts all activities in accordance with formal QA/QC procedures. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) consists of evaluating the laboratory quality control samples for compliance associated with the field sampling and laboratory. Laboratory QA/QC activities provide information needed to assess potential laboratory contamination, analytical precision and representativeness. The overall QA objective is to ensure that data of known and acceptable quality are provided. The primary indicators used to evaluate the quality of the data are precision, accuracy, representativeness, comparability and completeness. Field Quality Control includes adherence to SOPs and formal sample documentation and tracking. Analytical chemistry Quality Control is formalized by EPA and State Certification agencies, and involves internal quality control checks such as method blanks, matrix spike/spike duplicates, duplicates, surrogates and calibration standards. All analytical data collected for this sediment testing program have undergone QA/QC evaluation according to EPA National Functional Guidelines for inorganic and organic data review (USEPA, 1999; 2001; 2002). 1.0 QA/QC METHODS

The overall quality of the dataset is determined to a large degree by the thoroughness, accuracy and precision of the laboratory QC records, which explains why the majority of this section is devoted to examining them in detail. The QC is tabulated by category and each is discussed individually. Generally, the results were well within the appropriate ranges and limits and any significant exceptions and any resulting data qualifications are presented in detail in this section and reflected in the summary tables found in the main body of the document. 1.1 Precision

Precision provides an assessment of mutual agreement between repeated measurements. These measurements may apply to laboratory duplicates (DUP), matrix spike duplicates (MSD) and laboratory control sample duplicates (LCSD). Monitoring of precision through the process allows for the evaluation of the consistency of field sampling and laboratory analyses.

The Relative Percent Difference (RPD) is used to evaluate duplicate samples. The RPD is calculated as:

( )⎟⎟⎟⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜⎜⎜⎜

⎝

⎛

+∗

−∗=

21

21

21

100xx

xxRPD

where:

=1x Concentration of sample 1 of the pair

=2x Concentration of sample 2 of the pair

1.2 Accuracy

An assessment of the accuracy of measurements is based on determining the percent difference between measured values and known or “true” values applied to surrogates, Matrix Spikes (MS), Laboratory Control Samples (LCS) and Standard Reference Materials (SRM). Surrogates and matrix spikes evaluate matrix interferences on analytical performance, while laboratory control samples, standard reference materials and blank spikes (BS) evaluate analytical performance in the absence of matrix effects.

A-2

In general, Percent Recovery is calculated as:

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛∗=

ValueTrueValueMeasuredR

__100%

Matrix Spike recoveries take into account the concentration of the source sample.

⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛ −∗=

ValueTrueValueSampleValueMeasuredRMS _

__100%

1.3 Representativeness, Comparability and Completeness

Representativeness is the degree to which data accurately and precisely represents the natural environment.

Comparability is the measure of confidence with which one dataset can be compared to another. The use of standardized methods of chemical analysis and field sampling and processing are ways of insuring comparability. The implementation of thorough QA/QC methods such as field duplicates and laboratory QC is essential.

Completeness is a measure of the percentage of the data judged valid after comparison with specific validation criteria. This includes data lost through accidental breakage of sample containers or other activities that result in irreparable loss of samples. Implementation of standardized Chain-of-Custody procedures which track samples as they are transferred between custodians is one method of maintaining a high level of completeness.

A high level of completeness was essential to all phases of this study due to the limited number of samples. Of course, the overall goal is to obtain completeness of one hundred percent, however, a realistic data quality objective of 95% insures an adequate level of data return.

Close adherence to ‘Standard Operating Procedures’ (SOP’s) assures that the resulting data is representative, complete and comparable. The results are further assessed with a thorough validation process.

2.0 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROCESS

For this testing program, please refer to the following tables for specific QC procedures and objectives employed: Table A-1 summarizes the laboratory QC for sediment and water chemical analyses; Table A-2 summarizes sediment QC Objectives; and Table A-3 identifies laboratory QC requirements and data quality objectives for water chemistry.

A-3

Table A-1. Quality Control Summary for Bulk Sediment and Water Chemistry.

Analyte Blanks Laboratory

Splits (Duplicates)

MS/MSD1 LCS/BS2 Surrogates SRMs3

Sediment Matrices Dissolved Sulfides — — — Oil and Grease — — — Percent Solids — — — — — pH — — — — TPH-D, MO, BF — — Total Metals — — Speciated Butyltins — — 2,4,D and Silvex — — Pentachlorophenol — — — Organochlorine Pesticides — — —

PAHs — — — PCBs — — — — Water Matrices Dissolved Sulfides — — — Oil and Grease — — — TPH-D, MO, BF — — —

Total Recoverable Metals — —

Speciated Butyltins — — 2,4,D and Silvex — — Pentachlorophenol — — Organochlorine Pesticides — —

PAHs — — PCBs — — —

1 Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate. 2 Laboratory Control Sample/Blank Spike. 3 Standard Reference Material (Certified Reference Material).

A-4

Table A-2. Sediment Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives. Accuracy Precision

Analyte Spike Recovery(%)

LCS Recovery (%)SRM

(μg/g – dry)

Matrix and Blank Spike RPDs

(%)

Laboratory Duplicate RPDs

(%) Conventionals Dissolved Sulfides 50-110 75-125 30 Oil and Grease 75-125 30 Percent Solids 20 pH 80-120 20 TPH-D, MO, BF 65-120 65-120 40 Total Metals Antimony 70-130 30 30 Arsenic 70-130 5.64-7.48 30 30 Barium 70-140 79.7-109 30 30 Beryllium 50-120 0.20-.069 30 30 Cadmium 70-130 0.04-0.63 30 30 Chromium 55-135 6.19-31.4 30 30 Cobalt 65-125 4.72-7.60 30 30 Copper 65-125 12.2-17.5 30 30 Lead 55-120 10.9-17.9 30 30 Mercury 65-140 0-0.357 30 30 Molybdenum 70-160 30 30 Nickel 70-130 12.4-21.1 30 30 Selenium 60-125 30 30 Silver 50-120 30 30 Thallium 65-125 30 30 Vanadium 50-160 6.90-56.9 30 30 Zinc 60-120 50.3-76.6 30 30 Speciated Butlytins Monobutyltin 1-101 Dibutyltin MDL-110 30 Tributyltin 40-150 30 Tetrabutyltin 50-140 30 Herbicides 2,4 –dichlorophenoxy acid (2,4-D) 30-130 30-130 30 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy propionic acid 30-130 30-130 30 Acid Extractable Compounds Pentachlorophenol MDL-150 30 Organochlorine Pesticides 2,4'-DDD 50-135 2,4'-DDE 60-130 2,4'-DDT 40-135 30 4,4'-DDD 70-130 30 4,4'-DDE 65-130 4,4'-DDT 35-140 Aldrin 50-125 BHC-alpha 60-120 30 BHC-beta 60-120 BHC-delta 60-120 BHC-gamma 60-120 30 Chlordane-alpha 70-130 30 Chlordane-gamma 60-120 30 cis-Nonachlor 60-120 30 DCPA (Dacthal) 60-140 30 Dicofol 65-125 Dieldrin 50-125

A-5

Table A-2. Sediment Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives. Accuracy Precision

Analyte Spike Recovery(%)

LCS Recovery (%)SRM

(μg/g – dry)

Matrix and Blank Spike RPDs

(%)


(%) Endosulfan Sulfate 25-125 30 Endosulfan-I 45-125 Endosulfan-II 25-145 Endrin 60-125 Endrin Aldehyde 60-120 Endrin Ketone 45-125 Heptachlor 45-125 Heptachlor Epoxide 60-120 30 Methoxychlor 35-140 30 Mirex 50-130 Oxychlordane 70-130 Perthane 60-140 trans-Nonachlor 60-120 30 PCB Congeners All PCB Congeners 60-125 30 PAHs 1-Methylnaphthalene 40-120 30 1-Methylphenanthrene 40-160 2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 45-120 30 2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 40-130 30 2-Methylnaphthalene 35-125 30 Acenaphthene 40-125 30 Acenaphthylene 40-130 30 Anthracene 45-150 Benz[a]anthracene 50-175 30 Benzo[a]pyrene 50-160 30 Benzo[b]fluoranthene 45-160 30 Benzo[e]pyrene 40-160 30 Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 30-170 30 Benzo[k]fluoranthene 50-150 30 Biphenyl 45-120 30 Chrysene 40-160 30 Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 40-165 30 Dibenzothiophene 65-125 30 Fluoranthene 45-165 30 Fluorene 55-150 30 Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 40-170 30 Naphthalene 30-120 30 Perylene 30-175 30 Phenanthrene 35-160 30 Pyrene 50-150 30

A-6

Table A-3. Water and Elutriate Matrices: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives. Accuracy Precision

Analyte Matrix Spike Recovery

(%)

LCS/Blank Spike/ SRM Recovery

(%)

Matrix and Blank Spike

RPDs (%)


(%)

Conventionals Dissolved Sulfides 80-120 20 Oil and Grease 80-120 20TPH-D, MO, BF 40-115 25Total Recoverable Metals Arsenic 70-130 65-125 30 30 Cadmium 75-130 60-120 30 30Chromium 70-130 70-130 30 30Copper 70-130 55-120 30 30Lead 65-135 50-120 30 30Mercury 60-140 60-140 30 30Nickel 70-130 50-120 30 30Selenium 60-150 50-110 30 30Silver 50-155 50-125 30 30Zinc 50-150 45-105 30 30Speciated Butlytins Monobutyltin MDL-130 30 30 Dibutyltin MDL-144 30 30Tributyltin 70-130 30 30Tetrabutyltin 65-125 30 30Herbicides 2,4 –dichlorophenoxy acid 30-130 30-130 30 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy 30-130 30-130 30Acid Extractable Compounds Pentachlorophenol 10-160 30 Organochlorine Pesticides 2,4'-DDD 50-140 30 30 2,4'-DDE 60-130 30 302,4'-DDT 40-130 30 304,4'-DDD 60-140 30 304,4'-DDE 70-130 30 304,4'-DDT MDL-150 30 30Aldrin 50-130 30 30BHC-alpha 60-130 30 30BHC-beta 65-125 30 30BHC-delta 65-125 30 30BHC-gamma 50-125 30 30Chlordane-alpha 60-130 30 30Chlordane-gamma 60-130 30 30cis-Nonachlor 60-120 30 30DCPA (Dacthal) 60-140 30 30Docofol 55-130 30 30Dieldrin 65-125 30 30Endosulfan Sulfate 60-125 30 30Endosulfan-I 60-125 30 30Endosulfan-II 60-125 30 30Endrin 65-135 30 30Endrin Aldehyde 60-110 30 30Endrin Ketone 40-130 30 30Heptachlor 45-135 30 30Heptachlor Epoxide 65-130 30 30

A-7

Table A-3. Water and Elutriate Matrices: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives. Accuracy Precision

Analyte Matrix Spike Recovery

(%)

LCS/Blank Spike/ SRM Recovery

(%)

Matrix and Blank Spike

RPDs (%)


(%)

Methoxychlor MDL-155 30 30Mirex 50-125 30 30Oxychlordane 50-130 30 30Perthane 60-140 30 30trans-Nonachlor 55-130 30 30PCB Congeners All PCB Congeners 60-125 30 30 PAHs 1-Methylnaphthalene 50-120 30 30 1-Methylphenanthrene 70-130 30 302,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene 45-130 30 302,6-Dimethylnaphthalene 55-125 30 302-Methylnaphthalene 50-130 30 30Acenaphthene 70-130 30 30Acenaphthylene 60-120 30 30Anthracene 60-130 30 30Benz[a]anthracene 70-140 30 30Benzo[a]pyrene 70-130 30 30Benzo[b]fluoranthene 60-140 30 30Benzo[e]pyrene 70-130 30 30Benzo[g,h,i]perylene 50-140 30 30Benzo[k]fluoranthene 70-130 30 30Biphenyl 50-120 30 30Chrysene 70-130 30 30Dibenz[a,h]anthracene 60-130 30 30Dibenzothiophene 70-130 30 30Fluoranthene 65-135 30 30Fluorene 70-130 30 30Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene 70-130 30 30Naphthalene 50-120 30 30Perylene 65-135 30 30Phenanthrene 70-130 30 30Pyrene 70-130 30 30

A-8

2.3 Data Qualifiers Where appropriate, data qualifiers were associated with the results using the following standard notations from the EPA guidance documents:

Data Review Qualifiers

U Not detected The compound was analyzed for but was not detected above analytical reporting limits. The associated value is the sample reporting limit

UJ Estimated Detection Limit The compound was analyzed for but was not detected. The associated value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise

J- Estimated Value The associated value is a low estimate

J Estimated Value The associate value is an estimated quantity

J+ Estimated Value The associated value is a high estimate

R Rejected The data are unusable. The analyte may or may not be present

The EPA guidance documents are clear that data review and qualification rules are to be tempered using professional judgment. The specific data qualifications as they apply to this project are discussed in the following section. 3.0 ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY QA/QC This section address individual quality control associated with sampling handling and laboratory analysis. Sediment and water records are discussed separately. 3.1 Holding Times In the case of sediments, appropriate holding times are still the subject of debate. Kinnetic Laboratories has adopted a conservative approach and requests 14 days to sample preparation for organic analyses in sediment and 7 days for sulfides. Metals have a 6-month holding time. Holding times were generally met for the sediment samples associated with this project. However, sample preparation for herbicides in sediments was done approximately 5 weeks after the 14 day (2 week) window. No qualification of these data was necessary as all analytes were not measured above the reporting limit. In addition, herbicides were also not measured above the reporting limit in any of the water samples which were run within holding times.

The only water quality sample which did not meet holding times was the pH analysis for the composite water sample “Deck Tank Grey.” This test pH analyses should be performed immediately and while this was a composite sample analysis performed in the analytical laboratory, discrete grab samples performed during sampling compare with this result. No qualification of this data was deemed necessary.

Waste Extraction Tests (WET) were conducted on two of the sediment samples to analyze for soluble mercury. Mercury analyses should be conducted within 28 days. Review of the laboratory data from the bulk sediment composites revealed that concentrations of total mercury in two samples were sufficient to warrant WET testing. Although WET testing was not initially specified in the original study plan, samples were resubmitted for this test approximate one month past the 28 day holding time in order to develop additional information on these sediments. No mercury was detected in the WET tests above a reporting limit of 0.01 mg/l but results of these additional tests should be considered as estmates.

A-9

3.2 Blanks

Method and filter blanks were run on carbon free water to assess contamination introduced in the laboratory. In all cases, procedural blanks for sediment and water did not contain any quantifiable concentrations indicating the methods and equipment used were free of or did not introduce contamination. 3.3 Laboratory Replicates

The control limit established for laboratory replicate relative percent differences (RPDs) for all chemical constituents are listed in Tables A-2 and A-3. Water and sediment RPDs met QA/QC objectives, with the following exceptions:

• The laboratory replicates for PAHs in sediment for most of the detected analytes in the composite sample “Deck Tank Grey” had elevated RPD values. The sample was heterogeneous and sample homogeneity could not be readily achieved using routine laboratory practices. Analytes from this sample which did not meet RPD QC Objectives were qualified “J” where the associated value is an estimated quantity.

• The laboratory replicates for four metals (cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel) in sediment in the

composite sample “Wing Tank” had slightly elevated RPD values (33 to 51%). This is probably a reflection of sample heterogeneity. These four metals in this “Wing Tank” composite sample were qualified “J” where the associated value is an estimated quantity.

3.3 Laboratory Control Samples

All Laboratory control samples associated with this project were well within QC limits indicating proper analytical performance in the absence of matrix effects. 3.4 Matrix Spikes/Matrix Spike Duplicates

Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicates (MS/MSD) percent recoveries were evaluated to determine acceptable accuracy based on method-specific percent recoveries. Precision was evaluated by calculating the RPD of the MS/MSD recovery results. The general rule is that when spikes are reported below the accepted range they indicate a low bias to the results and when reported above the accepted range they indicate a high bias. However, if the spike concentration was low in comparison with the sample concentration, a poor recovery is not in itself indicative of a QC problem. Quality control limits for MS/MSD recoveries and RPDs for water and sediment matrices are listed in Tables A-2 and A-3. Data that did not meet established QC objects are as follows:

• Both MS and MSD percent recoveries for chlorinated pesticides in sediments were below the acceptable QC recovery limits for sixteen (2,4’-DDD; 2,4’-DDE’; 4,4’-DDT; aldrin; BHC-beta; BHC-delta; dieldrin; endosulfan-I; endosulfan-II; endrin; endrin aldehyde; endrin ketone; heptachlor; mirex; oxychlordane; and perthane) of the thirty-one analytes. Since blank spike and surrogate recoveries for all chlorinated pesticides were within QC limits, matrix spike recovery appears to be out of control due to matrix interference in the specific sample for the sixteen listed compounds. Given that these sixteen compounds were not detected in the “Deck Tank Grey” composite sample and that the chemical makeup of the sediments may mask their presence, the sample results for these compounds in this specific sample were qualified “UJ.” The MSD percent recovery for dicofol was also below QC limits but the MS percent recovery was within QC limits. No qualification of this compound was deemed necessary since all other QC requirements were met.

• Both MS and MSD percent recoveries were above QC limits for tributyltin in sediments. Spike recovery limits do not apply resulting from the parameter concentration in the sample exceeding

A-10

the spike concentration. Since all blank spike and surrogate recoveries for butyltins were within QC limits, only the associated “Deck Tank Grey” composite sample was qualified “J+” where the tributyltin value should be considered a high estimate.

• Both MS and MSD percent recoveries for PCB congeners in sediments were below the acceptable QC recovery limits for seventeen (PCB congeners 018, 028, 031, 033, 037, 044, 049, 052, 066, 070, 074, 077, 081, 087, 097, 099, and 101) of the forty-seven congeners. Since blank spike and surrogate recoveries for all PCB congeners were within QC limits, matrix spike recovery appears to be out of control due to matrix interference in the specific sample for the seventeen listed congeners. Given that these seventeen congeners were not detected in the “Deck Tank Grey” composite sample and that the chemical makeup of the sediments may mask their presence, the sample results for these congeners in this specific sample were qualified “UJ.” The MS percent recoveries for six other PCB congeners (PCB congeners 095, 114, 126, 141, 157, and 169) were also below QC limits but the MSD percent recovery was within QC limits. In addition, the MSD percent recovery for PCB congener 119 was below QC limits but the MS percent recovery was within QC limits. No qualification of these seven congeners was deemed necessary since they were not detected above the reporting limit and all other QC requirements were met.

• Both MS and MSD percent recoveries for PAHs in sediments were above the acceptable QC recovery limits for nine (ben[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, benzo[e]pyrene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, chrysene, fluoranthene, perylene, and pyrene) of the twenty-five analytes. Since blank spike and surrogate recoveries for all PAHs were within QC limits, matrix spike recovery appears to be out of control due to matrix interference in the specific sample (“Deck Tank Grey”) for the nine listed compounds. Six of these analytes (ben[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[e]pyrene, benzo[k]fluoranthene, fluoranthene, and perylene) were already qualified “J” due to elevated RPD values from laboratory replicates and were therefore further qualified to “J+” where the associated values should be considered a high estimate. In addition, the other three analytes (benzo[b]fluoranthene, chrysene, and pyrene) and the values for total high weight PAHs and total PAHs were also qualified “J+”. The MS percent recoveries for three other analytes (1-methylphenanthrene, anthracene, and phenanthrene) were also below QC limits but the MSD percent recovery was within QC limits. No qualification of these three compounds was deemed necessary since they were not detected above the reporting limit and all other QC requirements were met.

3.5 Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicates (BS/BSDs)

BS/BSDs were performed for conventional analytes to assess precision and accuracy in the absence of matrix interferences. In all cases BS/BSD data met QC objectives.

3.6 Surrogate Recoveries

Surrogate analytes behave similarly to the target analytes. Surrogate spikes are introduced into the samples at specific concentrations and are used to provide a measure of instrument and method performance and to indicate sample-specific matrix effects. All surrogate spikes where within the acceptable recovery ranges.

3.7 Reporting Limits

Reporting limits were met with the following exception:

• Although total metals in water was reported down to the MDL (method detection limit), some of these MDLs were higher than the requested target reporting limit in three (“Wing Tank,” “Deck Tank Red,” and “Cloudy Water”) of the four water samples. Arsenic, copper, nickel, selenium and zinc had slightly higher MDLs than the requested target reporting limit but all had measured values greater than the used MDL so there is no issue with these analytes. Neither cadmium or silver, with target reporting limits of 0.1 ug/L, were measured above their respective 0.2 ug/L and 0.5 ug/L MDLs in these three samples. Cadmium was measured in the “Deck Tank Red” sample

A-11

at 0.025 ug/L and it is possible that it may be found in such low levels in the other samples too. Silver was not measured in the “Deck Tank Red” sample at 0.02 ug/L which was lower than the project reporting limit of 0.1 ug/L. In either case, levels for cadmium and silver in the water samples analyzed are very low.

• A target reporting limit of 50-200 ug/L was requested for TPH diesel, motor oil, bunker fuel in water. The reporting limit for these analytes was raised in two (“Wing Tank” and “Cloudy Water”) of the four samples. A dilution factor of 2 and 3, respectively, of the original samples was required to perform the analyses. A reporting limit of 1 mg/Kg was requested for these same analytes in sediment. A dilution factor of 100 of the original sample was required in all cases to perform the analyses. These increased reporting limits are not an issue with these elevated measured values.

• Target reporting limits of 0.25 ug/L in water was not met for 2,4-D and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex). The target reporting limit of 50 ug/kg in sediment was not met for 2,4-D. In water, 2,4-D was not measured above a reporting limit of 5.0 ug/L and 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) was not measured above a reporting limit of 0.50 ug/L. In sediment, 2,4-D was not measured above a reporting limit of 100 ug/kg. The sample reporting limits used are still low values and this should not be an issue.

• Target reporting limits were not met for many of the organochlorine pesticides in water and sediment, and this is reflected in the summary tables in the main body of the document. With the exception of dicofol though, target reporting limits for all organochlorine pesticides in water were met by reporting down to the MDLs of 0.001 to 0.01 ug/L. Although dicofol is reported as not being measured above the reporting limit of 0.1 ug/L, it was also not detected above the MDL of 0.05 ug/L. All organochlorine pesticides in water were not measured at or above their respective MDLs. In addition, all organochlorine pesticides in sediment were not measured at or above their respective MDLs (1 to 10 ug/Kg).

• The target reporting limit of 0.01 ug/L for PAHs was not met for four compounds (1-methylphenanthrene, anthracene, phenanthrene, and pyrene) and this is reflected (100 ng/L or 0.1 ug/L) in the summary tables in the main body of the document. Regardless, none of these compounds were measured above their method detection limit of 1 ng/L or 0.001 ug/L which is well below the target reporting limit. As with PAHs in water, the same four compounds target reporting limit for sediment of 10 ug/Kg was not met. With the exception of the “Deck Tank Grey” sample for 1-methylphenanthrene, anthracene, and phenanthrene, all measured values were above the listed reporting limit of 100 ug/Kg. 1-methylphenanthrene, anthracene, and phenanthrene were not measured in the “Deck Tank Grey” sample above the MDL of 1 ug/Kg which is well below the target reporting limit.

3.9 Completeness All requested data was received for this project. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS The QA/QC results were generally in their proper range giving confidence to the overall accuracy and precision of the analytical results. Findings presented are based on the validation of the data according to the quality assurance objectives detailed in the Sampling and Analysis Plan and using guidance from EPA National Functional Guidelines for inorganic and organic data review (USEPA, 1999 and 2002). A careful review of the results confirmed that the laboratories met most project detection limits and that most chemical analyses were completed within holding times. QA/QC records for the sediment and water analyses included method blanks. None of the blank samples contained any quantifiable concentrations indicating the methods and equipment used were free of or did not introduce contamination.

A-12

Analytical accuracy and precision were evaluated with laboratory duplicates, laboratory control samples and their duplicates, and matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates, and blank spike and blank spike duplicates. Most data was shown to be both accurate and precise. Although there was some minor qualification performed on metals (cadmium, lead, mercury and nickel) and PAHs based on laboratory replicates, and tributyltin based on elevated MS/MSD percent recoveries, the most significant qualification involved elevated MS/MSD percent recoveries for PAH compounds. The elevated MS/MSD percent recoveries for PAH compounds associated with the composite sediment sample “Deck Tank Grey” imply that there was some matrix interference specific to the sample. This required qualification that the associated sample values are likely elevated above actual true values. Overall, evaluation of the QA/QC data indicates that the chemical data for the most part are within established performance criteria and can be used for general characterization of sediments in the proposed project area. 5.0 REFERENCES CITED USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1999. Contract Laboratory Program National

Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review. EPA 540-R-99/008. USEPA. 2001. USEPA Contract Laboratory Program, National Functional Guidelines for Low

Concentration Organic Data Review. EPA540-R-00-006. USEPA. 2002. Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review.

EPA 540-R-01-008.

APPENDIX C

REPORT FROM COMMERCIAL MARINE SERVICE, INC.

C-1

�

� � � � � � � ��

� �� ! ��"# $ % &�' # $ (' # $ # �

��) � ! ��* �� + + + �� , �� - �� , ��"# $ % &�' # $ (� % $ � �

�

� � � � � ��

REPORT No. : CMS-07-2944-C- FINAL

CONDITION REPORT

Port of San Francisco 21,000 Ton Dry-Dock Requested By: Moffatt & Nichol Engineers

2001 N. Main Street – Suite 360 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

�

��

��

Commercial Marine Service, Inc. Port Of San Francisco 21,000 Dry-dock Report No. CMS-07-2944-C-Final Condition Report Issued At Seattle, WA July 29, 2007 Page No. 2 of 12

2

� � �� that the undersigned marine surveyor did on March 26th, 27th and 28th, 2007 at the request of Moffat & Nichol Engineers attend survey of the Port of San Francisco, 21,000 Dry-dock as it lay afloat, at BAE Systems Shipyard, in San Francisco, CA, in order to prepare a Towing Plan for either inshore or ocean “Trip In Tow” and report thereon.

LIMITING CONDITIONS A. This is a summary appraisal report produced for financial purposes. B. This vessel was appraised with the consideration that it had responsible ownership,

management, competent crew and adequate ongoing maintenance. C. The vessel was appraised upon the premise that it was free and clear of all debt,

encumbrances, mortgages or special liens. D. This appraisal was done without regard to any possible problems that may arise from

the “American Disabilities Act” (ADA) or any violations of the (ADA). E. We are unaware of any significant potential environmental hazards associated with

this vessel, save those normally associated with vessels of this type. F. The values noted herein are based upon vessel’s present condition at its present

location. G. No responsibility is assumed for latent defects of any nature that could affect vessels

value. H. No opinion of vessel’s stability characteristics or structural integrity has been made

and no opinion is expressed with respect hereto. I. The vessel equipment identification and classification descriptions included herein

are for the purposes of identification only, and not intended to detail all conditions or list all features associated with each item described.

J. This report was prepared for the client of record, as noted herein, in order to provide an opinion of value under an assumed set of circumstances as requested and mutually agreed upon by that client.

K. The information supplied by others that was considered and utilized in this constructing report is believed to be reliable, and no further responsibility is assumed for its accuracy.

L. This report was produced by Commercial Marine Service, Inc. and will be considered confidential. Copies of this report will only be made available to other parties with prior written consent from the purchaser/owner of this report.

PROCEEDURE AND ANALYSIS Marine equipment in general is built to be mobile and can be utilized anywhere in the world, subject to the physical and economical mobility of the particular piece of equipment, its age and general condition. In estimating the value of a particular piece of marine equipment, age, condition and outfitting can be more important than current usage or local market conditions. To determine the value of a piece of marine equipment, an attempt is made to utilize all three of the following methods.


3

• Cost Approach To measure value by determining the current cost of producing a new piece of equipment that will have equal utility and then deducting appropriate amounts for the various elements of depreciation, generally referred to as physical deterioration, functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence.

• Market Approach To measure value by analyzing the results of recent sales of like or similar equipment to arrive at the most likely selling price of the equipment being appraised.

• Income Approach To measure value by determining the current worth of the future benefits of ownership. This is usually done through the capitalization of a specific income.

When utilizing the cost approach we determine the equipment’s current replacement cost. This is considered to be the construction of a piece of equipment of like design, capacity and capability at current market rates. This value is then depreciated over the expected useful life of a similar piece of equipment and adjusted up or down for actual condition of the equipment as noted by the appraiser at the time of the appraisal to reflect the actual remaining life. These conditions may include, but are not limited to, recent rebuilding, refurbishment, re-powering or lack of maintenance and repair. When utilizing the market approach we analyze the available information related to current sales and offerings. The results are adjusted to reflect our opinion of the current market for the particular type of equipment. This adjustment considers functional obsolescence and economic obsolescence and is based upon constant contact with owners, operators, brokers, buyers and sellers of marine equipment since our founding in 1983. When utilizing value by income approach, complete historical data related to income flow and all related expenses must be provided to appraiser in addition to capitalization rate criteria required by the client.

RESOURCES In order to maintain continuous knowledge marine market place we regularly utilize our numerous industry wide contacts and continually review the following trade publications and Internet sites regarding marine equipment sales and construction. General Reference Sources Brokerage Listings Frequency Origin Boats & Harbors Biweekly Crossville, TN Latitude 48� Monthly Seattle, WA


4

Industry Periodicals Workboat Monthly Rockland, ME Marine Reporter Monthly New York, NY Marine Log Monthly New York, NY Marine News Tri-weekly New York, NY Professional Mariner 8-Issues Yearly Portland, ME Internet Marcon International Coupville, WA Ship Ads Singapore East Coast marine Cape Canaveral, FL Maretech Faeroe Islands Ships For Sale Larnace, Cyprus Ocean Marine Morgan City, LA Dock Street Brokers Seattle, WA GSI Boat Brokers Seattle, WA Tassin Marine New Orleans, LA Scrapiron.Net Seattle, WA In addition to these general resources we also maintain our files of over 2500 various vessel values.

DEFINITIONS Replacement Cost: The amount of consideration expressed in terms of money that would be required for construction of a new vessel of similar size and capability in today’s market. Fair Market Value: The amount of consideration expressed in terms of money that may be expected from a property exchange between a willing buyer and seller with equity to both, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell both aware of all relevant facts as of a specific date, with no time constraint. Orderly Liquidation Value: Is The amount of consideration expressed in terms of money that may be expected from a property exchange based upon the assumption that the owner is compelled to sell a certain piece of equipment within a reasonable but limited period of time and that a knowledgeable owner would be able properly advertise subject equipment in order to stimulate reasonable interest that ultimately leads to a sale. This is a gross amount, an “As is where is” and takes into consideration physical location, marketability, physical condition and overall appearance. Forced Liquidation Value: The amount of consideration expressed in terms of money that may be expected from a property exchange where a certain piece of equipment is advertised and required to be sold at public auction in an “As is where is” condition as of a specific date.


5

PARTICULARS Registered Owner: Port of San Francisco – San Francisco, CA Hull Length: 584.0 – ft Hull Breadth: 128.0 – ft Hull Depth: 54.0 – ft Distance Between Walls: 100.0 – ft Wing-wall Height: 38.0 - ft Fore & Aft Apron Length: 35.0 – ft Light Ship Design Draft: 5.0 – ft Design Max. Draft: 47.5 – ft Light Displacement: 4,943 – L/T Max Flooded Displacement: 43,000 – L/T Displacement As Surveyed: 12,232 – L/T Year Constructed: 1942 Per Drawings Construction: Riveted & Welded Steel Intended Service: Ship Dry-dock

CAPACITIES Ship Displacement: 21,000 – L/T Ship Length: 654 – ft

General Condition Subject vessel is a 65 – year-old, all riveted and welded steel dry-dock, it shows evidence of severe deterioration and poor maintenance. It is considered to be in scrap condition.

ATTENDING Mr. Thomas D. Laing, Jr. CMS-NAMS, ASA - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Marine Surveyor Mr. Jim Brady, PE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Representing Moffat & Nichols Engineers

DESCRIPTION OF VESSEL

Classification Country: None Society: N/A Classification: None Expiration Date: N/A

Load Line Country: None Society: N/A Minimum Freeboard: N/A Expiration Date: N/A

Certification Country: None Agency: N/A Service: N/A Route Restrictions: N/A Capacity: N/A Expiration Date: N/A

Regulation Country/Agency: United States of America - Department of Transportation - US Coast Guard, US Longshoreman & Harbor Workers Act.

Stability Criteria Authority: Fredrick Harris Criteria: Per Drawing D – 176 – 15 Location: New York, NY Date Of Issue: 5-25-1942


6

Design Characteristics Watertight Hull Compartmentation: Twenty-four major watertight compartments and/or integral tanks consisting of: Eight port, eight starboard and eight centerline floatation tanks. Hull Form: Displacement type moored hull with square plumb bow; Square plumb stern; Straight, vertical, sides; Flat sheer; "V” bottom with light 5.5� dead-rise at midsection. Superstructure Form: Port and starboard longitudinal wing walls accessible by various ladders and stairs, each, containing three through passages. Due to damage and deterioration access is dangerous and should only be attempted with properly secured safety harness. Deck Fittings: Four sets of 10-1/2-in double bitts located port and starboard forward and aft on main deck; Various ship handling fittings on wing walls. Hull Protection: Six vertical, steel framed wood bumpers on starboard side, thought to be part of mooring pile system.

Construction Builder: Unknown Shipyard approximately 1942. Method/Material: All welded steel deck and skin with riveted and welded internal framing. Scantlings correspond with those found on drawings by designer Fredric R. Harris. Original scantlings are as follows: Transverse truss frames, bottom, side and top chords, two 6-in X 4-in X ½-in steel angles riveted back to back on 20-in flat bar of either ¼ , 3/16 or 1/2-in thickness set @ 8-ft centers; Longitudinal hull, deck and bulkhead stiffeners 9-in X 3-in X 3/8-in serrated steel angle bar; Bottom, side and bulkhead plating, 3/8-in; Deck plating ½-in. Major Scantlings: More than likely built to military specifications as part of the World War II shipbuilding industry; Original hull scantlings considered normal for intended service.

NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT

Required Lights Running Lights: None.

MACHINERY AND AUXILIARY SYSTEMS

Pumping Machinery Pumps: Two each 100-hp and 200-hp centrifugal pumps powered from pump motor deck by 3-in-dia steel shafts through pillar block bearings. Valves: Necessary flooding and evacuation valves operated by reach rods through Lignum Vitim bearings.


7

Sea Chests: Six each intake and exhaust chests piped to valves and pumps.

Operational Controls Operator House: Originally on top of wing wall; No longer in evidence.

Service Piping Air & Steam: Service piping for both air and stem runs are located on both port and starboard wing walls and extend the length of the center section.

Electrical System Power Supply: (110/208/440) (120/220) from shore power, no longer attached. Pump & Light Wiring: Basket Weave Armor covered, multi-strand, copper marine type wiring removed, deteriorated and/or damaged.

SAFETY EQUIPMENT

Emergency Lighting System: None.

Life Saving Gear Life Ring Buoys: None.

Hand Rails Weather Deck: Wasted, damaged and/or broken.

Portable Fire Fighting Apparatus Portable fire Extinguishers USGC Approved, Hand Held: None. Fire Axe: None.

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

Circumstances of Survey Vessel: Afloat; accessible compartments entered; some machinery inspected while not operating. Housekeeping: Poor Protective Coatings: Poor Structural: Poor Machinery: Poor

Vessel Security Mooring: Vessel normally moored at BAE Systems Shipyard at San Francisco, CA.


8

Police/Night Watchman: Mooring area inside gated compound with 24 hr. security service. Fire Protection: Local Fire Department located approximately 1-mile from vessel; Reported response time is 5-minutes.

Remarks Decks Generally Contain: Guard rails which are far below industry standard and in un-satisfactory condition; Deteriorated ladders and/or stair treads; Severely wasted deck plating; No blocks or shoring; Tanks Bilges and Internal Framing Generally Contain: Generally contained silt, sand, wasted and damaged framing, deteriorated and broken ballast lines, damaged and deteriorated pumps, valves and reach rods. Wing Walls Generally Contain: pump motor deck, wasted and damaged framing, deteriorated and/or broken motor shafts, damaged and deteriorated valves reach rods. Bottom: Not inspected.

NECESSARY REPAIRS

Return to Service Repairs Narrative: Subject dry-dock is in such a condition of deferred maintenance that it is no longer practical to consider repair of subject vessel for any other purpose than a terminal voyage in tow to a local area where it cam be dismantled for scrap purposes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Tow Preparation Repairs Narrative: Prior to undertaking any trip in tow the following equipment additions, repairs and/or modifications preparation should be implemented: (01) Remove from deck all stored equipment that is not part of dry-dock. (02) Install inboard safety ladders to give access to tops of wing walls. (03) Evacuate all water from flotation tanks and prove tanks to be tight to the sea. (04) If there are tanks found to be non-tight from the sea, make necessary repairs and

inspection thereof to insure that all tanks are watertight. (05) Install on board necessary safety barriers in way of open manholes. (06) Provide onboard two ring buoys each with 90-ft X 3/8-in-dia floating retrieval line. (07) Install proper portable towing lights. (may be provided by towing contractor)


9

(08) Carry on board and rig for immediate use six portable diesel engine powered pumps. capable of minimum 300-gpm capacity each, equipped with suction and discharge hoses.

(09) Install towing bridle attachments of stud link chain for both legs of bridle and insurance

line to be attached to internal structure in way of wing tank doors in same manner as present stud link mooring chains are attached. Bridle attachments to be inside wing walls

(10) Install insurance tow line (minimum 300-ft length X 2-1/4-in-dia wire rope) attached to

internal structure in same manner, but different location as Item No. 9, however, insurance line attachment to be outside of wing wall. Secured by stud link chain attachment insurance wire to be and supported and confined throughout its length by 3-in length angle iron clips set thusly “�” and welded only on one side.

(11) Install assisting towing vessel attachments of stud link chain for both legs of bridle and

insurance line to be attached to internal structure in way of wing tank doors in same manner as present stud link mooring chains are attached. Assisting towing vessel attachments to be inside wing walls and insurance line attachment to be outside of wing wall.

(12) Present stud link mooring chains to be freed of excess lines so that they may be utilized

as attachment points by assist towing vessel. (13) Install towing bridle. (Towing bridle to be attached to Item No. 9 attachments by standard

towing shackles of proper size. (14) Paint international orange color horizontal lines 1-ft above water 2-ft in height wrapped

around each corner with 4-ft on each end and side. (15) Obtain proper USCG approval of towing contractor and towing plan.

TRIP IN TOW LIMITATIONS

Route It is opinion of the undersigned that even though subject vessel will fit within the bounds of the deck of a heavy lift “Dry-Tow” vessel such as the M/V “BLUE MARLIN”, the price of moving such a vessel from Norway to the Port of San Francisco would cost prohibitive when compared with other options such as a wet tow to a local facility to be disassembled as scrap iron. There is also the high probability that the wasted structure of the subject dry-dock would collapse upon the deck of the ship due to the stress placed upon it by swaying in a seaway therefore only inshore towing routes should be considered.

Stability As subject vessel was built to lift 20,000-ton ships and hold them on its deck, being towed without any deck load does not present any stability problems unless vessel for any reason develops a leak and takes on water to the extent that it cannot be overcome by onboard pumps.


10

TOWING PLAN

Towing Contractor Selection: A contractor should be selected who can provide one minimum 2,000-hp twin screw towing vessel and one 1,000-hp assist towing vessel. Trip In Tow: Destination yet to be determined. Only local destinations within the San Francisco Bay and accessible tributaries area should be considered. Once an actual destination is decided upon, a detailed plan of route may be made. Announcements: Trip in Tow movement shall be reported to and coordinated with local USCG Vessel Traffic System. Make-Up: Primary towing vessel to make up on stud link chain towing bridle; Assist towing vessel will help towing vessel maneuver vessel away from dock, then make up to aft assist vessel attachments to provide steerage as necessary. Speed of Tow: Keep enough speed to maintain steerage, bearing in mind the deteriorated condition of vessel’s hull. Estimated tow speed 2-3-knots.

Towing Vessel Recommendations 1. Vessel to proceed only with 24-hour weather window of winds less than 15-knots and

waves less than 4-ft. 2. Tow speed and course to be used as necessary to offset effect of wind and waves.

3. Tug Masters to observe tow for changed in tow draft and/or trim. Results of such

observation to be included with tug Master’s report to surveyor.

4. Owners to be immediately advised of any event that adversely affects the security of the tow.

5. Towing vessel to maintain hourly radio contact with vessel owners and progress reported.

6. Towing vessel crew to maintain towing lights and shapes.

7. Obtain any necessary assistance from other vessels for departure from BAE Shipyard and

arrival at destination.

8. In case of gear failure, reconnect immediately if possible, if necessary anchor tow, do not leave tow unattended.

9. Tow is to be attended at all times from commencement to conclusion of tow.

10. Notify owners and owner’s surveyor at conclusion of tow.


11

NOTES (A) Last Dry-docking for bottom maintenance unknown. (B) Major hull repairs have not been reported necessary during this ownership, however surveyor understands that subject vessel broke loose several years ago and sustained bottom damage, some of which is visible above water level along the starboard side.

HIGEST AND BEST USE The highest and best use for subject vessel is as salvage scrap metal.

VALUE METHODOLOGY Cost: We know from previous jobs that vessels of this type generally cost about $900 per lift ton equating to a replacement cost of about $18.9-million. This is confirmed by the present marine steel construction cost of between $3,300 and $3,700 per long ton. At a mean of $3,500 per long ton the new cost replacement of subject 4,943-L/T vessel plus 7.5% for machinery would be in the amount of $18.6-million. The mean of this amount is $18.75-million. Income: Subject vessel no longer has utility as a marine dry-dock or any other type of marine equipment. Therefore it has no ability to generate income with which to use as a basis for value by income. Market: There is no market for subject vessel save scrap metal. According to Scrapiron.net the present price of this type of scrap is $180 per gross/long ton. Subject vessel original weight as calculated by design draft was 4,943-L/Tons. After removing 33% for deterioration subject vessel’s value could be no more than $593,000.00. Vessel’s of this type generally sell as scarp for 5% of replacement cost. At $18.75-million that 5% would be $937,500. When the 33% waste is removed the estimated value is $624,000.00 Accordingly as we take the mean, our best estimate of current scrap value is in the amount of $608,000.00. However, this market value would be considerably less due to expense allowances that must be made to properly clean vessel, move it to a location for dismantling as well as any permits, insurance and monitoring costs related thereto.

APPRAISAL

Valuations Estimated New Replacement Cost - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $18,750,000.00 Estimated Current Market Value - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 608,000.00 1.

1. Value subject to last paragraph of preceding market cost explanation.


12

CONCLUSION It is the opinion of the undersigned, as far as could be determined by the foregoing general inspection, without making removals to expose parts normally concealed, or making borings or ultrasonic measurements to ascertain thickness, or opening up machinery to ascertain exact condition, that the vessel described herein, subject to compliance with the foregoing recommendations and limitations, was found to be in unsatisfactory condition to continue in its intended service and should be considered as use for salvage scrap only.

THIS SURVEY REPORT MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

COMMERCIAL MARINE SERVICE

Thomas D. Laing, Jr., ASA, CMS-NAMS Marine Surveyor

Attachments: Color Photographs for Illustrative Purpose

Typical Mooring Chain To Be Used For

Insurance Line Attachment Install and Reverse Chain Attachment For

Towing At Each Corner Area

DIQUE FLOTANTE REPARACION

Documents

Transcript of DIQUE FLOTANTE REPARACION