i am sure you are aware from what you've heard of site history through the master plan development that app pier 70 has been under heavy industrial use for the past 100 years, including several decades when the united states navy was occupying part of this for shipbuilding and repair activities. and additionally, the way that much of the land that comprises pier 70 came to be was material in the bay to create new land. historically the story line was comprised of serpentine rock bluff overlooking mud and the early developers created new

shoreline land, at least in the pier 70 area, blasting the rock bluff and pushing the rock and debris onto the mud flats. additional material was placed to create new land of material as well. as a result of the way the soil that makes up here 70 came to exist, the material that was used to create it and a long history of industrial operations, there are many significant sources as contaminants there, and as a result, there has always been uncertainty about what was out there, what it would take to mediate it, and how much the radiation at -- mediation would cost and how would impact for future development. with an awareness of those issues, and 2007 thin 2007 the

sought a development with the support of the mayor's office and congress woman pelosi's office, that was awarded to the port through the u.s. department of commerce's economic development administration in late 2008. the grant award was for 2.2 $8 million to be used to investigate and clean up environmental contaminants at pier 70, including ground and water contamination and hazardous building materials. we began with the soil and groundwater investigation in 2009 that continue 2010, and we publish the site investigation report in 2011.

this figure shows an earlier version of the parcel scheme that was outlined in a draft port master plan for pure 70. the reason i bring it up is that was the plan that was in existence when we began this site investigation. all of our soil samples and references to location within herpier 70 are based on a persol location. since then, the site has evolved and not reflected in the final preferred master plan, but for consistency with the way we identified locations in the investigation we have carried forward this schema through this. if you ever read the whole document, you will see references to parcel nine. if you know the master plan, you may think there is no person

mind, but that is why. -- no parcel 9, but that is why. the shows the soil gas sample locations come and show it not because i expect you to define any information about environmental conditions from it, but to show that we sought to get a broad coverage of conditions that exist throughout the entire site, and we also based this investigation on historic data. there have been many previous investigations, so we looked at the old data, check it for validity, and combined it with new examples we have to elected to fill in data gaps, and also to get broad coverage throughout the site. the site investigation concluded more than 180 soil samples from borings that were drilled to various steps throughout the site and from test pits,

shallowed of excavations. we collected more than 50 ground water samples from temporary sampling locations, and also from 10 a permanent ground water monitoring wells. we collected 33 soil samples. the reason soil gas is interesting is because soil gas, the air that exist in the spaces within subsurface soil can migrate up through foundations into buildings, and also can migrate into outdoor air. if you of volatile organic compounds in soil gas, those can pose a potential health risk if they migrate into inclosed buildings. that is why we were looking at that.

so ho thethis site investigation produced four key findings. it is containing metals, prh's, are particularly problematic class of hydrocarbon, at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels throughout the entire site. those contaminants are from naturally occurring sources such as the serpentine rock that was used to create the land, and also historic industrial operations. those exceeded cleanup levels for all of the three different anticipated future uses, which would be commercial, recreational, and residential. virtually everywhere. conversely, ground water was found to contain metals and

petroleum hydrocarbons. at concentrations it did not propose a human health impact or held to the environmenimpact to we found a couple of constituents above clean up level at different locations throughout the site, some of which were not confirmed through repeat sampling. there is really no indication we have a problem with soil gas at pier 70. the human health risk estimate, which was conducted in conjunction with the site investigation found the greatest hazards associated with environmental contamination or future site users, the commercial, recreational, and residential users exposure to native soil and construction workers' exposure to soil, and potentially ground water because there excavating in an area and it to a depth where they would

encounter ground water. a couple of exceptions to the general conclusion about ground water not being a problem, is within parcel 9, which are like chile -- which are largely operated by a ship operating, we found in the ground water intermittently in that area, they would have residual petroleum, a very thick material that would be suspended in the water sample, and beside the investigation did additional analysis of the physical and chemical nature of that material and determined it is a heavily degraded petroleum material, probably related to historic fuel storage at the site. the presence of fuel in this of service in that area is documented as far back as 1930 and previous.

we suspect that what remains is the last of the degradation of that material. it is not always told. it is not soluble. the petroleum constituents are not getting into the ground water. they are staying in this discreet molecule's. it could not be physically extracted, and it is not indicative of an ongoing source of petroleum. we did not find it in the soil in the same area. the general conclusion about that material is that it does not pose a health risk and is not migrating to the bay, but it excavation were to occur in that area, special handling measures would be applied. and in the southeast corner of the site, the area shown on the slide as the blue polygon, there is an area referred to in the

site investigation and the document as the mtp area. this is a portion of pier 70 where the contamination form -- from the formerly manufactured gas plant had migrated from beneath the plant site of north fort and now are present in the pier 70. in so pg&e has been working closely with the port to delineate the extent to which the manufactured gas plants related contamination has migrated to peer 70. they did additional drilling at the request of the port in january of 2012 to further delineate exactly where the room of waste -- where the plume of voice has migrated. pg&e is undertaking its own feasible study and review action

process for the energy related and extending to the contamination before property. so a feasibility study of remedial action plan prior to that little area out and did not deal with it, it becomes a kind of remedial action you would apply to the other contaminants at pier 70 is completely different kinds of contamination, distribution and the environment, different severity. our remedial action plan does not address contamination, and their remedial action plan will. so the feasibility study, the purpose of the feasibility study would be to analyze various alternatives for remediation as contaminants at pier 70. and following a process that is prescribed by federal and state regulations come analyze the

different alternatives to come up with the preferred alternative that forms the basis for a remedial action plan. and so with the feasibility study we started by setting remedial action objectives. what are the goals we want this brevity to achieve? the keep goals are preventing future users' exposure to contaminated soil, preventing exposure to contaminated ground water or to volatile organic compounds emanating from ground water, and preventing exposure to volatile organic compounds in the air. even though the second two goals are not applicable to this type of contamination, there are pools of the overall remedy. we also wanted to select a remedy that would be very protective and conservative and also, allow the port the

greatest flexibility in considering future development at pier 70. we started off by comparing this date at that we had against clean of levels for the three different anticipated uses that we have identified. ultimately we based the remedial action plan and the feasibility study on achieving residential cleanup goals. we did that so the selected remedy would enable development for any of the three anticipated future uses any where we might want to put them with the napier 70 area. the feasibility study started by looking at a broad range, the redials that might work to address this contamination of the site, and compares those.

we came up with a short list of five potentially feasible medial actions. those are no action, which is a hypothesis that is required by the regulation that governs how you do a feasibility study to state and the alternative analysis as a baseline to compare all the other alternatives. institutional control is a second alternative. institutional controls are administrative or legal measures that can be implemented to minimize or prevent site user exposure to contaminants. an example would be deed restrictions on certain types of uses or mandatory worker health and safety plans for construction workers.

alternative #three is combining institutional controls with installation of a durable cover over all of the soil at pier 70. alternative number four is soil excavation and off site disposal, which for the purposes of this analysis we assumed all of the shallow soil at pier 70 would have to be excavated and hauled off by truck to an apartment and fill. the fifth alternative is hot spot removals. excavations of areas where the contamination is concentrated and can be identified is different and more severe than the soil around it. so we evaluated each of those alternatives. nine of federally specified a

valuation criteria, and six state-specified criteria, and also, using a fairly recently issued guidance document from the state department of toxic substance control that enables a quality of valuation of how different remedial alternatives themselves and have the environment. it looks at the sustainability of the remedial action, how much energy it would use, with the greenhouse gas emissions would be from their remedial action community impacts like traffic and noise. so we ran the short list of feasible alternatives through this, of the evaluation criteria, and with the exception of the no action alternative, all of them were determined to be feasible and at least a good

short-term and long-term effectiveness. the comparison of alternative to-50 was based primarily on overall protectiveness and cost. alternative no. 3, rated the highest with a rating of very good. the factors that contributed to that ranking were that's alternative never to come institutional controls, that was determined to be not sufficiently protected. that would not provide a physical barrier between site users and contaminated soil and rely solely on administrative mechanisms. alternative #three, the institutional controls combined with the cap was the highest- rated remedial action. it would provide protections from the environmental contaminants at pier 70 at a relatively low cost. alternative #four come excavation and off-site for --

disposal was found to be affected but also very costly with a cost of 6.7 times more than alternative no. 3 would be, but achieving essentially the same as effectiveness of the end of the day. alternative #five, hot spot removal was found to be neither sufficiently protective or cost effective, because we could not identify hot spots within the contaminated soil at pier 70, and even if we set an arbitrary limit and said we will remove everything that is 10 times or five times above the cleanup level, you would still be leaving behind a things that have to be capped. it is an unfortunate hybrid of alternative. alternate #3, application of institutional controls was determined to be the best alternative and it is the preferred remedial action plan for the site.

durable covers would include buildings, streets, sidewalks, plazas, paved parking areas, anything that would prevent an effort in contact with underlying contaminated soil. new landscaping would be a durable cover. any sort of armor or stabilized shoreline treatment could meet the standards of adorable cover. for example, agio textile fabric or a seawall or some other form of engineered shoreline treatment. institutional controls include things like land use restrictions. an example might be a deep restriction or site-specific activity restrictions.

for pier 70 be activity restrictions would be things that probably would not happen at pier 70 any way like rolling produce for consumption in native soil or allowing livestock grazing and native soil. ground water could not be used for domestic water supply, which at pier 70 it is failing ground water, and that would not be happening. ground water use would be limited to watering during construction. soil and groundwater would have to be managed in accordance with our risk management plan. the risk management plan is a key component of the remedy. a risk management plan will be developed to support consultants in conjunction with the water board. we will be developing a plan that describes all of the ad industry the measures that need to be in place at pier 70 in

order to ensure the long-term integrity of the cap and that the site is managed in accordance with things like storm water pollution prevention, thus control, and worker health and safety protections. -- dust control, and worker health and safety protections. we would have a monitoring program in place to insure the integrity, and a program to require notification of tenets and contractors about the existing conditions and the requirements under the risk management plan. so one thing i wanted to mention at the beginning is that the san francisco bay regional quality- control board is our primary regulatory agency overseeing our work at pier 70. we also have regulatory oversight from the city and county of public health, bureau of and our mental health, and

they are the group that enforces the local requirements for socle characterization before construction, risk-management planning and construction with -- bureau of environmental health, and they are the group that enforces the local requirements for soil characterization before construction, risk-management planning and construction. joining me is mark johnson. both of us are available to answer any questions you might have. >> good afternoon. i'm marc johnson from the regional water board. i work in the toxic cleanup division, pretty much specifically working on

redevelopment projects like you're 70. and i am also working on the adjacent control power plant, so it makes it more convenient. looking at the proposed remedy for pier 70 come it is highly protected. there will be no exposure to the effect of soil that is there now post-development. that is the best way to go. no exposure, no residual health component. construction worker exposure as the manage this can be managed through a health and safety plan. procedure that is pretty standard and simple. one nice thing about the proposed remedy is there is two ways to address here 70 is either remove the soil or be bought it in place. if you remove the soil, there are buildings on top so you could damage or demolish the historic buildings. so this is friendly to the buildings that are there. it has a very low carbon footprint as compared to hauling

off several hundred thousand yards of soil and bringing in that much soil. it can be implemented during the redevelopment quickly. it will not really slow down the redevelopment. it is not extremely expensive. it can be done consistent with the redevelopment, and it is pretty much consistent with a lot of other projects we're working on. i am finishing up a park project that was a former firbun dump. it was a little island on the edge of the bay that is now being converted into a park. we're living a 2 ft. soil cut across the entire site and preventing exposure and preventing any health risk. a work on a project and grand marina that is now a subdivision with a single cap over the surface. that have contaminated soil spread over the surface and a few feet of soil protect the

future residents. other sites in and rebemryville. we're about ready to take to the public for public comment. we will hold a community meeting later this month. other than that, i see carol cover pretty much everything on this. -- i think carol covered pretty much everything on this. >> so next steps, we are publishing the draft document on march 15. that is thursday of this week for a 30-day public review and comment perid. od. a community meeting on the evening of march 21 in association with their advisory group meeting, but also have made very broad notification to all of the residents and

businesses in the area and people who attended previous meetings or express previous interest in environmental conditions. following the 30-day comment period, the water board will receive the public comments and working with the port staff and port consultants will come up with a response document that documents the responses we've gone and how we will incorporate them in the final draft. we will publish the responses and begin development of our risk management plan. so if you all have any questions -- president whoo ho: public comment. corine woods. >> good afternoon, corine woods.

the proposed remedy for pier 70 is very much like what we did and are doing at mission bay, cap and cover. it's working.dus dust control has never worked, because no one is enforcing it. we are fine, so far. we of work with mark on mission bay, and he knows the area and the contaminant and the issues, and i feel very confident that whatever plan they come up with will be affected and cost- effective. my only concern is if you discover hot spots after the fact that you may have to dig them out, because if there is something that could be migrating to the bay that has not come and i am amazed there is an inch of soil that has not

been tested, but if you do find something later, you may have to pull it out and get rid of it. we did a long districts -- 16th street corridor in mission bay, because we have former oil depot where ships used to come in and bring oil and that have to be dug out, because there was just too much and there to leave it in place. we were very worried about migration to the bay of that. otherwise, i think this will work. thank you. president whoo ho: any further public comment? and the questions? -- any questions? >> i have to say how impressed i am with corine woods.

it reminded me how lucky we are in san francisco to have citizens to pay attention to so much of the specific action and provide beneficial and pithy information to all of us that need to hear from the public. i wanted to thank you as always for your comments. a couple of questions. some of this is answered in part through the agreement that was reached with the department of defense, but is there any further funding that is likely to come from the department of defense, given they have ownership over the site at some point and are responsible for some of the contamination, or did we reach the maximum ability to get funding for the cleanup from them? >> i would say our ability to get federal funding from the department of defense is probably more related to the climate in congress with respect