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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1
1.2
1.3
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
KEY MARINE SURVEY FINDINGS................................................................................................ 2
KEY ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING FINDINGS........................................................................... 2
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION............................................................................................ 5
SCOPE OF WORK ............................................................................................................................. 6
MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 7

4.1
4.2
MARINE SURVEY & STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 12

5.1
5.2
5.3
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
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
METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................... 12
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
SUITABILITY FOR TOW .............................................................................................................. 14
5.3.1 Wet Tow ......................................................................................................................................14
5.3.2 Dry Tow ......................................................................................................................................14
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
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
Lead in Paint
CAM-17 Metals in Corrosion
Debris
Asbestos Containing Materials
PCBs
Sediment Accumulation (full scan
chemistry)
Water Accumulation (full scan
chemistry)
Location
Painted Surfaces
Corrosion / Debris Piles
Reporter
LEE, Inc.
LEE, Inc.
Control Room Panels, Epoxy

Deck Coatings, Thermal Systems
Insulation, Debris Piles,
Gasketing, Weather-stripping
and wiring insulation
Light Ballasts and machinery oils
Hull compartments
LEE, Inc.
LEE, Inc.
Kinnetic Laboratories
Hull compartments
Kinnetic Laboratories
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 ACMs can be accomplished with commercially available
technology as recommended by LEE Inc. Details on the regulatory requirements governing the
abatement of the various ACMs 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 SARs. 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.
PCBs are assumed to be present in the control room light ballasts. There are an estimated 15
ballasts which should be removed. PCBs 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 PAHs 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 PCBs 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 PAHs were below the
reporting limit and asbestos, organotins, herbicides, chlorinated hydrocarbons and PCBs 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
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.
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) onehalf 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 deballasting was controlled at the control house on top of the starboard wing.
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.
MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT
The material sampling testing and assessment addressed the following areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Lead Paint
Corrosion / Debris Piles for CAM-17 metals and asbestos
Asbestos containing materials
PCB-containing dielectrics and oils
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 EPAs 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
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.
All center buoyancy compartments contained water.
Center Buoyancy Compartments.
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.
All port and starboard buoyancy
Port and Starboard Buoyancy Compartments.
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
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
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-
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
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 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
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
17
Figure 1 Drydock #1 Plan, Elevation & Section
Figure 1
Depth
Location
(Inches)
Compartment
4
A
29
5
A
29
6
A
68
7
A
70
8
A
50
9
A
60
10
A
64
11
A
22
14
A
35
16
A
56
17
A
26
18
A
75
20
A
30
21
A
41
12
B
50
13
B
62
15
B
62
19
B
40
Table 1 - Measured water depths in buoyancy compartments
(A = Forward end of compartment)
(B = Aft end of compartment)
Compartment
Location
Volume (cf)
3
W
150
7
W
700
10
W
144
12
W
360
13
W
280
15
W
546
16
W
280
18
W
1144
Table 2 - Estimated water volumes in wing compartments
(W = Wing compartment)
Measured Freeboards
Location
Freeboard
Fwd - 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 z Scientists z 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 selfcontained 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
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/M4-82020.
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 EPAs 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 reanalyzed 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
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
32607-03
Non Skid Deck Surface,Brown
Starbd Wall
NA
None Detected
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
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
32607-09
Transite Elec. Debris, 1/2"
Starbd Wall
Note 3
20% Chrysotile
32607-10
Weatherstrip/ Gasket, Gray
Supply Cab
12 lf
70% Chrysotile
32607-11
Deck Coating, Gray
Starbd Wall
NA
None Detected
32607-12
Cement / Mortar, Gray
Starbd Wall
NA
None Detected
32607-13
Cement Transite Board, Gray
Starbd Wall
Note 3
20% Chrysotile
32607-14
Woven Gasket, Gray
Starbd Hatch
Note 2
70% Chrysotile
32607-15
Exterior Caulking, Red
Starbd Hatch
NA
None Detected
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

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Sample #
Locations
Area
Asbestos %
Recommendations
32607-16
Resilient Gasket, Black
Starbd. Hatch
NA
None Detected
32607-17
Woven Gasket, Brown
Starbd. Hatch
NA
None Detected
32607-19
Residual Debris, Brown
Main Deck
NA
None Detected
32607-20
Residual Debris, Brown
Main Deck
NA
None Detected
32607-21
21 Insulation Board, Brown
Port Compt.
Note 2
30% Chrysotile
32607-22
2.5 " Pipe Insulation, White
Strbd Compt.
450 lf
20% Chry.10% Amos
32607-23
Insulation Board Debris, White
Starbd Wall
Note 3
50% Chrysotile
32607-24
Insulation Debris, White
Starbd Pump
Note 3
30% Chrysotile
32607-25
Woven Gasket, Gray
Port Hatch
Note 2
50% Chrysotile
32607-26
Exterior Wall Paint, Silver
Port Wall
NA
None Detected
32607-27
Exterior Sealant, Red Brown
Port Wall
NA
None Detected
Comments / Notes :
2 of 3

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Sample #
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
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
32607-09
Transite Elec. Debris, 1/2"
Starbd Wall
100-160 sf
20% Chrysotile
32607-10
Weatherstrip/ Gasket, Gray
Supply Cab
12-16 lf
70% Chrysotile
32607-13
Cement Transite Board, Gray
Starbd Wall
50-100 sf
20% Chrysotile
32607-14
Woven Gasket, Gray
Starbd Hatch
160-200 lf
70% Chrysotile
32607-21
Insulation Board, Brown
Port Compt.
100-180 sf
30% Chrysotile
32607-22
2.5 " Pipe Insulation, White
Strbd Compt.
450-550 lf
20%Chry.10% Amos
32607-23
Insulation Board Debris, White
Starbd Wall
2-10 sf
50% Chrysotile
32607-24
Insulation Debris, White
Starbd Pump
10-20 sf
30% Chrysotile
32607-25
Woven Gasket, Gray
Port Hatch
160-200 lf
50% Chrysotile
Comments / Notes :
3 of 3
APPENDIX 2
LEAD
LOCATION PLAN AND LAB RESULTS
Lead Inspection and Recommendations

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Inspector: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan, CAC
Sample #
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
0.52% / 5180
Follow Cal / OSHA & DHS regulations for LCP
32607-C
Paint: White, Gray
Starbd Wing Wall, eBox
4.04% / 40,381
32607-D
Epoxy / Paint: Green
Starbd Wing Wall, Deck
0.68% / 6806
32607-E
Paint: Orange / Silver
9.2% / 91,993
32607-F
Paint: Red / Orange
6.47% / 64,653
32607-G
Paint: Tan / Brown
Starbd Wing Wall, 475
5.31% / 53,067
32607-H
Paint: Green
Control Room Interior
9.26% / 92,560
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
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
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
32607-O
Paint: Silver / Black
Port Wing Wall, Bow
<0.01% / <74
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
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
APPENDIX 3
CAM17
LOCATION PLANS, TTLC
AND STLC LAB RESULTS
CAM-17 Metals STLC and TTLC Results Listing

Facility:
Date :
Inspector:
Drydock #1
Port of San Francisco
03-26-07 to 04-04-07
Sample ID #
Ag
As
Cd
Cr/ CR+6
Cu
Pb
Sb
Se
Tl
Zn
Hg
TTLC Value, ppm

STLC Value, ppm
500
5
500
5
100
1
2500 / 500
5
2500
25
1000
5
500
15
100
1
700
7
5000
250
20
0.2
32607-A, TTLC
32607-A, STLC
<30
NA
<120
4.8
19
<0.2
25
NA
200
NA
240
7.6
<240
3.0
<60
<0.3
<240
5
3400
190
3.4
0.001
32607-B, TTLC
32607-B, STLC
<31
NA
<470
<0.5
21
<0.2
61
<0.5
160
NA
90
<0.3
<250
<1
<12
<0.3
<250
<4
2400 3.0
160 <0.001
32607-CO1,TTLC
32607-CO1, STLC
<120
<0.3
<470
<0.5
14
NA
110
0.5
250
16
33
NA
<200
<1
<12
<0.3
<47
NA
550
NA
0.3
NA
32607-CO2,TTLC
32607-CO2, STLC
<120
<0.3
<470
<0.5
56
<0.2
200
0.5
1600
120
33
NA
<200
<1
<12
<0.3
<47
NA
550
NA
1.4
NA
32607-CO3,TTLC
32607-CO3, STLC
<120
<0.3
<470
<0.5
63
<0.2
200
<0.5
830
60
48
1
<200
<1
<60
<0.3
<9
NA
670
NA
0.9
NA
32607-CO4,TTLC
32607-CO4, STLC
<120
<0.3
<470
<0.5
56
<0.2
140
<0.5
820
70
300
30
<200
<1
<60
<0.3
<9
NA
880
NA
0.9
NA
20th & Illinois Street
Page 1 of 1
Alfred Clancy, CIH
Comments / Notes :
San Francisco, CA
Note:1 For the 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
APPENDIX 4
PCBs LAB REPORTS
PCBs Inspection and Recommendations

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Sample #
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
Comments / Notes :
1 of 1
APPENDIX 5
INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT
Interior Construction Materials and Equipment

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Inspectors: Alfred Clancy, CIH and Monte Deignan
Photo 2
Photo 1
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.

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Photo 3
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
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.

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Photo 5
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.
Photo 6
Photo 7
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.
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.
Photo 7

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
Photo 8
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
Photo 10
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.
Photo 8 Photo 10

Date : 3-26-07 to 4-6-07
APPENDIX 6
SAMPLING LOCATION SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
PLM-04
Deck
PLM-08
Wire Ins.
PLM-11
Deck
PLM-15
Caulking
Starboard Wing Wall

PLM-16
Gasket
PLM-13
Transite
PLM-12
Mortar
Control Room
PLM-07
Wire Ins.
PLM-10
Gasket
Mechanical
Compartment
PLM-24
Insulation
PLM-22
TSI Pipe
PLM-23
Debris
PLM-09
Transite
PLM-06
Wire Ins.
PLM-05
Transite
PLM-20
Debris
Port Wing Wall
PLM-19
Debris
Mechanical
Compartment
PLM-25
Gasket
PLM-27
Caulking
PLM-21
Board
PLM-26
Paint
Bow
Gang Plank
to Dock
Sampling Location Schematic - 1

Asbestos Survey
March- April 2007
PLM-01
Wire Ins.
PLM-02
Board
Stern
PLM-17
Gasket
PLM-14
Gasket
PLM-03
Deck
326-F
326-E
326-D
326-C
Control Room
326-B
326-H
326-A
326-I
Starboard Wing Wall
Stern
326-J
403-A
326-CO4
326-G
326-CO3
Mechanical
Compartment
Port Wing Wall

326-O
326-CO2
Mechanical
Compartment
326-CO1
326-P
326-K
326-L
Bow
326-M
326-N
Gang Plank
to Dock
Sampling Location Schmatic - 2

Lead and Metals Survey
March- April 2007
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
Final Report
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
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Page No.
Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Sediment .................................6
Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Water.......................................7
Quality Control Summary for Bulk Sediment and Water Chemistry ..................................8
Port of San Francisco Floating Drydock at Pier 70 Hull Compartment
Reconnaissance Inspection 5/19/06..................................................................................9
Summary of Sediment Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments................23
Summary of Water Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments .....................25
Summary of Estimated Volumes of Sediment and Water in Drydock #1 Hull
Compartments..................................................................................................................27
Results of Chemical Analyses of Water in Hull Compartments of Drydock #1 ...............28
Results (Dry Weight) of Chemical Analyses of Sediments in Hull
Compartments of Drydock #1 ..........................................................................................32
Summary of Waste Extraction Tests (WET) conducted on Sediments in Hull
Compartments of Drydock #1 ..........................................................................................35
List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Page No.
Floating Drydock at Berth 70, Port of San Francisco.......................................................10
Numbering Schematic for Drydock #1 Hull Compartments .............................................11
Deck Views, Floating Drydock at Berth 70 ......................................................................12
Typical Structure in Center Compartment .......................................................................13
Typical Water and Sediment in Center Compartment .....................................................13
Typical Port Flood Compartment .....................................................................................14
Typical Starboard Flood Compartment............................................................................14
Starboard Flood Compartment with Thicker Sediment....................................................15
Structure in Wing Compartment.......................................................................................15
Sediment in Wing Compartment ......................................................................................16
Observation of Thicker Sediment in Wing Compartment ................................................16
Internal Views of Wing Compartments of Drydock #1 .....................................................18
Wing Compartment Samples Numbers 1, 15, and 21 ..................................................18
Wing Compartment Samples Numbers 3, 16, and 19 ..................................................18
Center Deck Compartment Samples Numbers 5, 8, and 10 ........................................19
Center Deck Compartment Samples Numbers 14, 17, and 20 ....................................19
Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples Numbers 4, 7, and 9 ......................20
Port and Starboard Deck Compartment Samples Numbers 10 and 12........................20
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)
ii
Final Report
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:
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.
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.
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 crosssectional 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.
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:

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

Project Detection
Required Analysis
Analytical Methods
Limits
Percent Moisture
EPA 160.3
0.1%
pH
EPA 150.1
0.1 resolution
Asbestos
TEM
1
Dissolved Sulfides
Plumb, 1981/TERL
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
2
Monobutyltin
Krone et al., 1989
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
EPA 8151A
50 ug/Kg
(Silvex)
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
2
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.
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.
Table 2. Summary of Analytical Methods and Detection Limits for Water

Project
Required Analysis
Analytical Methods
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
1
Tributyltin
Krone et al., 1989
3 ng/L
2,4-dichlorophenoxy acid (2,4-D)
EPA 8151A
0.25 ug/L
EPA 8151A
0.25 ug/L
(Silvex)
Pentachlorophenol
EPA 625
1 ug/L
PAHs
EPA 625
0.01 ug/L
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.
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
PAHs
PCBs
Dissolved Sulfides
Oil and Grease
TPH-D, MO, BF
Water Matrices
Total Recoverable Metals
Speciated Butyltins
2,4,D and Silvex
Pentachlorophenol
PAHs
PCBs
Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate.

2
Laboratory Control Sample/Blank Spike.
3
Standard Reference Material (Certified Reference Material).-
Table 4.
Port of San Francisco Floating Dry Dock at Pier 70 Hull Compartment Reconnaissance
Inspection 5/19/06
Approx.
Water
depth (feet)
Approx.
Sediment
Depth
(feet)
Compartment
Location
1
3
2
4
6
5
Inaccessible
Inaccessible
Inaccessible
2
4
--
---< 0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Covered by Outrigger - nearest to dock

7 ppm salt
1 ppm salt
Fresh
< 0.5
Fresh
4
3
< 0.5
< 0.5
Fresh
Fresh
< 0.5
Fresh
4
5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Fresh
Fresh
< 0.5
Fresh
4
2
< 0.5
< 0.5
Fresh
Fresh
< 0.5
Fresh
-2
-< 0.5
Inaccessible
Fresh
2.5
< 0.5
Fresh
21
2
Forward - Starb
Forward - Port
Forward - Center
2nd back - Starb
2nd back - Port
2nd back - Center
3rd back Starboard
3rd back - Port
3rd back - Center
4th back Starboard
4th back - Port
4th back - Center
5th back Starboard
5th back - Port
5th back - Center
6th back Starboard
6th back - Port
6th back - Center
7th back Starboard
7th back - Port
7th back - Center
3
1.5
1.0+
< 0.5
22
Aft - Starboard
Inaccessible
--
24
Aft - Port
Inaccessible
--
23
Aft - Center
Inaccessible
--
Fresh
Fresh
Covered by Outrigger - furthest from
dock
dock
dock
7
9
8
10
12
11
13
15
14
16
18
17
19
Notes
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
Figure 5. Typical Water and Sediment in Center Compartment

13
Figure 6. Typical Port Flood Compartment
Figure 7. Typical Starboard Flood Compartment
14
Figure 8. Starboard Flood Compartment with Thicker Sediment
Figure 9. Structure in Wing Compartment
15
Figure 10. Sediment in Wing Compartment
Figure 11. Observation of Thicker Sediment in Wing Compartment
16
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.
17
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.

18
Figure 15. Center Deck Compartment Samples Numbers 5, 8, and 10
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
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
20
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 9,00041,000 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.
21
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,.
22
Table 5. Summary of Sediment Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments

Location
Date
Time
Thickness
(Inches)
Color
Notes
29-Mar-07
0732
3-4 floor / 1-2 wall
Grey
27-Mar-07
1340
grey tan
30-Mar-07
0715
Grey
29-Mar-07
0800
3-4 floor / 1 wall
Grey
10
29-Mar-07
0850
Grey
12
13
15
W
W
W
29-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
29-Mar-07
1140
0925
1120

4-6 floor / 1wall
reddish tan
Grey
light grey
16
29-Mar-07
0940
4-6 floor / 1 wall
Grey
18
29-Mar-07
1100
Grey
19
29-Mar-07
1045
red brown
22
29-Mar-07
1025
4-6 floor / 1 wall
red brown
24
6
7
9
12
13
W
B
B
B
B
B
29-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
1045
0910
0936
1305
1230
1025

8
6
3
20
8
red brown
Grey
Grey
grey tan
light grey tan
grey
15
28-Mar-07
1215
grey
16
17
B
B
28-Mar-07
27-Mar-07
1045
0931
20
1
grey tan
red
19
27-Mar-07
0805
grey
4
5
A
A
28-Mar-07
28-Mar-07
0815
0750
3
1
grey
red/grey
Rust, tan, grey fragments, sampled bottom

Sampled by Moffatt Nichol inside compartment, light rust
fragments
Not sampled- no good access
Rust, tan, grey fragments, unable to sample door, moved to
side manhole, bottom sample
Sampled from wall rust, tan, grey fragments, photo taken of
back wall in sunlight
Heavy rust fragments
Sampled bottom rust, tan, grey, slightly darker material
Door area not sampleable- moved to holes cut in side
Sampled wall and struts, tan sediment in heavy rust
fragments
Not sampleable, heavy rust fragments deposited, light
coating of sediment. 1/8-1/4"
Reddish brown sediment, slight rust fragments, floor
sample
Reddish brown sediment, slight rust fragments, floor
sample
Light reddish brown, slight rust fragments, floor sample
6A to thin to sample
Dark grey, moderate sheen
Light rust surface, no noticeable sheen (no photo)
Moderate rust surface, no noticeable sheen
Very light rust surface, light sheen
Dark grey w/ black areas, moderate to heavy sheen,
particular mal-odor
Large (10"-18") rust fragments, no noticeable sheen
Heavy rust and oil sheen with free product
Varying sediment Thickness- rust color on top layer, slight
sheen
Light rust surface, light oil sheen
Rust with "grey" sediment mixed , moderate sheen
Compartment
23
Compartment
7
8
Location
Date
Time
Thickness
(Inches)
Color
A
A
28-Mar-07
27-Mar-07
0936
1400
14
1
grey
red
Notes
Moderate streaking (black), light sheen, light rust surface

Heavy rust with moderate-heavy sheen, light free product
Light rust surface, light streaking (black), no noticeable
9
A
28-Mar-07
1305
12
grey tan
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
16
A
28-Mar-07
1045
6
grey
Very light rust surface, trace sheen
17
A
27-Mar-07
1000
2
red
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
24
Table 6. Summary of Water Samples Taken from Drydock #1 Hull Compartments

Location
Date
Time
Depth or
Volume
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
1015
1018
1020
1024
1030
1027
1032
1034
29
29
68
70
50
60
64
22
7.9
7.9
7.7
8.1
6.9
7.9
7.9
8.0
7.4
1.5
1.3
0.7
1.5
1.6
2.0
3.3
clear
clear
clear
clear
cloudy
clear
clear
clear
Grey
Red
Grey
Grey
Red
Grey
Red Grey
Red
Grab
Sample
Date /
Time
3-29 / -3-30 / 0900
3-29 / 1348
3-29 / 1405
3-30 / 0800
3-29 / 1415
3-29 / 1418
3-30 / 0915
14
26-Mar-07
1055
35
8.2
5.4
clear
Red
3-30 / 0921
16
17
18
20
21
12
13
15
19
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
1100
1105
1103
1130
1115
1050
1057
1059
1141
56
26
75
30
41
50
62
62
40
7.9
8.6
8.4
8.5
8.4
8.2
8.2
8.0
8.2
2.2
6.9
0.9
0.5
2.6
2.1
2.4
1.2
2.7
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
clear
Grey
Red
Grey
Red
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
Grey
3-29 / 1441
3-30 / 0930
3-29 / 1500
3-30 / 0940
3-29 / 1454
3-29 / 1422
3-29 / 1428
3-29 / 1435
3-29 / 1448
26-Mar-07
940
na
8.3
clear
na
3-30 / 0940
13.8
3
7
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
Grey
(sides)
Red
(center)
W
W
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
1040
1005
150 cu ft.
700 cu ft.
7.8
7.9
2.6
0.7
clear
clear
na
na
3-30 / 1040
3-30 / 1005
12.4
10
26-Mar-07
1015
144 cu ft.
7.8
0.2
clear
na
3-30 / 1015
12
13
15
16
W
W
W
W
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
26-Mar-07
1030
1130
1115
1140
360 cu ft.
280 cu ft.
546 cu ft.
280 cu ft.
8.1
7.8
8.0
7.7
2.1
na
1.2
2.2
clear
clear
clear
clear
na
na
na
na
3-30 / 1030
3-30 / 1130
3-30 / 1115
3-30 / 1140
Compartment
Composite
Composite
pH
Salinity
(ppt)
Water
Clarity
Sediment
Color
Notes
18.5
10.9
19.4
16.9
10.6
15.2
10B bolted closed
12.0
"film" on surface when
grab was taken
16B grey, 15.2
12.3
14.2
21B bolted closed
12A under gangway, 15.3
13A bolted closed, 14.8
* measured by lab
25
"dust" particles on surface

(film) 14.7
13.1
13.2
12.5
15.9
Compartment
Location
Date
Time
Depth or
Volume
pH
Salinity
(ppt)
Water
Clarity
Sediment
Color
18
W
26-Mar-07
1120
1144 cu ft 8.0
0.8
clear
na
Composite
W
26-Mar-07
1140
na
8.2
1.5
clear
na
* 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
26
Grab
Sample
Date /
Time
3-30 / 1120
na
Notes
12.6
13.3
Table 7.
Summary of Estimated Volumes of Sediment and Water in Drydock #1 Hull

Compartments
Estimated Sediment Volume
Estimated Water Volume
Compartment
(cubic yards)
(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
8
11
14
17
20
2
5
5
11
8
7
14,000
53,000
22,000
37,000
28,000
15,000
Total of Center Compartments
38
169,000
4
6
7
9
10
12
13
15
16
18
19
21
19
50
134
101
50
247
107
54
174
80
37
111
Total of Side Compartments
1,164
27,000
48,000
110,000
83,000
87,000
71,000
88,000
88,000
79,000
120,000
33,000
33,000
867,000
Total of All Compartments
1,410
1,063,000
27
Table 8. Results of Chemical Analyses of Water in Hull Compartments of Drydock #1

Deck
Deck
Wing
Tank
Tank
Analyte
Tank
Red
Grey
CONVENTIONALS
pH (pH units)
7.8
Salinity (SU)
2
Oil and Grease (mg/l)
3.9J
5.0U
1.8J
Water Soluble Sulfides (mg/l)
0.10U
0.10U
0.10U
ASBESTOS
Identified Structures (>10m)
NSD
NSD
Chrysotile Asbestos
NSD1
Amphibole Asbestos
NSD
NSD
NSD
Other Non-asbestos
NSD
NSD
NSD
Asbestos Structure Concentration (>10m)
Chrysotile Asbestos (MFL2)
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
Amphibole Asbestos (MFL)
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
Total Asbestos (MFL)
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
TOTAL METALS (ug/L)
Arsenic
0.6
0.04
0.9
Cadmium
0.2U
0.025
0.2U
Chromium
1.4
0.225
2.3
Copper
5.5
1.41
5.8
Lead
0.39
0.069
0.09
Mercury
0.05
0.01U
0.04
Nickel
0.5
0.156
0.8
Selenium
1.9
0.01
3.2
Silver
0.5U
0.02U
0.5U
Zinc
26.5
0.447
22.9
BUTYLTINS (ng/L)
Monobutyltin
1U
1U
1U
Dibutyltin
1U
1U
1U
Tributyltin
1U
1U
1U
Tetrabutyltin
1U
1U
1U
SEMIVOLATILE FUEL (ug/L)
Fuel Oil #6 (C10-C28)
3500
1800
3400
Jet-A (C9-C17)
94U
47U
50U
Diesel Range Organics (C10-C28)
1500
570
1000
Motor Oil (C16-C36)
2000
760
1400
HERBICIDES (g/L)
2,4-D
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
2,4-DB
5.0U
5.0U
5.0U
2,4,5-T
0.50U
0.50U
0.50U
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
0.50U
0.50U
0.50U
Dalapon
13U
13U
13U
Dicamba
0.50U
0.50U
0.50U
Dichbrprop
5U
5U
5U
Dinoseb
2.5U
2.5U
2.5U
MCPA
500U
500U
500U
MCPP
500U
500U
500U
28
Cloudy
Water
2.2J
0.10U
NSD
NSD
NSD
<0.2U
<0.2U
<0.2U
0.5
0.2U
1.2
2.4
0.05U
0.01U
1
2
0.5U
4.4
1U
1U
1U
1U
4900
200
2000
2400
5.0U
5.0U
0.50U
0.50U
13U
0.50U
5U
2.5U
500U
500U
Analyte
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (ng/L)
2,4'-DDD
2,4'-DDE
2,4'-DDT
4,4'-DDD
4,4'-DDE
4,4'-DDT
Total DDT
Aldrin
BHC-alpha
BHC-beta
BHC-delta
BHC-gamma
Chlordane-alpha
Chlordane-gamma
cis-Nonachlor
DCPA (Dacthal)
Dicofol
Dieldrin
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Oxychlordane
Perthane
Toxaphene
trans-Nonachlor
Total Chlordane
ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS (ng/L))
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2-Chlorophenol
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Total Phenolic Compounds
29
Wing
Tank
Deck
Tank
Red
Deck
Tank
Grey
Cloudy
Water
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
0
100U
5U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100U
5U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
100U
100U
50U
5U
0
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
0
100U
5U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100U
5U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
100U
100U
50U
5U
0
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
0
100U
5U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100U
5U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
100U
100U
50U
5U
0
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
0
100U
5U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100U
5U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
100U
100U
50U
5U
0
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
0
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
0
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
0
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
0
Analyte
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (ng/L)
1-Methylnaphthalene
1-Methylphenanthrene
2,3,5-Trimethylnaphthalene
2,6-Dimethylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[b]fluoranthene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Benzo[g,h,i]perylene
Benzo[k]fluoranthene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Dibenz[a,h]anthracene
Dibenzothiophene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno[1,2,3-c,d]pyrene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total Low Weight PAHs
Total High Weight PAHs
Total PAHs
PCB CONGENERS (ng/L)
PCB018
PCB028
PCB031
PCB033
PCB037
PCB044
PCB049
PCB052
PCB066
PCB070
PCB074
PCB077
PCB081
PCB087
PCB095
PCB097
PCB099
30
Wing
Tank
Deck
Tank
Red
Deck
Tank
Grey
Cloudy
Water
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
4.1J
5U
100U
100U
4.1
0
4.1
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
2.4J
5U
100U
100U
2.4
0
2.4
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
1.9J
5U
100U
100U
1.9
0
1.9
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
4J
5U
100U
100U
4
0
4
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
Analyte
Wing
Tank
PCB101
PCB105
PCB110
PCB114
PCB118
PCB119
PCB123
PCB126
PCB128+167
PCB138
PCB141
PCB149
PCB151
PCB153
PCB156
PCB157
PCB158
PCB168+132
PCB169
PCB170
PCB177
PCB180
PCB183
PCB187
PCB189
PCB194
PCB200
PCB201
PCB206
Total Detectable PCBs
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
0
Deck
Tank
Red
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
0
Deck
Tank
Grey
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
0
Cloudy
Water
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
0
NSD = No Structures Detected

MFL = 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.
2
31
Table 9. Results (Dry Weight) of Chemical Analyses of Sediments in Hull Compartments of

Drydock #1
Deck
Deck
Wing
Title 22
Analyte
ERL
ERM
Tank
Tank
Tank
TTLC
Red
Grey
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 (g/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 (g/kg dry)
2,4-D
100U
100U
100U
32
Analyte
Wing
Tank
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
10U
CHLORINATED PESTICIDES (g/kg dry)
2,4'-DDD
100U
2,4'-DDE
100U
2,4'-DDT
5U
4,4'-DDD
5U
4,4'-DDE
5U
4,4'-DDT
100U
0
Total DDT
Aldrin
100U
BHC-alpha
5U
BHC-beta
100U
BHC-delta
100U
BHC-gamma
5U
Chlordane-alpha
5U
Chlordane-gamma
5U
cis-Nonachlor
5U
DCPA (Dacthal)
10U
Dicofol
100U
Dieldrin
100U
Endosulfan Sulfate
5U
Endosulfan-I
100U
Endosulfan-II
100U
Endrin
100U
Endrin Aldehyde
100U
Endrin Ketone
100U
Heptachlor
100U
Heptachlor Epoxide
5U
Methoxychlor
5U
Mirex
100U
Oxychlordane
100U
Perthane
100U
Toxaphene
50U
trans-Nonachlor
5U
0
Total Chlordane
ACID EXTRACTABLE COMPOUNDS (g/kg dry)
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
100U
2,4-Dichlorophenol
100U
2,4-Dimethylphenol
200U
2,4-Dinitrophenol
200U
2-Chlorophenol
100U
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol
200U
2-Nitrophenol
200U
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
200U
4-Nitrophenol
200U
Pentachlorophenol
100U
Phenol
200U
33
Deck
Tank
Red
10U
Deck
Tank
Grey
10U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
0
100U
5U
100U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100U
5U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
100U
100U
50U
5U
0
100UJ
100UJ
5U
5U
5U
100UJ
0
100UJ
5U
100UJ
100UJ
5U
5U
5U
5U
10U
100U
100UJ
5U
100UJ
100UJ
100UJ
100UJ
100UJ
100UJ
5U
5U
100UJ
100UJ
100UJ
50U
5U
0
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
100U
100U
200U
200U
100U
200U
200U
200U
200U
100U
200U
Title 22
TTLC
ERL
ERM
2
2.2
1
1.58
20
27
7
46.1
1000
1000
1000
1000
1400
0.02
8000
200
0.5
Deck
Deck
Tank
Tank
Grey
Red
Total Phenolic Compounds
0
0
0
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (ug/kg dry)
1-Methylnaphthalene
36.4
61.5
28.9J
319
570
100U
137
841
5U
35.5
292
38.1J
2-Methylnaphthalene
43.4
40
36.9J
Acenaphthene
328
56.6
62.7J
Acenaphthylene
14.6
5.3
40.2J
Anthracene
192
840
100U
Benz[a]anthracene
1105
463
654J+
Benzo[a]pyrene
990
323
2005J+
1262
462
2031J+
Benzo[e]pyrene
1277
315
2843J+
565
114
1727J
1099
381
1084J+
Biphenyl
24.3
11
20.4J
Chrysene
2542
826
1926J+
141
41
470J
Dibenzothiophene
228
56
5U
Fluoranthene
4672
1183
1346J+
Fluorene
217
168
5U
522
148
1916J
Naphthalene
64.9
27.8
29.8
Perylene
461
131
1408J+
Phenanthrene
4064
727
100U
Pyrene
3368
1060
2857J+
Total Low Weight PAHs
5702
3695
257J
Total High Weight PAHs
18003
5446
20268J+
Total PAHs
23705
9142
20525J+
PCB CONGENERS (g/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
Analyte
Wing
Tank
34
ERL
ERM
70
16
44
85.3
261
430
670
500
640
1100
1600
1600
384
63.4
2800
260
600
19
5100
540
160
2100
240
665
1500
2600
4022
44792
Title 22
TTLC
Analyte
Wing
Tank
PCB099
PCB101
PCB105
PCB110
PCB114
PCB118
PCB119
PCB123
PCB126
PCB128+167
PCB138
PCB141
PCB149
PCB151
PCB153
PCB156
PCB157
PCB158
PCB168+132
PCB169
PCB170
PCB177
PCB180
PCB183
PCB187
PCB189
PCB194
PCB200
PCB201
PCB206
Total Detectable PCBs
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
U
UJ
J
J+
Deck
Tank
Grey
100UJ
100UJ
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
ERL
ERM
Title 22
TTLC
= Estimated detection limit. The compound was analyzed for but was not detected. The associated value is an estimate and
may be inaccurate or imprecise.
= 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.
= The associated value is a high estimate.
Table 10.
Deck
Tank
Red
100U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
100U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
100U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
5U
100U
Summary of Waste Extraction Tests (WET) conducted on Sediments in Hull

Compartments of Drydock #1
Deck
Deck
Wing
Title 22
Analyte
Tank
Tank
Tank
STLC
Red
Grey
METALS (mg/l)
Mercury
0.01U
0.01U
0.01U
0.2
Zinc
37
250
35
This page intentionally left blank
36
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:
x x
1
2
RPD = 100
1 (x + x )
1
2
2
1.2
where:
x1 = Concentration of sample 1 of the pair

x 2 = Concentration of sample 2 of the pair
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-1
In general, Percent Recovery is calculated as:
Measured _ Value
% R = 100
True _ Value
Matrix Spike recoveries take into account the concentration of the source sample.
Measured _ Value Sample _ Value
% RMS = 100
True _ Value
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 (SOPs) 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 A2 summarizes sediment QC Objectives; and Table A-3 identifies laboratory QC requirements and data
quality objectives for water chemistry.
A-2
Table A-1. Quality Control Summary for Bulk Sediment and Water Chemistry.
Laboratory
Analyte
Blanks
Splits
MS/MSD1
LCS/BS2
Surrogates
(Duplicates)
Sediment Matrices
z
z
Dissolved Sulfides
z
z
Oil and Grease
z
Percent Solids
z
pH
z
z
z
z
TPH-D, MO, BF
z
z
z
Total Metals
z
z
z
z
Speciated Butyltins
z
z
z
z
2,4,D and Silvex
z
z
z
Pentachlorophenol
Organochlorine
z
z
z
Pesticides
z
z
z
PAHs
z
z
PCBs
Water Matrices
z
z
Dissolved Sulfides
z
z
Oil and Grease
z
z
TPH-D, MO, BF
Total Recoverable
z
z
z
Metals
z
z
Speciated Butyltins
z
z
2,4,D and Silvex
z
z
Pentachlorophenol
Organochlorine
z
z
Pesticides
z
z
PAHs
z
z
PCBs
1
Matrix Spike/Spike Duplicate.
2
Laboratory Control Sample/Blank Spike.
3
Standard Reference Material (Certified Reference Material).
A-3
SRMs3
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Table A-2. Sediment Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives.

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

Analyte
Endosulfan Sulfate
Endosulfan-I
Endosulfan-II
Endrin
Endrin Aldehyde
Endrin Ketone
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Oxychlordane
Perthane
trans-Nonachlor
PCB Congeners
All PCB Congeners
PAHs
1-Methylnaphthalene
2-Methylnaphthalene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[e]pyrene
Biphenyl
Chrysene
Dibenzothiophene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Perylene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Accuracy
Precision
LCS Recovery (%) Matrix and Blank
Laboratory
Spike Recovery
SRM
Spike RPDs
Duplicate RPDs
(%)
(g/g dry)
(%)
(%)
25-125
30
45-125
25-145
60-125
60-120
45-125
45-125
60-120
30
35-140
30
50-130
70-130
60-140
60-120
30
60-125
30
40-120
40-160
45-120
40-130
35-125
40-125
40-130
45-150
50-175
50-160
45-160
40-160
30-170
50-150
45-120
40-160
40-165
65-125
45-165
55-150
40-170
30-120
30-175
35-160
50-150
30
A-5
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Table A-3. Water and Elutriate Matrices: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives.
Accuracy
Precision
Matrix and
Laboratory
Matrix Spike LCS/Blank Spike/
Analyte
Blank Spike
Duplicate RPDs
Recovery
SRM Recovery
RPDs
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Conventionals
Dissolved Sulfides
80-120
20
Oil and Grease
80-120
20
TPH-D, MO, BF
40-115
25
Total Recoverable Metals
Arsenic
70-130
65-125
30
30
Cadmium
75-130
60-120
30
30
Chromium
70-130
70-130
30
30
Copper
70-130
55-120
30
30
Lead
65-135
50-120
30
30
Mercury
60-140
60-140
30
30
Nickel
70-130
50-120
30
30
Selenium
60-150
50-110
30
30
Silver
50-155
50-125
30
30
Zinc
50-150
45-105
30
30
Speciated Butlytins
Monobutyltin
MDL-130
30
30
Dibutyltin
MDL-144
30
30
Tributyltin
70-130
30
30
Tetrabutyltin
65-125
30
30
Herbicides
2,4 dichlorophenoxy acid
30-130
30-130
30
2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy
30-130
30-130
30
Acid Extractable Compounds
Pentachlorophenol
10-160
30
2,4'-DDD
50-140
30
30
2,4'-DDE
60-130
30
30
2,4'-DDT
40-130
30
30
4,4'-DDD
60-140
30
30
4,4'-DDE
70-130
30
30
4,4'-DDT
MDL-150
30
30
Aldrin
50-130
30
30
BHC-alpha
60-130
30
30
BHC-beta
65-125
30
30
BHC-delta
65-125
30
30
BHC-gamma
50-125
30
30
Chlordane-alpha
60-130
30
30
Chlordane-gamma
60-130
30
30
cis-Nonachlor
60-120
30
30
DCPA (Dacthal)
60-140
30
30
Docofol
55-130
30
30
Dieldrin
65-125
30
30
Endosulfan Sulfate
60-125
30
30
Endosulfan-I
60-125
30
30
Endosulfan-II
60-125
30
30
Endrin
65-135
30
30
Endrin Aldehyde
60-110
30
30
Endrin Ketone
40-130
30
30
Heptachlor
45-135
30
30
Heptachlor Epoxide
65-130
30
30
A-6
Table A-3. Water and Elutriate Matrices: Quality Assurance/Quality Control Objectives.
Accuracy
Precision
Matrix and
Laboratory
Matrix Spike LCS/Blank Spike/
Analyte
Blank Spike
Duplicate RPDs
Recovery
SRM Recovery
RPDs
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Methoxychlor
MDL-155
30
30
Mirex
50-125
30
30
Oxychlordane
50-130
30
30
Perthane
60-140
30
30
trans-Nonachlor
55-130
30
30
PCB Congeners
All PCB Congeners
60-125
30
30
PAHs
1-Methylnaphthalene
50-120
30
30
70-130
30
30
45-130
30
30
55-125
30
30
2-Methylnaphthalene
50-130
30
30
Acenaphthene
70-130
30
30
Acenaphthylene
60-120
30
30
Anthracene
60-130
30
30
Benz[a]anthracene
70-140
30
30
Benzo[a]pyrene
70-130
30
30
60-140
30
30
Benzo[e]pyrene
70-130
30
30
50-140
30
30
70-130
30
30
Biphenyl
50-120
30
30
Chrysene
70-130
30
30
60-130
30
30
Dibenzothiophene
70-130
30
30
Fluoranthene
65-135
30
30
Fluorene
70-130
30
30
70-130
30
30
Naphthalene
50-120
30
30
Perylene
65-135
30
30
Phenanthrene
70-130
30
30
Pyrene
70-130
30
30
A-7
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
UJ
JJ
J+
R
Not detected
The compound was analyzed for but was not detected above analytical
reporting limits. The associated value is the sample reporting limit
Estimated Detection Limit
The compound was analyzed for but was not detected.
The associated value is an estimate and may be inaccurate or imprecise
Estimated Value
The associated value is a low estimate
Estimated Value
The associate value is an estimated quantity
Estimated Value
The associated value is a high estimate
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-8
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-9
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-10
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.
3.9
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 (1methylphenanthrene, 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.
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-11
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.
A-12
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.

Report No. CMS-07-2944-C-Final
Issued At Seattle, WA July 29, 2007
Port Of San Francisco 21,000 Dry-dock

Condition Report
Page No. 2 of 12
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.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
This is a summary appraisal report produced for financial purposes.

This vessel was appraised with the consideration that it had responsible ownership,
management, competent crew and adequate ongoing maintenance.
The vessel was appraised upon the premise that it was free and clear of all debt,
encumbrances, mortgages or special liens.
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).
We are unaware of any significant potential environmental hazards associated with
this vessel, save those normally associated with vessels of this type.
The values noted herein are based upon vessels present condition at its present
location.
No responsibility is assumed for latent defects of any nature that could affect vessels
value.
No opinion of vessels stability characteristics or structural integrity has been made
and no opinion is expressed with respect hereto.
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.
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.
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.
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.


Condition Report
Page No. 3 of 12
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 equipments 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
Boats & Harbors
Latitude 48
Frequency
Biweekly
Monthly
Origin
Crossville, TN
Seattle, WA

Industry Periodicals
Workboat
Marine Reporter
Marine Log
Marine News
Professional Mariner

Condition Report
Page No. 4 of 12
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Tri-weekly
8-Issues Yearly
Internet
Marcon International
Ship Ads
East Coast marine
Maretech
Ships For Sale
Ocean Marine
Dock Street Brokers
GSI Boat Brokers
Tassin Marine
Scrapiron.Net
Rockland, ME
New York, NY
New York, NY
New York, NY
Portland, ME
Coupville, WA
Singapore
Cape Canaveral, FL
Faeroe Islands
Larnace, Cyprus
Morgan City, LA
Seattle, WA
Seattle, WA
New Orleans, LA
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 todays 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.


Condition Report
Page No. 5 of 12
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
Classification: None
Society: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Load Line
Country: None
Minimum Freeboard: N/A
Society: N/A
Certification
Country: None
Service: N/A
Capacity: N/A
Agency: N/A
Route Restrictions: 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
Location: New York, NY
Criteria: Per Drawing D 176 15

Date Of Issue: 5-25-1942
5


Condition Report
Page No. 6 of 12
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 6in X 4-in X -in steel angles riveted back to back on 20-in flat bar of either , 3/16 or 1/2-in
thickness set @ 8-ft centers; Longitudinal hull, deck and bulkhead stiffeners 9-in X 3-in X 3/8in serrated steel angle bar; Bottom, side and bulkhead plating, 3/8-in; Deck plating -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 3in-dia steel shafts through pillar block bearings.
Valves: Necessary flooding and evacuation valves operated by reach rods through Lignum
Vitim bearings.
6


Condition Report
Page No. 7 of 12
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.


Condition Report
Page No. 8 of 12
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 unsatisfactory 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)

8


Condition Report
Page No. 9 of 12
(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.
9


Condition Report
Page No. 10 of 12
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 vessels 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 Masters 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 owners surveyor at conclusion of tow.
10


Condition Report
Page No. 11 of 12
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
vessels value could be no more than $593,000.00.
Vessels 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.
11


Condition Report
Page No. 12 of 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
12

Dique Flotante Reparacion

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dique Flotante Reparacion

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

PORT OF SAN FRANCISCO

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

MARINE SURVEY, STRUCTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL

MOFFATT & NICHOL

M&N Project No. 5276-15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1

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

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

MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT .......................................................... 7

MARINE SURVEY & STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................... 12

Table 1 - Measured water depths in buoyancy compartments.................................................................... 18

Photograph 1 Aft, starboard view of Drydock #1.................................................................................... 19

COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE MONITORING

CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

HEALTH AND SAFETY WORK PLAN

LEAD BASED PAINT

LEAD CONTAINING PAINT

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON

PERMISSABLE EXPOSURE LIMIT

PARTS PER MILLION

PARTS PER THOUSAND

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

SAMPLING AND ANALYSES PLAN

SUPPLIED AIR RESPIRATOR

SOLUBLE THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION

THERMAL SYSTEMS INSULATION

TOTAL THRESHOLD LIMIT CONCENTRATION

WASTE EXTRACTION TEST

Conduct a reconnaissance survey of the drydock to identify suspected

Conduct the Environmental Sampling and Analyses per plan.

Control Room Panels, Epoxy

KEY MARINE SURVEY FINDINGS

KEY ENVIRONMENTAL SAMPLING FINDINGS

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION

The investigation involved the following tasks:

MATERIAL SAMPLING, TESTING AND ASSESSMENT

Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles

Asbestos Containing Materials

PCB containing materials

Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments

Lead Paint and Corrosion / Debris Piles

Asbestos Containing Materials

PCB Containing Materials

Sediment and Water in the Hull Compartments

MARINE SURVEY & STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT

Wing Compartments Condition

Towing Hardware Condition

SUITABILITY FOR TOW

Report prepared by:

FIGURES, TABLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1 Aft, starboard view of Drydock #1

Photograph 2 Aft end outriggers (stowed on deck)

Photograph 3 Typical pontoon deck stiffening & transverse frame truss

Photograph 5 Typical water tight door access opening to wing compartment

Photograph 6 Pontoon deck condition showing heavy corrosion

Photograph 7 Port forward wing compartment interior damage from grounding

Photograph 8 Port forward exterior damage from grounding

Photograph 9 Typical corrosion and sediments in a corner wing compartment

Photograph 10 Typical patching on inside of starboard wing shell

Photograph 11 Port side typical patching on outside shell