Port presents Pier 70 feasibility study and recommends cap plus institutional controls as preferred remedy

Carol Bach, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Manager in the Port’s Planning and Development Division, presented the Port’s feasibility study and remedial action plan (FS/RAP) for Pier 70 to the Port Commission on March 14, summarizing five years of investigation and the data that underpin the recommended remedy.

Bach said the Port’s site investigation collected more than 180 soil samples from borings and test pits, over 50 groundwater samples (from temporary locations and 10 permanent monitoring wells), and 33 soil gas samples. The investigation, she said, found that soil at Pier 70 contains metals, petroleum hydrocarbons and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at concentrations exceeding cleanup levels for the three anticipated future uses evaluated (commercial, recreational and residential). Groundwater, she said, generally contained contaminants at concentrations that did not pose a potential human‑health risk, with localized exceptions in Parcel 9 (the area largely occupied by BAE's ship repair operations) where residual degraded petroleum globules were detected.

Bach described five remedial alternatives analyzed in the FS/RAP: no action; institutional controls; institutional controls combined with a durable cover (cap); full excavation and off‑site disposal of shallow soils to 10 feet (modeled as a mass excavation); and hot‑spot removal. She said the analysis used federal and state evaluation criteria plus recent state guidance on environmental sustainability of remedial actions. Alternative 3 — institutional controls plus a durable surface cover — rated highest for protectiveness and cost, while excavation, though effective, was estimated to be about 6.7 times more expensive than the preferred alternative.

Mark Johnson, a case officer with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, told the commission the proposed remedy is “highly protective of human health,” noting it would avoid exposing historic buildings to heavy excavation, have a lower carbon footprint than hauling hundreds of thousands of yards of soil, and could be implemented alongside redevelopment with standard worker health‑and‑safety measures.

Bach said the draft FS/RAP will be published March 15 for a 30‑day public comment period and that the Port will hold a community meeting on the evening of March 21 in association with a Central Waterfront Advisory Group meeting; staff and the Water Board will prepare a responsiveness summary and then develop a risk management plan that documents long‑term monitoring, maintenance, dust control, stormwater pollution prevention and tenant/contractor notification requirements.

Public commenter Corinne Woods said the cap‑and‑cover approach is similar to Mission Bay and generally works but cautioned that dust control enforcement has been weak in the past and warned that undiscovered hot spots could require later excavation. Commissioners asked whether additional Department of Defense funding was likely given historical Navy involvement; Bach replied the Port will pursue attribution where possible but that federal appropriations are dependent on Congress. She said historical underground storage tanks have largely been identified and removed, but the risk management plan will include measures and procedures for unanticipated encounters and hotspot responses.

Bach and Johnson both emphasized that the remedy was chosen to be protective under a residential standard to preserve flexibility for future uses and that the risk management plan will address migration, utility corridors and construction safety. The commission did not vote to adopt the FS/RAP at the March 14 meeting; staff slated the document for public review and follow‑up through the Water Board process.