Los Angeles Basin
Contaminated Sediments Task Force

Summary of Meeting on May 18, 1999

bar4.gif (2919 bytes)

 

TASK FORCE STATUS REPORT

  1. Subcommittee Data Gap Progress
  1. The Sediment Screening Thresholds subcommittee is making progress, but is not ready to report on data gaps. A workshop was held in March with Tom Gries, Washington Department of Ecology, to discuss the approach taken there. Brian Ross, with the U.S. EPA office in San Francisco, plans to be active in this group and will share his valuable experience and expertise on this issue. The subcommittee still is at the stage of discussing its goals and objectives. The participants are interested in developing some form of Sediment Quality Values; group members will inventory their existing data sets so that we can determine how feasible it will be to tackle this task. The next meeting is scheduled for June 23rd (1 – 3 pm) at the LA Corps of Engineers’ office.
  2. The Aquatic Disposal and Dredge Operations subcommittee received an update in February from the Waterways Experiments Station regarding modeling studies being conducted to evaluate confined aquatic disposal at the North Energy Island Borrow Pit site. The WES studies should be completed by the end of June. Task Force members pointed out that there are other aquatic disposal alternatives that should be evaluated (per the workplan), as well as dredge operation issues (e.g., monitoring, night operations, silt curtains). Data gaps have not been identified pending completion of these tasks. The next meeting is scheduled for June 23rd (10 am – noon) at the LA Corps of Engineers’ office.
  3. The Upland Disposal and Beneficial Re-Use subcommittee has met regularly and defined several data gaps. Some of the questions the group still has include the following: 1. With respect to concrete stabilization, how well will this method lock up chlorides and petroleum hydrocarbons? 2. If the physical separation process were used, would the dewatering flow produced need to be treated prior to its discharge back to the ocean or harbor? 3. In addition, would Los Angeles River dredged material be suitable for the physical separation process? 4. If disposal involves moving dredged material to a disposal site, could we quantify the air pollution contribution from trucks needed to transport dredged material? (A task force member indicated that the San Francisco Long Term Management Strategy’s programmatic EIS contains a generic evaluation of air quality analysis for disposal, which we could use; this EIS also could provide a template for an economic analysis of various alternatives under consideration.)

    An additional study, costing $100,000 to $200,000, would be needed to evaluate the cost and feasibility of siting treatment and rehandling facilities. Although the subcommittee previously indicated the need for a study to determine the appropriate blending ratios to incorporate fine-grained contaminated sediments into constructed fill projects, the group now believes that sufficient information is available to evaluate this disposal alternative without the need for a special study. The next meeting is scheduled for July 13th (1-3 pm) at the Long Beach Coastal Commission’s office.
  4. The Watershed Management and Source Reduction subcommittee will not be able to define data gaps until CH2M-Hill has completed work for the Corps of Engineers related to this topic. This task will not be finished until early July, so the next subcommittee meeting has been rescheduled for July 15th (10 am to noon) at the LA Regional Board’s office. The subcommittee also plans to review the City of Los Angeles stormwater data report, which should be available in June. The group will schedule a presentation from Jon Bishop, LA Regional Board, to discuss the Board’s TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) process and determine how the subcommittee should be involved.

Other Subcommittee Progress

  1. The Implementation subcommittee is working on the permit streamlining issue; a draft report should be available for the June 9th (10 am to noon) meeting at the Coastal Commission’s Long Beach office. A report on the strategy adoption process also should be available at that meeting and would summarize the actions required from the four regulatory agencies to actually adopt the long-term management strategy. Several potential funding sources are being pursued to provide funds for additional studies needed to fill data gaps. Originally, we were seeking special legislation sponsored by Senator Karnette and/or Assemblyman Lowenthal, but at their request we shifted to a budget augmentation process. However, the Regional Board could not officially send a letter to public officials seeking additional funding (although the agency would be able to accept funds). So Peter Douglas, California Coastal Commission, will contact Karnette, Lowenthal and others to see if they were able to secure funds during the Member’s Day negotiations. We also continue to seek funds at the federal level. The Task Force, as well as LA County and Port of Long Beach, sent support letters to Congress requesting augmentation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ budget ($400,000). In addition, the Coastal Commission is investigating potential funds from NOAA under the Lands Legacy Initiative for environmental re-use of dredged material or non-point source control projects.
  2. The Interim Advisory Group has been dealing with issues related to Marina del Rey dredging, Los Angeles River dredging and the Pier E/Slip 2 disposal site. The LA River project has secured all permits and approvals and dredged material has been placed within Slip 2. The Marina del Rey project has not completed the permit/approval process. Heal the Bay raised an issue regarding the use of silt curtains to control turbidity; EPA and the Corps of Engineers did not believe silt curtains would be effective or necessary in this particular case. However, Heal the Bay would like Best Management Practices identified and implemented to mitigate for resuspension of contaminants. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about potential impacts on pelicans, and has requested placement of a barge to provide roosting areas; the Task Force members do not believe that this should be necessary. The Coastal Commission pulled the Marina del Rey item from the May meeting and has rescheduled it for June. Los Angeles County and the Corps of Engineers intend to resolve the outstanding issues prior to the June Commission hearing.

ESTABLISHING A DREDGE MATERIAL MANAGEMENT OFFICE (DMMO)

Brian Ross, US EPA, outlined several issues of concern, based upon experience in the San Francisco area and elsewhere. It is important to establish the purpose and goal of a DMMO, since different staff or agencies could be involved, depending on the objectives. In San Francisco, permit streamlining, concurrent review, and regulatory consistency (in evaluating sediment suitability for disposal options) were the goals; the DMMO was not set up to do project facilitation or look at disposal alternatives (it was not designed to be a planning group). It is important to ensure participation by the right agencies or groups and agree upon a method for input and decision-making. In San Francisco, all agencies decided to review data together (regularly scheduled meetings) and agree on what was needed (all agencies agree on whether application is complete and start the regulatory clock at the same time). The Puget Sound process is similar to San Francisco’s process (SF was modeled after PS); however, Puget Sound has funding to do some research and education outreach; there also is a degree of site management for multi-user facilities.

For Los Angeles, a DMMO could facilitate getting new disposal sites on-line and project planning. The four regulatory agencies (EPA, COE, CCC, LARWQCB) could be official core agency members, but the group should be open to resource agencies (DFG, USFWS, NMFS). The role of the public must be included, so that streamlining the permit process does not result in any loss of input (various alternatives for public input could be used, such as ability to attend meetings vs active participation and discussion vs voting). We probably would need an MOA to clarify agency expectations and commitments. We might wish to have responsibilities rotated for distributing pertinent materials and have a host agency identified to coordinate meetings, and definitely should have a conflict resolution process (with a mechanism to elevate decisions or an appeal process). The process could start with a single (joint) application, which usually would include a sampling and analysis plan (which is discussed and approved by the group).

SEDIMENT CONTAMINANT SOURCES

The Watershed Management and Source Reduction subcommittee has evaluated data to identify pollutants of concern in each watershed of interest (Ballona Creek, Los Angeles River, Dominguez Channel, San Gabriel River). This task was carried out by reviewing recent sediment chemistry data from these areas and comparing the levels to sediment quality guidelines generated by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (ERL/ERM), State of Florida (TEL/PEL) and Puget Sound Sediment Disposal Authority (SL/ML).

For the Los Angeles River, sediment data from January 1997 and July 1998 were reviewed. Lead and zinc, as well as most PAHs, PCBs, DDT and chlordane, exceeded the effects level; several metals exceeded the lower thresholds, where effects may or may not occur. Similar results were found during both surveys, suggesting continuing sources of contamination. We should focus on lead and zinc, but we can’t ignore the other contaminants present.

For Ballona Creek Entrance Channel, the September 1995 and December 1997 sediment data were reviewed. Lead, as well as DDT and chlordane, exceeded the effects threshold; several metals, as well as PCB, dieldrin and fluorene, exceeded the lower thresholds. In 1997, lead was the primary contaminant present in the sediments, unlike 1995 when several different contaminants were present. Although we may wish to focus on lead (and zinc, which has been implicated as a cause of toxicity in toxicity identification evaluations), there are not enough data to allow us to eliminate the other contaminants from our list of pollutants of concern.

For Dominguez Channel, we have limited data from the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program for several sites. DDT, PCB and chlordane exceeded the effects threshold at some stations. For San Gabriel River, there are limited data from Edison, LA City Department of Water and Power and County Sanitation Districts of LA County sampling programs. No contaminants exceeded the effects threshold, but copper and DDT occasionally exceeded the lower threshold. Additional data would be needed to evaluate these watersheds.

BAY PROTECTION AND TOXIC CLEANUP PROGRAM

This statewide program was established in 1989 to identify and characterize toxic hot spots within enclosed bays and estuaries, plan for toxic hot spot cleanup and prevent creation of new hot spots. Monitoring data (sediment chemistry, sediment toxicity, benthic infauna) were collected at many sites throughout the Los Angeles Region, allowing the Regional Board to define several sites meeting the criteria established by the program for designation as toxic hot spots: Palos Verdes Shelf, Consolidated Slip/Dominguez Channel, Cabrillo Pier, Mugu Lagoon, McGrath Lake, Los Angeles River Estuary, Ballona Creek Entrance Channel and Marina del Rey. Several other locations within the region were listed as sites of concern. The Regional Board submitted a Regional Cleanup Plan to State Board in February 1999, and State Board will consider adopting a statewide-consolidated cleanup plan, which is scheduled for a public hearing on June 3, 1999. Following approval of the consolidated plans, the Regional Boards will review discharger permits to determine whether modifications are needed and move forward with cleanup of the toxic hot spots, although no funds have been appropriated for this expensive undertaking. Program funding ends with the current fiscal year (June 30, 1999); however, AB641 has been proposed to continue the program.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Gary Cardemone has replaced Dick Witkop at the Port of Los Angeles.

Larry Smith has moved from the Port of Los Angeles to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Planning).

NEXT MEETING

The next meeting is scheduled for July 20, 1999, from 10 am to noon at the Port of Los Angeles (San Pedro).


bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the Contaminated Sediments Task Force home page.

bluebull.gif (1028 bytes) Return to the California Coastal Commission's home page.