Los Angeles Basin Contaminated Sediments Task Force

Interim Advisory Committee Proceedings
August 21, 1998

bar4.gif (2919 bytes)

 

The meeting was chaired by Steven John, US EPA; regular members attending were: Aaron Allen and Terri Ely, ACOE, Jim Raives, CCC (by telephone), Michael Lyons, LARWQCB, Bill Paznokas, CDFG (by telephone), and Mark Gold, Heal the Bay. Mitzy Taggart, Heal the Bay and Dean Smith, LA County Beaches and Harbors, were also present. The project proponent, the Port of Long Beach, was represented by Robert Kanter and Tom Johnson, assisted by Ruth Custance, Dames and Moore.

The Port of Long Beach discussed anticipated dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments over the next 5 years. Representatives from the Port of Los Angeles and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers were not available to discuss planning issues.

The major order of business was to review the Port of Long Beach's proposal to amend its Pier T Marine Terminal Project by adding two new disposal alternatives. The Port's original proposal was to place all dredged material that was unsuitable for unconfined aquatic disposal (NUAD) in a confined aquatic disposal (CAD) site on the south side of the Navy Mole. Both the Coastal Commission and the Water Board issued permits for that project (CDP 5-96-231 and File 96-121, respectively), but the Corps permit was withdrawn before being acted upon.

The Port is seeking permit modifications that would incorporate disposal in Slip 2 of Pier E and on Pier S, as well as the original proposal. The Port would implement one of the three options. The Pier E option would consist of building a closure dike across the mouth of Slip 2, placing all of the NUAD material in the bottom of the slip by bottom-dump barge, clamshell, and hydraulic unloading, placing clean material on top of the NUAD material and between it and the dike, then paving the slip. The NUAD material would be covered by 25 to 40 feet of clean material, base course, and paving.

The Pier S option would incorporate the disposal of Pier T material into the overall upland site fill and remediation of a portion of the site. The site would ultimately be developed into a Port terminal. The Port would hydraulically unload the NUAD material onto the Pier S site and place stabilized sump soils on a portion of the site (approximately 25 acres). Ultimately the entire site will receive at least 10 feet of clean fill, and paving. The lower layers of NUAD material would be in contact with the shallow ground water at Pier S.

The Port's schedule requires that the two new options be approved in November, in order to be able to start dredging in December/January.

The Committee members unanimously agreed that both options are environmentally superior to the original proposal, but expressed a strong preference for the Pier E slipfill option. That option is also the Port's preferred option on financial and engineering grounds.

The Committee discussed the permitting issues associated with the two options. The Port would need to have the two options permitted solely as disposal scenarios for the Pier T project, even though each site would be part of a larger terminal development project, because obtaining permits for the other two projects is not feasible in the time frame required. The CEQA/NEPA issues of project purpose need to be addressed in the permitting.

The consensus of the group was that the Pier E option could probably be permitted solely as a disposal site for the Pier T project as long as the permit did not allow the site to be used for other purposes without another permit. Allen and Ely engaged to seek an opinion on the subject from Corps' legal counsel.

The group agreed that the Pier S option, being wholly upland, would not need a Corps permit. However, with respect to the Water Board permit amendment, Lyons and Paznokas stated that the ground water issues were unclear and could delay a decision. The Port stated that it needed the option in case Pier E proved impossible. Kanter, Lyons, and Paznokas agreed to meet with other Water Board staff to clarify the issues.

Gold suggested that the Committee's recommendation to the regulatory agencies be to expedite the Port's applications in recognition of the beneficial nature of the proposal. Raives and Lyons agreed that such a recommendation would be appropriate as long as it were worded so as not to imply pre-approval of the project. Both Raives and Lyons indicated that the projects could be brought before their respective governing bodies for a decision in early November, which would be just in time for the Port to issue its bid specifications on schedule.

Raives asked that whatever option is implemented, the Port provide a "lessons learned" summary at the end of the project for the benefit of the Task Force, which Johnson engaged to do.

The Committee discussed that the fact that the capacity of the Pier E disposal option appeared to be large enough to accommodate contaminated dredged materials from Marina Del Rey. Kanter and Johnson indicated that incorporation of Marina Del Rey dredged material may be feasible as it could displace clean capping or buffer material. The Committee charged Dean Smith and the Port of Long Beach with initiating discussions, as soon as possible, regarding coordination, and receipt of Marina Del Rey dredged material. Implementing these coordinated, regional dredging and disposal operations would require resolution of several issues, including timing of the projects, funding of the Marina Del Rey dredging, and the execution of an indemnification agreement.

ACTION ITEMS:


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

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.