Weather | Beachcam
Login | Contact Us | Staff | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic Edition | Subscribe to the paper

HomeNewsLocal News

Hueneme dredging plan gets state OK

$13 million project to bury contaminants

A massive dredging project at the Port of Hueneme that had been held up for decades because of sediment contamination was approved Friday by the California Coastal Commission.

The proposed solution is to dig a hole underwater in the harbor, fill it with the contaminated sediment from an area estimated to be about 70 acres of surrounding seafloor, and then cap it with sand and gravel.

"It's designed to be safe for more than 8,000 years," said Anthony Taormina, executive director the Oxnard Port District, which oversees the commercial operations at the Port of Hueneme.

The sediment is contaminated by such things as pesticides, tributylin and PCBs, but not to a level where they would be considered hazardous materials. Much of the pollution came from sources that were off the base and outside of the harbor, such as an Oxnard sewage treatment plant and urban and agricultural runoff. The tributylin, or TBT, is likely from anti-fouling paints used in ship building.

It took some time to come up with a way to safely dispose of the polluted sediment, but the port has to be dredged to remain viable, Taormina said.

Similar "confined aquatic disposal" sites have been created at the port in Tacoma, Wash., and in the 1990s in the ports at Long Beach and Los Angeles.

While the $13 million project will take more than a year of around-the-clock, seven-days-a-week work to complete, it's much cheaper than the alternative of trucking the dredged material to a landfill. One estimate for trucking out debris was about $32 million.

The district recently completed a mitigated negative declaration on the dredging proposal, in lieu of a full environmental review.

The efficacy of that document, which concludes the environmental impacts of digging up and burying an estimated 327,000 cubic yards of material does not warrant more in-depth study, will be voted on by the Oxnard Harbor District board. An information-only item is on the agenda, which can be viewed at http://www.portofhueneme.org. The board's meeting is at 5 p.m. Monday.

Sediment has piled up to depths of 10 to 14 feet in some spots, Taormina said.

"It's critical both for the Navy and the harbor district to ensure harbor operations, and provide the design depths for commercial and Navy vessels to come in and out of the port."

The areas around the Oxnard Harbor District wharfs have not been dredged for almost two decades, while the Navy berths were last dredged in 1965.

The Coastal Commission's approval of the dredging plan came over the objections of the Los Padres chapter of the Sierra Club.

Al Sanders, the conservation chairman for the group, argued the plan should have a more extensive environmental review to look at the potential impacts of the project.

But Navy and Oxnard Harbor District officials argued this was by far the most environmentally sound solution to cleaning up the polluted sediment and clearing the areas where shallow water levels are preventing access to ship traffic.

Discussions

Posted by shaver_one on May 12, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And where do they plan to put all the sediment that they remove while digging that hole to bury the contaminasted sediment?
Why not just haul the contaminated sediment several hundred miles off shore and lay it along the ocean floor?
If it's not at 'Haz-Mat' levels, wouldn't that be easier? Wouldn't that be cheaper?

Posted by Erkine_Childers on May 12, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sounds horrible to me. I like to surf out at that beach. I don't like the idea of it going anywhere in the ocean- stick out in the desert better yet.

Posted by shaver_one on May 13, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'll bet, Gringo, you don't surf several hundred miles off shore. Paddling out that distance would be, by itself, prohibitive.

Posted by Erkine_Childers on May 13, 2008 at 4:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

but the thing about the ocean is all the currents, upwelling and sand movements- the water is constantly cycling through, and any contamination hundreds or thousands of miles away is eventually going to end up near shore. Of course the director of the Port District says its safe, he is the one who oversees commercial operations. They say it is the most "environmentlly sound" option, but why is it more environmentally sound than burying it in a landfill? Oh, it's not necessarily, it's just cheaper.



Discuss this article
(Requires free registration.)

Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.

Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.

We do not allow the following:

  • Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
  • Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
  • Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.

Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn:

Loading videos... If you don't see them shortly, you may need to download the Flash Player.