| |
 hy
is a fashion statement more newsworthy than pollution? Maybe
it's because fashion changes while pollution persists. Nearly
two years ago, relevant agencies released a study, "Final
Report on Chemistry, Toxicity, and Benthic [at the bottom] Community
Conditions in Sediments of the San Diego Bay Region." This
study of three estuaries in the San Diego Region - San Diego
Bay, Mission Bay, and the Tijuana Estuary - characterized the
general state of sediments in the bays and located toxic sediment
hot spots.
 As reported
in the July 1997 edition of the San Diego Earth Times
("Death Zones in San Diego Bay"), the report found
significant contamination of San Diego Bay sediments. San Diego
Bay rated the second most toxic bay in the nation second only
to Newark, NJ, in terms of the extent of toxicity exhibited throughout
the bay. The main chemicals of concern in San Diego Bay are copper,
mercury, zinc, total chlordane, total PCBs, and PAHs (poly-aromatic
hydrocarbons oil, basically).
Contaminated
sediments pose a substantial threat to aquatic life, wildlife,
fisheries, and human health. Fish and bottom-dwelling creatures
can suffer disease, death, reproductive failure, or impaired
growth upon exposure to pollutants in the sediment. Trace metals
(i.e., copper, mercury, zinc) in the sediments are particularly
harmful because they persist in the marine environment and bioaccumulate
up the food chain, traveling from marine organisms to fish then
to humans.
The
data clearly showed that the most toxic areas are located adjacent
to 32nd Street Naval Station (7th St. channel), NASSCO, Southwest
Marine, Continental, and Campbell Shipyards.
But
while the science shows them to be virtual dead zones, and although
the regulating authorities and industries have agreed cleanups
were necessary since 1990, the Regional Board chose to only declare
one of the hot spots (7th street channel) a high priority.
Which
brings us to the politics of pollution.
|
| |
The
Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program (BPTCP) was established
in 1989 by the State Water Resources Control Board to require
Regional Water Quality Control Boards to develop regional hot
spot cleanup plans. The State Board will then incorporate the
regional plans into a consolidated statewide cleanup plan. But
BPTCP does not mandate cleanups and is set to expire in June
of 1999.
So what's
the status of cleaning up our local legacy of pollution?
The
State Board developed guidelines and criteria for identifying
hot spots. These included specific toxicity hits, degraded benthic
(bottom of the bay) communities, and elevated levels of chemicals.
Interestingly, the analysis used in San Diego for determining
toxicity was the least protective of any region in California.
It took a lot of marine life being killed in the studies before
it would pass a threshold as qualifying for "toxic."
San Diego used a survival cutoff of 52 percent, as opposed to
other regions that had a cutoff of 37 percent. This means that
in San Diego, 52 percent of marine life had to die before the
area was designated toxic, whereas in other regions only 37 percent
of marine life had to die to designate the area as toxic. Due
to the more conservative cutoff, fewer areas were designated
as toxic in San Diego than would have been deemed toxic in other
regions.
With
more than 20 high-priority hot spots in the seven California
coastal regions, and lower standards, San Diego still has five
hot spots. The entire San Francisco Bay is designated as a hot
spot and has an additional ten high-priority spots; Los Angeles
has seven hot spots, four being a high priority. Regardless of
the science, and even though our sites are more polluted, the
San Diego Regional Board's political appointees have only declared
one a high priority.
What
does this mean, practically and politically speaking? Only high
priority sites require plans for cleanup and prevention of future
contamination.
A high
priority designation means that the Regional Board is required
to evaluate the site and identify remediation options, as well
as develop prevention plans. But even this doesn't actually require
a cleanup. The plan becomes a screening process to identify the
problem areas and help them identify their cleanup priorities.
Only
high-priority hot spots require that the answers be pursued.
Without having the data and a plan, how will the Regional Board
ensure that they will not become contaminated again in the future?
|
| |
The
Regional Board has the power to initiate cleanups through its
enforcement authority under the California Water Code. They can
issue cleanup and abatement orders at any time. They have the
data to do it.
What
prevents them from doing it?
They
say they want to make sure who the responsible parties are and
how much they are going to make them cleanup. It does require
analysis and evaluation. This is why the high-priority designation
is key: it makes it that much easier to get the job done by mandating
the next steps in the evaluation process. So, therefore, one
would conclude that the Regional Board doesn't want to get that
job done.
Why
not just leave sediments in place? The sediments are a source
of pollution at the bottom of the food chain. In addition, wave
and boat motion moves sediments around and they become an ongoing
pollution source. What should happen to the contaminated sediments?
They need to be dredged and then likely taken to a landfill.
The
State Board is creating a consolidated cleanup plan. They are
going to develop one list for the entire state. San Diego, with
only one high priority hot spot, looks pretty healthy, right?
We don't need money or resources? This state plan comes out for
public review in April.
The
goal of clean water and healthy water ecosystems is clearly looked
at as idealistic not realistic and the priorities of the board
are clearly focused on the importance of keeping the polluters
happy and, evidently, keeping in place the pollution and our
political system supports it. Lost in the flurry of rules and
permits is any urgency whatsoever about directing or increasing
resources to reduce or eliminate pollution.
|
 |
Send
a letter to the State Board strongly objecting to listing only
one of our hot spots as a high priority. All of our sites are
severely degraded and should be listed as a high priority. They
all had to be severely degraded to be designated hot spots, and
it is critical that we accurately depict the health of our bay.
In addition, only high priority sites are likely to get cleaned
up.
Letters
should be sent to:
Chairman James M. Stubchaer and Boardmembers,
State Water Resources Control Board,
PO Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812;
Fax: 916-657-0932.
Write
to your state representatives to support AB 641 (Lempert) to
extend the funding and implementation of the hot spots program.
Write to:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento CA 94249-0001
 |
