Posted by Capt. Jim Cox
on 1/31/2009, 1:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Keith Fraser's Letter on the plan for dredge spoils in San Pablo Bay"
98.207.145.56
What is very intersting in this situation is the information you do not hear in the press releases. The workers that work on the barges involved in this dredge pumping project all depart out of Loch Lomond marina, where I run my charter business. I have had the opportunity to talk with some of those workers. What they tell me is what is causing the delays in the current mud pumping project is constant equipment failures. They hardly ever get through a full 8 hour shift without some catastrophic breakdown that stops the entire operation. Electric motors are failing, switches are overloading, pumps are failing or jamming. One of the problems is that the mud coming out of the Oakland harbor is full of debris, metal wood etc. that cannot be pumped and damages the pumps.
This brings me to one conclusion and a host more questions. The "mud pit" approach to this is suppose to be in response to delays, a 7 year project now forcast for 18 years and the resulting cost over runs. If they can't pump it effectively out of barges in a controlled situation how is an uncontrolled pit going to help? I believe this "limited turbidity" is being counted on to disperse tons of mud through the water, and let tons of debris drop into San Pablo bay.
A bit of history on this is called for. During the last 25 years the port of Oakland has attempted to deepen the harbor. As we know from following this story the EPA had established that this mud was toxic and could only be dumped off the continental shelf. Along comes this Hamilton runways restoration project and a use for this mud is found. One of the press releases on this project said that the toxic mud was primarily the surface mud coming out of the harbor and would not be used in this wetlands project. They never said what they were going to do with this toxic mud. But if debris in the mud is causing mechanical failures on the pumping units then obviously the toxic surface mud is being used to restore wetlands. So just what is this project creating, a toxic wetlands? With this "mud pit" proposal aren't we right back to what the EPA had opposed for 25 years...the dumping of toxic mud in the bay?
Message Thread:
« Back to thread