some dirty people over at that DoD (as if we didn't know that already)
alex
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>[mailto:owner-lbo-talk at lists.panix.com]On Behalf Of Yoshie Furuhashi
>Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 10:05 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Cc: pen-l at galaxy.csuchico.edu
>Subject: Navy Seeks Limits on Its Cleanup at El Toro
>
>
>***** Los Angeles Times
>June 27, 2000, Tuesday, Orange County Edition
>SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
>HEADLINE: NAVY SEEKS LIMITS ON ITS CLEANUP AT EL TORO;
>UNIT WANTS TO CURB ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO $8 MILLION OF THE $35
>MILLION NEEDED TO SOLVE THE BASE'S GROUND-WATER WOES.
>BYLINE: SEEMA MEHTA, TIMES STAFF WRITER
>
>Despite repeated pledges to clean up all pollution at El Toro Marine
>Corps Air Station, the Navy now wants to be released from liability
>for any water contamination that might be discovered there in the
>future.
>
>Under a proposed settlement signed by the Department of Justice this
>month, the Navy would pay $8 million of $35 million required to clean
>up a 3-mile-wide tainted ground-water plume "in exchange for not
>being held responsible for any future liability that could result
>from 'unknown contaminants,'" according to a report from the state
>Regional Water Quality Control Board in Santa Ana.
>
>The rest of the water cleanup would be funded by three area water
>districts, which want to bring the water up to drinking standards.
>
>Several Navy officials declined to comment on the proposed
>settlement, directing inquiries to a Department of Justice attorney.
>Attempts to reach the lawyer after business hours were unsuccessful.
>
>The regional board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
>California Department of Toxic Substances Control share oversight of
>cleanup of the site, which is on the federal Superfund list of toxic
>hot spots. The ground-water cleanup is in addition to more than $100
>million being spent by the Navy on other contamination at the base.
>Plans to turn the base, which operated from 1943 to 1999, into a
>commercial airport have sharply divided the county.
>
>The plume flowing from under the base into ground water beneath
>Irvine is tainted with decades-old contaminants. There are high
>levels of dissolved solids, which likely originate from early
>agricultural uses before the military took over the land.
>Trichloroethylene (TCE), a possible carcinogen, is also present from
>heavy use of a toxic solvent to degrease aircraft. The contamination
>plume, stretching one mile by three miles, is moving one foot per
>day, and is expected to contaminate local drinking water in 10 to 20
>years if it is not cleaned up, said Ron Wildermuth, spokesman for the
>Orange County Water District.
>
>The $35-million cleanup project includes a de-salter, which would
>reduce dissolved solids; and air stripping, which would force the TCE
>out into filters. Operation and maintenance of the de-salter and air
>stripping is projected to cost $2 million per year, with the Navy
>expected to pick up $450,000. The projects are expected to bring the
>water to drinking standards, Wildermuth said.
>
>But, according to regional water officials, the water districts are
>reluctant to sign the agreement because of recent concerns that the
>water is also contaminated by radionuclides and MTBE, a so-called
>oxygenate that helps gasoline burn more completely.
>
>Wildermuth said the water districts are negotiating with the Navy
>over the settlement and liability.
>
>"That is a matter being looked at right now," he said.
>
>He said both the MTBE and radionuclides, which come from natural
>sources or landfills on the base, are probably treatable. "But we
>just want to make sure if something comes up, we can go to the table
>and discuss it," he said.
>
>Wildermuth declined to comment on what the water district would do if
>the Navy is unwilling to change its stance on future liability.
>
>"We want to protect the public--it's our primary concern," he said.
>
>However, liability is also a concern for county officials and
>taxpayers, who unexpectedly were forced to pay $4 million to clean
>decades-old ground-water contamination that was found during
>construction of a terminal that opened in 1991 at John Wayne Airport.
>
>It remains unclear who would accept liability if the settlement is
>signed. County officials were either unreachable or declined to
>comment Monday night.
>
>Environmental contamination has been a longtime headache at the base.
>In December, the State Lands Commission delayed turning over the
>facility to Orange County because of concerns about environmental
>cleanup.
>
>* Times Staff Writer Jean O. Pasco contributed to this report. *****
>
>***** Los Angeles Times
>June 28, 2000, Wednesday, Orange County Edition
>SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Metro Desk
>LENGTH: 593 words
>HEADLINE: CLEANUP AT EL TORO COULD HIT TAXPAYERS;
>SUPERVISOR SMITH SAYS HE'LL BRING IT UP IN WASHINGTON. WATER
>DISTRICTS ARE FIGHTING TO KEEP THE NAVY LIABLE.
>BYLINE: DAVID REYES, STAFF WRITER
>
>Concerned county supervisors say Orange County taxpayers rather than
>the U.S. Navy would be forced to foot the bill for unexpected cleanup
>or litigation costs from toxic El Toro Marine Corps Air Station
>ground water, according to a proposed settlement.
>
>Chairman Chuck Smith said he found such a proposal "totally unacceptable."
>
>Smith said, "I'm headed back to Washington to speak with the under
>secretary of the Navy and Department of Defense officials, and this
>will be one of the things I'm going to raise."
>
>But federal officials said there would be opportunity for public
>comment before a final decision, and water district officials said
>they were fighting to make sure the Navy would remain liable.
>
>According to the proposed settlement, the Navy would pay $8 million
>of $35 million required to clean up a three-mile wide, tainted
>ground-water plume, and have no liability for future, unknown
>contaminants in the plume, which has spread under Irvine.
>
>News of the proposal did not stop the State Lands Commission from
>voting 3-0 at a meeting in Los Angles to turn over to the county
>authority to police the former air base. The decision moves the
>county a step closer to eventual ownership of the 4,700-acre former
>base and allows a handful of popular recreation programs, slated for
>closure July 1, to continue.
>
>The commission had postponed the turnover last December because of
>environmental cleanup concerns. Gail Reavis, an outspoken Mission
>Viejo resident who attended the meeting, urged the commissioners to
>vote against the transfer, arguing for the Navy's cleanup guarantee
>"now, upfront."
>
>But in a prepared statement, Lt. Gov. Cruz M. Bustamante said, "I am
>concerned that the Navy complete the necessary cleanup, but I voted
>for (the hand over) because of the progress made on this issue since
>December, and because of the support voiced by local government."
>
>Supervisor Todd Spitzer wrote a letter to the commission favoring the
>hand over, saying the board had authorized a consultant to conduct an
>environmental assessment of conditions at the former base. In
>addition, a legal consultant was hired to review the Navy's
>environmental activities at El Toro to protect the county's
>interests, he said.
>
>But he acknowledged Tuesday that under the current proposal, the
>county could be held liable for future cleanup costs.
>
>"We potentially will be the owners of that base. . . . We're the ones
>the water districts may look to if the cleanup doesn't work."
>
>A Navy spokesman denied that the military branch's involvement in
>settlement negotiations with the Irvine Ranch Water District and
>Orange County Water District represented a change after repeated
>pledges to clean up the base.
>
>"The Navy is not changing its policy with regards to the cleanup,"
>said Lt. William Speaks, a spokesman in Washington. However, Speaks
>said he was unable to reach ranking officials in charge of base
>environmental issues.
>
>Representatives from both water districts said they want any proposed
>settlement to include the ability to reopen negotiations and
>reconsider the Navy's cleanup responsibility.
>
>"This provides a safety net for our customers," said Marilyn Smith,
>an Irvine Ranch Water District spokeswoman. "The Navy will have
>continuing liability. They can't just pay and walk away."
>
>The public will have input.
>
>"Because public entities are involved in this, such as the water
>districts, there definitely will be opportunity . . to weigh in
>through public hearings," said Christine Romano, a Justice Dept.
>spokeswoman. *****
>