BOEING BLOCKS LAB CLEANUP
Clearly, Boeing broke that pact. It also reneged on SB 990. If Boeing is successful, the taxpayers will pick up the tab for much of a reduced cleanup.
“It is disappointing that Boeing isn’t a more responsible corporate steward,” Parks said. “It continues to avoid its responsibility to clean up the facility and land, and now is challenging a state law that protects the environment.”
Joan Trossman Bien contributed to this article.
Four days after this article came out, Boeing spokesperson Kamara Sams sent EnviroReporter.com its responses to Michael Collins’ questions for the preceding article. Those questions, and Boeing’s responses, are included here with, as closely as possible, the responses’ formating:
1. In the press release, it says Boeing says the recent state law changes the normal cleanup process applied throughout the state by imposing “irrational and arbitrary requirements” on Santa Susana.
Question 1: What are those “irrational and and arbitrary requirements” and why are they regarded as such by Boeing?
Typically, sites are cleaned up based on the future use of the land, which in this case is permanent open space. Boeing, however, has committed to meeting an even more stringent level and cleaning up the site so it is safe enough for suburban residential use.
The state law requires clean up for agricultural uses that will never occur. Such a standard would require clean up to a level stringent enough to allow the entire site to be used as a farm by full-time residents who obtain 100% of their food and drinking water from Santa Susana.
The law has singled out the site to meet clean up requirements that go far beyond what is required to protect citizens elsewhere in California under generally applicable state law. We are concerned that this law could cause unintended consequences that would destroy the biological, historical and cultural resources of Santa Susana. It could also negatively impact traffic around the site for local residents. In addition, the process the Department of Toxic Substances Control is following is not consistent with State Superfund law Chapter 6.8.
2. Mr. Gallacher says in the press release that “the state refuses to allow us to reserve our legal rights as they have done in other cleanup orders.”
Question 2: What other cleanup orders has the state allowed Boeing to reserve its legal rights and just what legal rights is Mr. Gallacher referring to?
The State routinely allows companies to reserve their rights in other cleanup orders. However, they have insisted that we waive our legal rights. Here are some examples:
IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket HWCA:P1-01/02-007
TRW INC. )
One Space Park ) CORRECTIVE ACTION
Redondo Beach, California ) CONSENT AGREEMENT
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
17.1. DTSC reserves all of its statutory and regulatory powers, authorities, rights, and remedies, which may pertain to Respondent’s failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Consent Agreement. Respondent reserves all of its statutory and regulatory rights, defenses and remedies, as they may arise under this Consent Agreement. This Consent Agreement shall not be construed as a covenant not to sue, release, waiver, or limitation on any powers, authorities, rights, or remedies, civil or criminal, that DTSC or Respondent may have under any laws, regulations or common law.
__________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF: ) Docket HWCA: P3-02/03-010
Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation )
One Northrop Avenue ) CORRECTIVE ACTION
Hawthorne, CA 90250 ) CONSENT AGREEMENT
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
21.1. DTSC reserves all of its statutory and regulatory powers, authorities, rights, and remedies, which may pertain to NGSC’s failure to comply with any of the requirements of this Consent Agreement or adequately address contamination identified under the Fee for Service Contract 98-T1714. NGSC reserves all of its statutory and regulatory rights, defenses, and remedies, as they may arise under this Consent Agreement. This Consent Agreement shall not be construed as a covenant not to sue, release, waiver, or limitation on any powers, authorities, rights, or remedies, civil or criminal, that DTSC or NGSC may have under any laws, regulations, or common law.
_________________________________
In the Matter of:
AMPAC Fine Chemicals LLC Docket No. HWCA 20051011
U. S. Highway 50 and Aerojet Road
Sacramento, CA 95813-6000
EPA ID No. CAR000069153 CONSENT AGREEMENT
11. In the event that AMPAC fails to comply with any of the requirements, terms or conditions of this Consent Agreement, the Department reserves all of its statutory and regulatory powers, authorities, remedies and rights to take necessary action against AMPAC. AMPAC reserves all of its statutory and regulatory rights, defenses and remedies with regard to any action taken by the Department, including but not limited to the right to challenge any of the Department’s final decisions through administrative or judicial means. Additionally, the Department and AMPAC reserve their respective rights, defenses and remedies with regard to any settlement (whether by settlement agreement, consent agreement, consent order or decree, or stipulated judgment), including its effect on any rights conferred by this Consent Agreement, that the Department may reach with AFC, Aerojet or GenCorp in the Department’s pending enforcement action against AFC, Aerojet or GenCorp. The Department agrees to notify AMPAC upon the initiation of any adjudicatory proceeding, either administrative or judicial, in its pending enforcement action against AFC, Aerojet or GenCorp.
