Mon 31 Jan 2011
Commentary: The City of Santa Clarita’s very own Love Canal?
Posted by admin under City of Santa Clarita , Dave Bossert , Development , Environment , Opinion , Safety/Preparedness , Santa Clarita Valley [7] Comments
Right in the heart of the City of Santa Clarita there could possibly be another toxic Love Canal. For those of you not familiar with the name “Love Canal” it harkens back to the late 1970′s to a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York. There was a contaminated track of land then owned by the Hooker Chemical Company which was sold to the Niagara Falls School Board to build the 99th Street Elementary School with a new neighborhood of homes being built on an adjacent parcel of land.
Government officials and School Board members chose to purchase that piece of property knowing full well that the site was contaminated. In fact, Hooker Chemical initially didn’t want to sell the land and fully discussed the contamination. But under pressure from local officials they conceded and sold the property. The sale agreement even included a lengthy caveat detailing the contamination and the dangers of building on the site.
Yet, even with the knowledge of the contamination, the “trusted” local officials knew better and went forward with their development plans. They claimed it was safe because the site was “lined” and had a “clay-cap” which would contain the toxic waste.
The development of that parcel of land resulted in serious health problems being blamed on the contamination. There was a high incidence of birth defects such as cleft palates, reports of developmental delay and, according to one survey, 56% of the children born in that area had at least one defect. The National Research Council Committee on Environmental Epidemiology reported that there was; “excess of seizures, learning problems, hyperactivity, eye irritation, skin rashes, abdominal pain, incontinence and stunted growth.”
Ultimately, New York declared a state of emergency which led to the relocation of more than 800 families at a cost to tax payers of millions. That 99th Street School was eventually closed and demolished and a massive barbed wire fence placed around the most toxic area of the site.
Why am I telling you all this?
Because on Tuesday, January 25, 2011 the Santa Clarita City Council rubber-stamped a real estate business partnership between the City and several builders to develop the contaminated Whittaker-Bermite property here in the Santa Clarita Valley. At one time that property was the home to Whittaker-Bermite Brownfield, a fireworks subsidiary of the Bermite Powder Co. that manufactured and tested fireworks, munitions and solid rocket fuel.
The Whittaker-Bermite property is contaminated with perchlorate, both in the soils and the ground water. The California State Department of Toxic Substances also found toxic metals (including antimony, lead, arsenic, barium, cadmium, and copper), poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including tetrachloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), were found in soil. Depleted uranium (DU) was found in an area where a firing range was once located.
Long term exposure to perchlorate can damage the thyroid gland and has been linked to bone marrow problems among other health issues. Exposure to poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons pollution during pregnancy can result in low birth weight, premature delivery, and heart malformations. Studies have shown that long term expose to depleted uranium suggest the possibility of reproductive and neurological disorders.
Boy, I wouldn’t want to be around that Whittaker-Bermite property when the winds are howling. You could be inhaling poly-nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons pollution or depleted uranium or who knows what!
Before the shovel can even hit the dirt to do anything, apparently more than $60 million in obligations will need to be settled and squared up. That’s before all the clean-up requirements are satisfied which some estimates into the hundreds of millions of dollars. That is just an estimate, but what is certain is that the clean-up costs are potentially a big unknown!
The site can be cleaned up but do you really want to put a housing track on it afterwards. It would be more appropriate to put mixed use industrial, office and retail there and some wide-open spaces as well.
The Whittaker-Bermite site has already cost the City of Santa Clarita more than $25 million dollars in a judgment and legal fees because of the City’s botched eminent domain attempt on parts of this property. The City over stepped its bounds by taking an 8-acre site for the Golden Valley Road connector and another for a Metrolink commuter rail station.
Both the lower court and the appeals court agreed that the City acted inappropriately and slapped them with a $20 million dollar judgment plus the reimbursement of $5.3 million in legal fees, a total of $25.3 million.
Now the City has come up with this latest scheme to try and turn that stunning legal defeat into a business opportunity of developing a toxic piece of land and putting houses on part of that property. This is like the chronic gambler who losses a big bet and decides to double-down in hopes of getting back to even. The only thing is that the City is doubling-down and it will be City taxpayers that will be on the hook if this project goes south.
Several people knowledgeable with the Whittaker-Bermite property have even speculated that the City of Santa Clarita could potentially go bankrupt over this deal if they were to be stung with any unforeseen liability or bad business decisions. Think about that for a second; it will be the City residents that will ultimately be responsible for any losses. It may not be next month or next year but potentially 5 or 10 years in the future.
Many years ago former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said; “there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.” That statement would certainly apply to the Whittaker-Bermite property since they do know that there is contamination on that parcel of land but the scarier thought is if there is more that is not known; the “unknown unknowns.”
There are several questions that residents of the City should be asking; why is the City of Santa Clarita leadership even getting into a business partnership in the first place? The City is not a land developer; that is not their core competency. The City should be facilitating permits and making it easy to do business within City limits not trying to be land developer. Becoming a business partner on a development in the City smacks of conflict of interests; what is right for city residents vs. what the business partnership wants.
If in fact the City plans on putting a housing track on this property then where are the jobs coming from to justify these new homes? Doesn’t new home construction require jobs to support the need for more housing?
The Valencia Commerce Center Association has already rejected the notion of annexing into the City. And any other businesses in the unincorporated communities surrounding the City would best think twice about annexing in light of the City’s latest involvement with the toxic Whittaker-Bermite property.
Finally, Santa Clarita City Manager Ken Pulskamp’s home butts up against the Whittaker-Bermite property. His property might benefit from grading, landscaped views, or any number of other potential amenities on the Whittaker-Bermite property. Shouldn’t Mr. Pulskamp recuse himself from any involvement in this new business arrangement that the City is getting into?
I’m curious as to who is scrubbing over this entire deal!
The City of Santa Clarita has already shown us their development “prowess” with the lipstick they have repeatedly smeared on the downtown Newhall redevelopment pig. This latest development deal may just turn out to be a financial black swan that devastates the city taxpayers.
Dave Bossert- Commentary
Dave Bossert is a community volunteer who serves on a number of boards and councils. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.
January 31st, 2011 at 9:19 am
[...] of interests; what is right for city residents vs. what the business partnership wants.” WRB This entry was posted in Daily Brief. Bookmark the permalink. ← Breaking News : Signal [...]
January 31st, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Excellent article! Haven’t the health hazards of the site already been proven? There was a school near the Saugus cafe that was shut down around the 70s because the children got various lethal cancers due to the proximity to the site. I’m outraged that there is also a proposal to use the water from the contaminated wells so they will have enough water for the new developments.
February 1st, 2011 at 10:00 am
Thx for trying to describe the terminlogy to the noobs!
February 1st, 2011 at 11:33 am
Thank you for the article, and I hope there is public outcry. I was stunned and deeply disturbed to learn that Whittaker-Bermite would even be a consideration!
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:08 am
Dave: Excellent write up on the history of Love Canal. My husband’s family lived in Niagara County at that time, and sadly the description of the developmentally disabled kids is true, based on comments of a family friend who taught at the school. Both the Federal EPA and NY State authorities were initially very uncooperative and then profoundly slow in offering any help to the families living along the canal or to the kids. Those traits are all to common in public officials dealing with toxics and public health issues.
As to Bermite in Santa Clarita, one element of concern mentioned above has been obviated to some extent. Within the last year, Cal. Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) and Whittaker arranged to secretly dig up and haul away hundreds of truck loads of soil at Bermite containing Depleted Uranium. I say secretly because DTSC and Whittaker gave no notice of the digging and transportation of the contaminated dirt to neighboring homes, schools and businesses. The risk to the community, obviously, was that DU contaminated dirt would be blowing in the wind, or spilled in a trucking accident. So secretive were DTSC and Bermite about this DU soil removal, apparently, there is no available “California Public Records” that DTSC formally notified the City, the Sheriff or the Fire Department that the DU contaminated soil was being removed. The paper trail showed that DTSC failed to implement the public safety recommendations of the LA County Health Department Radiological Health Division, concerning the manner of removal and manner of trucking. The DTSC’s excuse, to me, for failing to warn the community of what was going to occur was that it was only “low level” Depleted Uranium, and that a unilateral order DTSC’s staff signed in 2002 allowed them to do it secretly.
Throughout my career as a lawyer dealing with toxic contaminated properties classified as “brownfields”, where bank clients had mortgages on the properties or where the banks were being asked to lend money to finance clean ups or allow redevelopment of remediated land, I always found DTSC’s career and political-appointee employees to be condescending, secretive, manipulative, disingenuous, duplicitous, untrustworthy, uncooperative, two-faced and down right dishonest in dealing with the public and with bankers who were being asked to lend on the properties. Fairly uniformly, I have found DTSC’s employees to be “in the pockets of the polluters” and caring little about public health and safety issues. I have dealt with all of the DTSC employees now involved with the Bermite remediation operation, and have found them to have the very worst of the personal characteristics listed above.
As to Bermite, the one and only honorable, trustworthy and candid DTSC employee assigned to the project, between 2001 and 2004, Sara Amir, who was the Director of Brownfields Clean-up Operations for Southern California was “transferred” off the Bermite and other projects, and assigned to train new staff people. I have been told that Whittaker’s clean-up consultants were happy about that occurrence. Hmm…..
The redevelopment of Bermite, by the City or private developers, is inevitable. The biggest risk to Santa Claritans, with the City’s obtaining ownership of the Bermite land, is the above-described attitudes of the DTSC employees, both at the political appointee level and at the civil service level. As an action item, the most important thing Santa Claritans can do to protect their community is to send emails to Governor Jerry Brown’s office politely demanding that he not re-appoint DTSC’s Acting Director and Deputy Directors, citing (1) the staff’s secrecy in dealing with the depleted uranium and (2) the staff’s patent refusal to adopt ANY of the public health and safety related changes to the Remedial Action Plan for the project which were demanded by the City, by the project’s mortgage lenders, and by members of the Whittaker Bermite Community Advisory Group (“CAG”). So dismissive of the public are DTSC’s Brownfields Remediation staff, they cannot even get the name and address of the Bermite CAG’s Chairman right. Send your requests for non-reappointment of DTSC’s senior staff to Governor Brown at his contact page: http://gov.ca.gov/m_contact.php
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:34 am
Jennifer,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thorough comment. My one question is; if the DTSC was so secretive about the apparent removal of the Depleted Uranium how can the residents of the Santa Clarita Valley be so sure that it was all cleaned up and removed? Is there anyway for that to completely varified??
Thank you,
-Dave
February 2nd, 2011 at 7:06 pm
In answer to Dave’s question:
DTSC’s staff assigned to the Bermite project claim that Whittaker’s hazardous materials consultants and clean up contractor have or will survey Areas 2-6 of Bermite (called Operable Units 2-6), testing for about 75 hazardous chemicals and dangerous elements, and that Whittaker’s people have or will report to DTSC what they find. Occasionally, DTSC does their own testing to confirm what the polluter’s consultants have reported. Then, if more Depleted Uranium has been found in the soil, DTSC and Whittaker’s contractor and consultants will figure out how to remove it, or DTSC’s senior personnel exercise their discretion and decide to leave it in place.
Back in the days when DTSC’s staff were actively and forthrightly communicating with Santa Clarita’s residents, the depleted uranium on the property was described as a far less pervasive problem than volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) and ammonium perchlorate in the soil (dry and wet, shallow and deep) and in the ground water under the property which flows towards Santa Clarita’s drinking water wells.
The best way to get your question answered about the risk of there being any remaining depleted uranium on the property is to call DTSC’s Project Manager Jose Diaz at (818) 717-6614 or his boss DTSC’s Unit Chief, Brownfields Restoration Program, Southern California Javier Hinojosa at (818) 717-6612. Of course, any assurances obtained from DTSC’s staff (or Whittaker’s consultants) are only an opinion, not a guarantee of fact.
As to all chemicals of concern at Bermite, DTSC staff members attend a quarterly meeting of the Whittaker Bermite Community Advisory Group (“CAG”) where the DTSC is obligated, by the Health & Safety Code, to answer the public’s questions. The CAG has an excellent group of local members, many of whom served on the original CAG between 2000 and 2003. The CAG includes both Republicans and Democrats, all of whom agree that a scientifically proper clean-up of Bermite’s ground water and soil must occur. SCV realtor Gloria Donnelly is Chairman, and can provide details as to the date and time of the next CAG meeting.
In my opinion, DTSC’s current staff does not show appropriate deference to the CAG members, their requests and their opinions. The CAG’s membership should not be underestimated, because in days of old, during the change over between the Davis and Schwarzenegger Administrations, the CAG members were part of a political force which pushed a previous DTSC Director out the door for pandering to polluters like Whittaker Corp.
It should be noted that one of Governor Brown’s earliest actions when he assumed office this year was to stop DTSC from formally adopting regulations concerning a “green chemistry initiative”. Those regulations were considered, by public health activists, to be a perversion and undercutting of new laws enacted by the Legislature on the topic. It’s clear, from the forms which Governor Brown’s future political appointees (like the DTSC Director and Deputy Directors) must fill out and submit to the Governor’s office, that the Governor does not want to appoint important Executive Branch members against whom the public have legitimate complaints.