SOS Wants 6 Others to Pay 53% of Cleanup Cost

Space Ordnance Systems, facing an estimated $2.7-million environmental cleanup at its two plants near Canyon Country, has asked state officials to shift more than half the bill to six other companies that allegedly contributed to polluting the sites.

In documents filed with the state Department of Health Services, Space Ordnance, a defense and aerospace contractor, claims that it should pay only 47%--or $1.28 million--of the bill for cleaning up polluted soil and ground water at its Mint Canyon plant at Agua Dulce and its Sand Canyon plant east of Newhall.

According to Space Ordnance, or SOS, the remaining 53%, or $1.42 million, should be allocated to the other six companies--most of them defense contractors that have operated on the same or adjacent sites.

Two of the firms named by SOS are its landlords: the Garrett Corp. at Mint Canyon and Special Devices Inc. at Sand Canyon.

“It certainly puts a strain on the relationship,” remarked Alan Opel, director of environmental affairs for the parent company of SOS, TransTechnology Corp. of Sherman Oaks.

Charged After 1984 Raids

SOS, which manufactures explosive and pyrotechnic devices for the military and space programs, was charged with hazardous-waste-disposal and storage violations in 1984 after coordinated raids on its two plants by health and law-enforcement agencies. The company eventually pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges and paid a $300,000 fine.

A consultant study ordered by government agencies discovered chemically tainted ground water beneath both plant sites and some off-site contamination as well. Based on these findings, both the Mint and Sand Canyon plants were placed on the state Superfund list of sites slated for cleanup of hazardous waste.

In a consent agreement signed with the state last year, SOS agreed to put up the money for the work pending identification of other responsible parties.

Officials with the Department of Health Services are reviewing the SOS cleanup plans, which include a cost-sharing proposal filed Sept. 15.

The agency must approve the cleanup measures before the work can start, and will decide whether anyone besides SOS should help pay for it.

Opel said the cost-sharing proposal is based on research into “who occupied the site and how long they occupied the site and what we think they did.”

At the Mint Canyon plant--where SOS has operated since 1978 under a lease from Garrett--SOS is proposing that Garrett reimburse 73% of an estimated $925,120 cleanup bill, or $675,338. SOS would pick up the rest of the Mint Canyon bill, $249,782.

Garrett officials declined comment but suggested strong disagreement with SOS in a lengthy letter to state health officials.

According to the letter, Garrett’s AiResearch division acquired the Mint Canyon site in 1968 and has used it intermittently as a test center for missile, spacecraft and military aircraft programs. The letter said a maximum of 22 employees were based at the site, which Garrett has hardly used since 1975.

The company said the work generated a small amount of chemical waste, which was either incinerated or hauled to a Garrett plant in Los Angeles.

“Neither Garrett’s normal on-site activities nor any accidental releases which occurred as a result of those activities provide a plausible explanation for the environmental conditions” discovered at the plant, the letter concluded.

However, the letter said Garrett had used two chemicals that SOS says it never used at Mint Canyon. Both chemicals have been found in ground water beneath the plant and in a few private wells nearby. Those chemicals are Freon 113 and trichloroethylene, or TCE.

At the Sand Canyon plant, where the bill is estimated at $1,771,000, SOS wants to recover $743,820--or 42%--from five other firms.

SOS has proposed that its landlord, Special Devices Inc., pick up 2% of the tab.

Thomas Treinen, president of Special Devices, declined comment on the proposal, saying he hadn’t “totally evaluated it yet.”

Treinen said the matter has been discussed with SOS “in general terms,” but that “nothing’s been argued back and forth or concluded.”

SOS also wants contributions from three former tenants at the Sand Canyon site: Inflation Systems International Inc. (14%); the former Allied Chemical Co., now known as Allied-Signal Inc. (10%) and Parker Aircraft, a division of Parker-Hannifin Corp. (10%).

And the Vacek Sable Ranch, a working ranch and motion picture filming site next to the Sand Canyon plant, would be charged 6% of the cost under the SOS proposal. It was not immediately known why SOS officials believe the ranch should share liability.

Inflation Systems was acquired several months ago by OEA Inc. and moved by the parent company to Denver. Brian Hamilton, Inflation Systems president, said he hadn’t heard about the SOS proposal and “would be loath to comment at this point.”

Allied-Signal officials could not be reached for comment.

Chuck Friedersdorf, a vice president with Parker-Hannifin’s aerospace group in Irvine, said the company had had a test operation at Sand Canyon but closed it about 15 years ago.

Friedersdorf, who also wasn’t aware of the SOS allegation, said he “would find it very, very unlikely that we would be a contributor” to the pollution problem, “but I’m not in a position to deny it totally.”

Milan Vacek, whose family owns the Sable Ranch, said linking the property to the ground-water problem is “totally ridiculous.”

“We’re not a chemical business,” he said. “It’s a preposterous accusation.”

SOS is proposing to remove contaminated soil at Mint and Sand canyons and install extraction wells to pump out contaminated ground water. The water would be treated by carbon filtration to remove chemical solvents.

Officials with the health services department say they hope to complete their review of the cleanup plans this fall and hold a public hearing. After review of public comments, a final plan will be issued and the cleanup will begin.

The agency’s decision on financial responsibility can be challenged in court or companies can negotiate a cost-sharing agreement.

But the case also could be among the first to utilize a new state arbitration procedure created to settle just such disputes.

Legislation adopted two years ago created an arbitration panel for hazardous-substance cleanups within the office of the secretary of environmental affairs, to serve companies haggling over cleanup costs who want to avoid the expense and delay of litigation.

Companies alleged by the state to be liable for at least 50% of a hazardous cleanup can submit the case for a binding decision by the three-member panel, whose members will be engineers or other technical experts.

Although companies involved with several sites have inquired about using the panel, it has yet to hear its first case, said Kirk Oliver, the panel’s staff counsel.