EPA Defends Listing Burbank as Possible Water Polluter

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials Friday defended their decision earlier this week to name the city of Burbank a possible polluter of its own ground water supplies, but would not say what evidence backs their conclusion.

“It’s not necessarily the same amount of evidence we would need to win in court,” said Marcia Preston, assistant regional counsel for the EPA in San Francisco. But “it was decided that since we had named other people on the strength of this type of evidence, we should name the city.”

Preston said she could not discuss the nature of the evidence, which she called “enforcement confidential.”

Now lumped together with 31 other “potentially responsible parties”--all private concerns in the Burbank area--the city could be ordered to help finance the long-delayed cleanup, under the federal Superfund program, of chemical pollution that has shut down its municipal water supply wells.

Before Wednesday, Burbank was seen as beneficiary of the cleanup and as a victim--rather than possible source--of the pollution. Municipal wells that could supply 20% of Burbank’s water have been idled for several years because of unacceptable levels of perchloroethylene (PCE) and trichloroethylene (TCE), common cleaning solvents. Tiny amounts of the chemicals are thought to increase cancer risks if consumed over many years.

The cleanup is expected to provide thousands of gallons of drinking water per day to the city and reduce its reliance on more expensive supplies from the Metropolitan Water District.

Burbank officials acknowledged that the city had used solvents at its Public Service Department at 164 W. Magnolia Blvd. But they said there was no evidence the chemicals had contaminated ground water.

Preston also disclosed Friday that the EPA has set a Dec. 17 deadline to complete cost-sharing negotiations on the cleanup, which could cost an estimated $77 million and take 20 years. The “potentially responsible parties” have until then to sign an agreement in principle to finance and manage the cleanup, or face possible legal action, Preston said.

The Superfund law is aimed at cleaning the nation’s worst toxic waste sites by making polluters foot the bill. The EPA last year named 31 “potentially responsible parties” in Burbank under a provision of the law that essentially transfers the burden of proof to suspect firms.

Once named, a company is under strong pressure to contribute toward the cleanup to avoid litigation costs and heavy damages should liability be proven in court.

The 31 companies had used chemicals of the type found in the wells. In some cases there were indications of soil contamination from past spills or tank leaks. But the only firm strongly implicated in ground water pollution was Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co., whose huge production plant is just uphill from some of Burbank’s most polluted wells.

Most of the companies said they weren’t responsible for the pollution, and left it up to the EPA to prove otherwise. Fifteen months ago, Lockheed offered to contribute $52 million to the cleanup, and a handful of the other firms said they would consider contributing to avoid the risk of legal action.

But negotiations with these few have crawled along for more than a year without resolution.

Burbank is one of four sites in the San Fernando Valley on the federal Superfund list because of chemical pollution of ground water. The other Superfund sites are well clusters in North Hollywood, near the Glendale-Los Angeles line, and in the Crescenta Valley County Water District.