A Reckless Decision on Soil Cleanup : Wilson administration yields to business influence in halting work on contaminated sites

There is little dispute that cleaning up thousands of sites contaminated by leaking underground gas tanks has been extremely costly. But California’s new policy--to simply halt cleanup operations-- is reckless.

Although $1 billion has been spent in California to remove contamination from leaking underground gas tanks, more than three-quarters of the state’s 28,000 sites have yet to be cleaned up. State officials estimate it would cost another $3 billion to finish the job. A levy on the owners of oil tanks has financed cleanup so far but that tax is estimated to raise only about half of the new money needed.

These sites are a problem. There is concern that benzene, a cancer-causing component of petroleum, could threaten the state’s ground-water sources when it seeps into the soil. But a new study concludes that these “fuel hydrocarbons have limited impacts on human health, the environment or California’s ground water resources.” This is the basis for the state’s reversal on policy.

The year- long study was conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and largely funded by a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Shell Oil Co. also provided some funding. The Livermore scientists reviewed 1,500 contaminated sites and concluded that in most cases subsurface microorganisms devour benzene and other toxins before they can pollute ground water sources. Where ground water has been affected, the study says, “well construction standards” have largely protected the state’s drinking water.

The study did not conclude that treatment is never necessary. Nor did it specifically advise halting cleanup at sites more than 250 feet from drinking water wells, as the Water Resources Control Board has now done. Leaking tanks will be removed and, the board recommends, any fuel leaks will be monitored.

Nonetheless, we share the concern voiced by some regional water officials--those responsible for site cleanup--that the state is moving much too fast based on the results of one limited study. We also see in this policy change another example of the Wilson administration’s troubling proclivity to override or ignore the recommendations of agency staff on environmental and public health issues. In the past month alone, Wilson has intervened to cause the state to scale back its electric car mandate following intense lobbying by the auto industry, and to permit continued use of the toxic pesticide methyl bromide, as sought by growers and the pesticide industry. This is responsive policymaking by the governor, all right, but is it responsible?