Benzene were found in Former Tustin Marine Base

What do you think happened to Carson? Shell sold the land to developers and must have done EIR. Before building on such land Shell must have cleaned it up and submitted reports to the government for clearance. Builders attorneys must have assess the liability and be satisfied with the Benzene clean up before erecting homes on the site.



It seems like Benzene is very easy to eradicate and self destruct and vanished when come in contact with atmosphere from your posts.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1256806395]What do you think happened to Carson? Shell sold the land to developers and must have done EIR. Before building on such land Shell must have cleaned it up and submitted reports to the government for clearance. Builders attorneys must have assess the liability and be satisfied with the Benzene clean up before erecting homes on the site.



It seems like Benzene is very easy to eradicate and self destruct and vanished when come in contact with atmosphere from your posts.</blockquote>


It is easy to remediate, once you know it's there and take appropriate action. It can be expensive, but it is not a technological challenge. Many gas stations built before 1990 have undergone site remediation for leaking underground tanks. Large petroleum tank farms have similar problems, but on a larger scale. It is not unusual to find a layer of gasoline floating on the groundwater beneath these sites. Gasoline contains roughly 10,000 parts-per-million of benzene. Historically, that number was much higher. The state drinking water standard for benzene is 0.001 parts per million. (And yes, all the public drinking water providers, including ours here in Irvine, carefully monitor their water sources for benzene and a host of other chemicals, and report the results to the pubic every year.)



BK, can you estimate the age of the Carson neighborhood? (North of Lomita, between Marbella and Panama) I don't believe there was any concept of, or requirement for, environmental due diligence, if I'm correct in my assumption that it is post WWII (1946-1955). In addition, I doubt that Shell ever owned the property. It's near refineries, but I doubt that the oil companies involved ever owned the actual land in question. They would not have been selling off properties at that time of development, since they were expanding, not reducing, capacity.



That being said, I'm not going to defend the oil company here. Historically, refinery work was a high-risk profession, as indicated by a high incidence of leukemia, and that can be caused by benzene exposure. It may make sense that people living nearby were similarly impacted. We don't have enough information to make a judgement. Let the legal system proceed.
 
Since GoIllini (I read that as Gollini at first) seems to have mucho experience in this field, what about the oft-posted TCE Plume under Woodbridge that seems to headed towards Westpark. I read the articles talking about the pumps they've installed to clean that up but I actually want to hear your take on it.



I'm sure Marsha wants to hear it too.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1256858359]Since Go (I read that as Gollini at first) seems to have mucho experience in this field, what about the oft-posted TCE Plume under Woodbridge that seems to headed towards Westpark. I read the articles talking about the pumps they've installed to clean that up but I actually want to hear your take on it.



I'm sure Marsha wants to hear it too.</blockquote>


Go Illini. When I joined this forum, my alma mater was in the middle of a very good basketball season. NCAA final four. Probably not again this year (sigh!)



I live in the University Park area of Irvine, south of the 405, which is not in the impacted area. So admittedly, my opinions MIGHT be different if it was MY house and MY family involved. But here's my opinion, for what it's worth.



The TCE concerns don't make my list of top ten (or twenty) things to worry about.



The reason is that there are many, many other things that we voluntarily do in life that present higher risks, and we accept them as part of normal living. If I had won the MegaMillions lottery a couple of weeks ago, when it was over $200 million, I would have liked to buy an island far out in the ocean, with pristine air quality and away from any industrial activity, and with only one (maybe two!) other people around. We could have our fresh, organic food and water direct from antarctic ice caps dropped off by aircraft on a daily basis, with no concern for the cost. One of the two people I would invite to join me would be a good cook as well as a skilled emergency room physician. I will leave the role of the second person to your imagination. We would have no exposure to hazardous chemicals, H1N1, or parties at war in a religious battle that has lasted for centuries. My state would not have a legislature filled by idiots in $2,000 suits.



But we can't do that. If you've got to live and have a job to support yourself, Irvine is (past and future) a pretty good place to be. The same if you want to educate your kids in a relatively safe environment. The El Toro Marine Base environmental issues are being addressed in a methodical and public way.



When I get into discussions like this, I try to support a middle-of-the-road position.



To the fanatically "green" folks: If we didn't make use of the benefits of modern society, life would be hard and short, and a lot of people would literally starve to death, or die from the diseases that modern science has overcome. See the TV series "Alaska Experiment" and "100 Mile Challenge" for examples. And we are not to blame for the lack of knowledge in the past. Our history as a people -- deplete the land and move west -- is hard to break!



To the fanatical "drill, drill, drill" folks: There are public costs that are imposed by your private gain, and these should be part of your cost of doing business. The additional costs to protect or restore the environment and maintain public health should be built into the cost you charge for your products. If that means, for example, that energy from renewable sources is less expensive that fossil fuels, then that's great!
 
Role of second person? Singer?



But what do you think about the efforts they have done to address the TCE plume and are they sufficient.



From what I read, it looks like they are, but someone with your knowledge might feel differently. Are the methods they have employed sound? Is the risk negligible? I assume as much or else Julia Roberts would be making a movie about it.
 
[quote author="irvine_home_owner" date=1256864319]Role of second person? Singer?



But what do you think about the efforts they have done to address the TCE plume and are they sufficient.



From what I read, it looks like they are, but someone with your knowledge might feel differently. Are the methods they have employed sound? Is the risk negligible? I assume as much or else Julia Roberts would be making a movie about it.</blockquote>
Why, obviously, that second person would be a networking specialist, so I could maintain my Internet access! There would also be some gender-specific requirements.



I haven't closely reviewed the activities that have been / are being conducted at the El Toro site. But I have seen no credible evidence that there is anything that is not being addressed or that there is any imminent danger. The alarmist nature of the claims I have seen just don't pass a credibility test, in my opinion.



Maybe I've just become jaded by exposure (bad choice of words) to such situations over 30 years of professional experience. This situation just doesn't cause the hair on the back of my neck to rise, as a few others have in the past.



My favorite example: (definitely NOT in Irvine!)



(long story deleted to prevent me from being sued) ... and the 25-year-old map in the file had an "X" marked on it in pencil, and said, "Here we buried the cyanide cannisters." Hair on the back of the neck rises.
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1256852851][quote author="bkshopr" date=1256806395]What do you think happened to Carson? Shell sold the land to developers and must have done EIR. Before building on such land Shell must have cleaned it up and submitted reports to the government for clearance. Builders attorneys must have assess the liability and be satisfied with the Benzene clean up before erecting homes on the site.



It seems like Benzene is very easy to eradicate and self destruct and vanished when come in contact with atmosphere from your posts.</blockquote>


It is easy to remediate, once you know it's there and take appropriate action. It can be expensive, but it is not a technological challenge. Many gas stations built before 1990 have undergone site remediation for leaking underground tanks. Large petroleum tank farms have similar problems, but on a larger scale. It is not unusual to find a layer of gasoline floating on the groundwater beneath these sites. Gasoline contains roughly 10,000 parts-per-million of benzene. Historically, that number was much higher. The state drinking water standard for benzene is 0.001 parts per million. (And yes, all the public drinking water providers, including ours here in Irvine, carefully monitor their water sources for benzene and a host of other chemicals, and report the results to the pubic every year.)



BK, can you estimate the age of the Carson neighborhood? (North of Lomita, between Marbella and Panama) I don't believe there was any concept of, or requirement for, environmental due diligence, if I'm correct in my assumption that it is post WWII (1946-1955). In addition, I doubt that Shell ever owned the property. It's near refineries, but I doubt that the oil companies involved ever owned the actual land in question. They would not have been selling off properties at that time of development, since they were expanding, not reducing, capacity.



That being said, I'm not going to defend the oil company here. Historically, refinery work was a high-risk profession, as indicated by a high incidence of leukemia, and that can be caused by benzene exposure. It may make sense that people living nearby were similarly impacted. We don't have enough information to make a judgement. Let the legal system proceed.</blockquote>


The neighborhood is about 30+ year old on former Shell owned land.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1256872287][quote author="GoIllini" date=1256852851][quote author="bkshopr" date=1256806395]What do you think happened to Carson? Shell sold the land to developers and must have done EIR. Before building on such land Shell must have cleaned it up and submitted reports to the government for clearance. Builders attorneys must have assess the liability and be satisfied with the Benzene clean up before erecting homes on the site.



It seems like Benzene is very easy to eradicate and self destruct and vanished when come in contact with atmosphere from your posts.</blockquote>


It is easy to remediate, once you know it's there and take appropriate action. It can be expensive, but it is not a technological challenge. Many gas stations built before 1990 have undergone site remediation for leaking underground tanks. Large petroleum tank farms have similar problems, but on a larger scale. It is not unusual to find a layer of gasoline floating on the groundwater beneath these sites. Gasoline contains roughly 10,000 parts-per-million of benzene. Historically, that number was much higher. The state drinking water standard for benzene is 0.001 parts per million. (And yes, all the public drinking water providers, including ours here in Irvine, carefully monitor their water sources for benzene and a host of other chemicals, and report the results to the pubic every year.)



BK, can you estimate the age of the Carson neighborhood? (North of Lomita, between Marbella and Panama) I don't believe there was any concept of, or requirement for, environmental due diligence, if I'm correct in my assumption that it is post WWII (1946-1955). In addition, I doubt that Shell ever owned the property. It's near refineries, but I doubt that the oil companies involved ever owned the actual land in question. They would not have been selling off properties at that time of development, since they were expanding, not reducing, capacity.



That being said, I'm not going to defend the oil company here. Historically, refinery work was a high-risk profession, as indicated by a high incidence of leukemia, and that can be caused by benzene exposure. It may make sense that people living nearby were similarly impacted. We don't have enough information to make a judgement. Let the legal system proceed.</blockquote>


The neighborhood is about 30+ year old on former Shell owned land.</blockquote>
That's newer that I would have guessed. CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act) was passed in late 1980. That was the legislation that got the ball rolling on environmental liability and "cradle to grave" responsibility for hazardous wastes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top