The order received mostly encouraging reviews, but disappointed Morgan Hill officials who said it didn't go far enough to protect residents whose water supply is contaminated but not covered by the cleanup order.

"There is no protection for the 35,000 residents who get their water supply from Morgan Hill's wells," said City Manager Ed Tewes. "There's an order for every area but ours, and I'm concerned we may have lost an opportunity."

The order issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Board requires Olin to map the exact width and length of the perchlorate plume flowing south and east from the site, determine to what extent the plume is expanding or shrinking, measure the concentration of perchlorate at various depths within the basin, evaluate alternate cleanup systems and propose a final cleanup plan.

It does not cover the so-called northeast flow which affects some of Morgan Hill's supply wells. Olin has conducted research that it says proves it is not responsible for that contamination. The regional board has ordered Olin to conduct further tests, perhaps using a new forensic testing method. Olin has appealed that order and will argue its case in a hearing slated for late March.

"We are concerned that Olin's resistance to taking responsibility for the northeast flow is being played out in the regional board with two different approaches, rather than one comprehensive approach," Tewes said. "I understand why Olin is resisting, because it's the most expensive part of the cleanup. But I don't understand why the regional board isn't pushing Olin to clean it up."

Other officials and residents were more forgiving in their initial assessments of the order. San Martin resident Sylvia Hamilton, chairwoman of the Perchlorate Community Advisory Group, said that at first glance the order proves the regional board is listening to the community.

"We've said from the get-go that want we want is to contain the plume, clean it up and set timelines, so I'm very pleased with those aspects," she said.

And Stan Williams, CEO of the Santa Clara Valley Water District, said he was pleased that the order followed closely in time and scope with a plan proposed in December by the Perchlorate Working Group, comprised of the district, the cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill and the county.

"From the district point of view, after a rough review, the basic format is what we were hoping would be in it," Williams said. "We will continue to advocate for the northeast plume, but its been addressed outside this already."

If the regional board ultimately concludes that Olin is responsible for the northeast plume, it will be subject to an additional cleanup order.

Rick McClure, project manager for Olin, said the northeast plume is the only "rather litigious" issue at this time. Otherwise, he said, Olin saw no immediate reason to fight the order.

"Our goal was to create an order that reduced the potential for litigation," he said. "Whether we've done that, I don't know, but it was a collaborative process, and I feel like it's a plan that addresses the community's needs, and that's what's most dear to Sylvia and other people."

Olin began cleaning contaminated soil at the site last February, using anaerobic bacteria to eat the perchlorate. Olin currently provides bottled water to about 1,000 residents whose water tests at levels of 4 parts per billion or higher. The company will soon launch a pilot program to test the efficacy of new well-head treatments with a handful of private well owners in San Martin.

Although the regional board crafted the order in concert with Olin, the water district and other local officials, cleanup negotiations have, in many ways, just begun. The regional board has the authority to set goals for the cleanup, but it can not direct Olin on the methods to use to reach those goals.

And while state law calls for contaminated water to be scrubbed to "background" or non-detect levels, the cleanup goal is ultimately a moving target based on the technical and economic feasibility of reaching a prescribed goal, community acceptance of a cleanup plan and changes in California's public health goal for perchlorate.

The goal currently stands at 6 parts per billion. Theoretically, if the public health goal is raised, and Olin presents a persuasive case that it can not feasibility clean the groundwater below that goal, the company's responsibilities could be lessened.

Water district geologist Thomas Mohr said Friday that such a scenario is unlikely given Olin's success in treating some wells to below 2 parts per billion.

McClure said that Olin had no specific cleanup level in mind. He said that company will "cleanup and remediate the groundwater pursuant to California law.

"This cleanup is moving at a speed unlike any I've ever known to exist," McClure said. "We're trying to do the right thing and we'll see how it works."

Thirty days after the final order is released on Feb. 25, Olin must submit its plan to delineate the size and migration of the plume, including the locations of proposed or newly installed monitoring-wells and schedule of installation. The company has until June 3 to lay out its plans for installing monitoring wells and establishing the suitability of data gathered from existing wells. Once the plan has been approved by the regional board, Olin will have 30 days to begin installation.

By March 30, 2006, Olin must submit is first basin characterization report, an annual snapshot of the state of the groundwater. In subsequent years, the report will be due Jan. 31. Olin must propose a cleanup level no later than Jan. 31, 2006. The feasibility study for the cleanup plan is due June 30, 2006.

If the regional board concurs with the feasibility study, Olin will submit a work plan for cleaning the groundwater basin. The company will have 120 days to start work on the plan once it has been approved by the regional board.

Cleanup timeline includes:

Within 30 days of Feb. 25: Olin must submit plan to delineate size and mitigation of the plume.

By Jan. 31, 2006: Must propose a cleanup level.

By March 30, 2006: Must submit an annual snapshot of state of the water.

POST A COMMENT

If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate. Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.