Environmental Cleanup Costs

* Your editorial “Lockheed Bailout: It’s Uncle Sam’s Way” (May 23) regresses to sensationalism over responsible journalism. For openers, the pejorative headline is a gross mischaracterization of a legitimate and equitable system to deal with environmental issues.

Most disturbing is the editorial’s underlying assumption that taxpayers shouldn’t have to share defense-related environmental cleanup costs--notwithstanding that taxpayers, as consumers, routinely pay for such costs in almost all goods and services they buy. Why should there be a double standard when it comes to national security?

The principle of no-fault liability, contained in the 1980 Superfund Law, mandates that parties clean up the environment, without regard to fault, and presumes they’ll pass costs on to consumers. For defense contractors, the consumer is the federal government and, ultimately, the taxpayer.

The basic truth is that environmental protection is a national imperative. No one seems to balk at gas and oil prices including replacement of underground storage tanks, soil remediation, vapor recovery systems and unleaded fuels. We pay fees to dispose of used tires and oil, to say nothing of costs embedded in auto prices for emission controls, metal plating, paint processing, etc. The newspaper industry also has pollution problems, and one has to believe The Times also incurs environmental costs and passes them on to advertisers and subscribers.

Lockheed is taking aggressive action to correct environmental problems that occurred decades ago--not through illegal acts--but carrying out government programs according to acceptable practices at the time. Lockheed is proud of its high standards, and we take seriously our responsibilities to employees, customers, shareholders and communities.

The defense industry does not seek special consideration. All we ask is a system that treats all constituents equitably.

DAN TELLEP

Chairman, Lockheed

Calabasas