Seal Beach Just Wants Navy Base to Stay

Some Seal Beach city leaders said Saturday they wouldn’t object to private companies handling weapons at Navy bases--a move under consideration for bases nationwide--if the cost-cutting measure helps keep the local Naval Weapons Station open.

The Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station is the biggest munitions depot on the West Coast. While some experts say weapons handling at such bases is not a good choice for privatization because of the potentially disastrous consequences if munitions are mishandled, some military experts contend that private competition can only make operations more efficient.

Some city leaders, however, are more concerned about whether such a move would help protect the base from elimination in future rounds of military cutbacks.

“The biggest problem we would have is the closure of the base,” Councilman Shawn Boyd said. “We want to keep the weapons station there at all costs. It provides jobs to the city, it is a matter of civic pride for us and it provides a nice buffer to everything that’s around us.”

The competitive bidding for weapons handling is part of a nationwide effort by the Navy to outsource as many as 80,500 jobs. Officials hope the shift will save $8 billion by 2005.

Boyd said the prospect of allowing private firms to load powerful munitions such as Tomahawk missiles and torpedoes shouldn’t be a problem as long as employees are as well trained as military personnel and have intensive background checks.

“My initial thought is that there is going to be a lot of people concerned but, in retrospect, the Navy is trying to do the same thing that all cities are trying to do: do the job better for less,” said Boyd, a Seal Beach resident for 15 years.

Councilman William Doane, a 20-year resident of the city, agreed that keeping the station operating is paramount.

“If this is the only way they could keep it open, I would say fine,” Doane said. “The base is a definite plus for our city and is used as a drawing card.”

But Doane said he isn’t advocating the change.

“Given my druthers, I wouldn’t want it to change,” he said. “People who are trained by the Navy, I would hope that they would understand thoroughly what is required, what safety precautions have to be taken. But armed forces discipline is different from what civilian discipline is.”

Boyd said he expects the council to “closely monitor” the situation as it unfolds. Navy officials do not plan to review competitive bids from private contractors for the task of moving and storing weapons until 2001.

“I think over the next year we’ll be talking to the Navy to see what the ramifications might be to our community,” he said.

Councilwoman Patty Campbell already has some apprehensions.

“It raises liability concerns,” Campbell said. “Right now, you have Navy personnel who are brought in, who are cleared. You have a lot more control over the situation now than when you have it contracted out. But we don’t have any control over how the military decides to spend its money.”

A small sampling of residents Saturday suggested they are split on the matter.

Norm Dalby, who served in the Navy for four years, said the handling of the weapons “should definitely stay in the hands of the Navy.”

“These are professional people,” said the 60-year-old Dalby, who has lived in the city since 1960.

“It’s Navy property, Navy personnel and Navy weapons.”

Business owner and city resident Nick Zampino agreed.

“I can’t see it. One mistake and who knows?” said Zampino, who runs Nicks, a popular sandwich shop on Main Street.

“I think it’s the military’s job. I don’t think it’s a good idea. I would be worried about my family’s safety.”

*

But others see no reason for alarm.

“I think humans are humans,” said Joe Ricchio, 43. “As long as there are safeguards, it would be fine. In some ways, I feel less safe with [the weapons] being in the hands of the military because their job is to use them.”

Shirley Driscoll, a 76-year-old police volunteer, said she is not at all worried.

“I think it would be a really good idea to open the jobs,” she said. “But you would have to be very selective in terms of security.”

Mike Zerkal, 30, said he is confident that private employees would be “100% committed,” just as he believes Naval personnel are.

“For something as important as this, there would be proper training, and I wouldn’t feel one bit threatened. Private citizens also take great pride and responsibility in what they do,” Zerkal said.