McColl Dump Frustration

Since 1981, I have represented Shell Oil, one of the companies trying to achieve a responsible solution at the McColl waste site. To date, proposals to transport these wastes “somewhere else” have encountered one obstacle after another. Sites in Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Kern counties were all identified, in turn, as possible recipients of these wastes.

All have subsequently been eliminated. The local community at McColl has made it clear, for years, that they want these wastes removed from their city. But to where? Who will take these wastes?

Recent publicity about the McColl Superfund site in Fullerton provides further evidence of the difficulty of communicating about waste site cleanups. These events reinforce the frustrations I share with so many others over the glacial pace of progress at Superfund sites across this country.

Earlier this year, out of a desire to significantly improve the local situation while Superfund’s studies continue to grind on, these companies commissioned an engineering firm to design a new active site stabilization system. The proposal has generated considerable publicity. Unfortunately, much of it was misleading and unfavorable.

Probably the most significant misunderstanding was that the companies were trying to prevent the agencies from completing their studies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The purpose of the proposal was to ensure community and environmental protection while the agency studies continue.

The recent reports calling this proposal “entombment,” are indicative of the ease with which miscommunication can emerge in Superfund discourse. The companies’ proposal instead contains a number of active and innovative measures intended to effectively control odor emissions and prevent surface water contamination.

This active site stabilization would protect the community’s health and safety, while greatly enhancing the site’s overall appearance. Most importantly, this measure could be implemented immediately, while Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health and Safety are preparing the environmental impact report and the other studies necessary for final site resolution.

We believe that substantial additional time will be required for study and agreement on the final solution; at least seven years for excavation and redisposal and 10 years for incineration. Effective new techniques to treat the wastes on site may emerge in the years ahead: Such techniques could well be introduced best at an actively stabilized McColl site. But for the present, active stabilization certainly makes sense for such a long period.

We also hope this proposal will encourage a wholly new pattern of community involvement in Superfund decisions. Implementation of this active site stabilization proposal would be a significant first step in the ultimate cleanup of McColl. It would create needed momentum after so many years of frustration and inaction.

WILLIAM J. DUCHIE

Anaheim

Duchie is an environmental program manager for Shell Oil Co. in Anaheim.