Dirt Cheap? : Escondido Explores Toxic-Site Cleanup at a Fraction of State Estimate

Frustrated with the state’s failure to clean up an Escondido toxic waste dump designated one of California’s most hazardous, city leaders are exploring doing the job themselves. If they proceed, the city would become one of the first local communities to preempt the slow-moving state cleanup program.

City Councilwoman Carla DeDominicis said the council will consider the issue at its Wednesday meeting after hearing David Merk, a San Diego County hazardous-materials specialist, outline the problem and explore the means to clean up the site at a fraction of the cost estimated by the state.

State estimates for removal of contaminated materials from the Chatham Brothers Barrel Yard range from $1.8 million to $2 million. Merk said the job can be done for less than $200,000.

No Soil or Barrels Removed

In 1982, the state declared the site in rural southwestern Escondido one of California’s 20 most hazardous, and budgeted more than $2.2 million for tests and studies during the following seven years, without removing any of the contaminated soil or barrels of waste from the site.

The 7-acre property near Gamble Lane and Bernardo Avenue was operated as an industrial waste dump from 1941 until 1980. Studies have indicated that high concentrations of PCBs, lead and other cancer-causing materials are present in the soil. About 200 barrels containing industrial wastes remain on the property, and it is suspected that other tanks and barrels lie beneath the surface.

Karen Baker, state project manager for the Chatham site, estimated that another $427,000 worth of studies are needed before cleanup can begin. But Merk contends that the cleanup can be conducted with on-site testing to determine the extent of the contamination.

He presented several estimates to officials of the state Department of Health Services, indicating that about 400 cubic yards of soil can be removed to a toxic waste dump for $118,000 to $175,000--about a 10th of the cost the state has estimated to incinerate the toxic waste.

Bob Borzelleri, chief of external affairs for the state Toxic Substances Control Division, cautioned that the Chatham site is “a very complicated problem” that could be made more dangerous by a hasty cleanup.

‘A Naive Viewpoint’

“If we move too fast, we run the risk of making significant mistakes,” he said. “I know the residents down there think we have been dragging our feet, but that is a very naive viewpoint.”

Borzelleri said he knows of no other community that has undertaken a toxic waste cleanup.

DeDominicis has placed the Chatham issue on the council’s Wednesday night agenda, proposing that the city advance $200,000 for the cleanup, then attempt to recover the funds from the state “for its failure to act.”

State officials have been conducting cleanup work on about 70 toxic sites around the state with funds raised from a $100-million bond issue approved in 1984. Those funds have dwindled to a few hundred thousand dollars, and efforts are under way to obtain another $100 million.

Mike Arnold, Escondido’s legislative representative in Sacramento, said that, of the initial $100-million fund, 67% has been spent on administration.

Escondido has been considering placing a building moratorium on property near the dump site because of possible claims against the city if the contamination has spread.

Recommendation Delayed

Bob Leiter, city planning director, said his staff has delayed any recommendation to the council on the moratorium until the state does further studies to determine what areas might be contaminated.

By mid-1988, the toxics control division had spent more than $1 million on studies and containment measures at Chatham, fencing the area and containing surface drainage from the site.

At a meeting of a citizens advisory committee last month, state officials unveiled another million-dollar budget containing further investigative work but no toxic waste removal.

Jack Kearns, who heads the state’s Long Beach toxic control office, said that Merk “raised a very good question” in challenging the state’s waste-removal methods and use of the much more costly incineration method of disposal, “but we don’t have the answer yet.”

Kearns contended that the federal Environmental Protection Agency standards require incineration of certain toxics, including PCBs and other volatile materials, but added that the rules may have been relaxed.

EPA spokesman Terry Wilson said he knows of no federal laws to prohibit disposal of hazardous wastes in approved disposal sites.

“If so, we have a whole new ballgame,” because initial Chatham cleanup costs could be reduced from $2 million to $200,000, Kearns said.

Because of the high cost of incinerating the waste, state officials have taken the position that toxics on the Chatham site, secured behind a fence, pose no danger to nearby residents and that available funds are better spent in determining if there is contamination in the air or the underground water table.

Merk contends that removal of the contaminated soil and deteriorating barrels on the site would ensure that the air and ground water around the site are not further contaminated.