Oil Firms Call Plan for McColl Cleanup ‘Seriously Flawed’

Labeling the plan “seriously flawed,” a coalition of oil companies Tuesday attacked a federal proposal to clean up McColl dump by burning tons of refinery wastes and oil-drilling sludge at the eight-acre site in west Fullerton.

Of all the cleanup options under consideration, the excavation and incineration of 150,000 tons of toxic wastes at the abandoned dump would pose the greatest health and safety risk to neighboring residents because the process produces toxic emissions, a coalition spokesman warned.

Bill Duchie of the coalition, which is known as the McColl Site Group, also predicted that pursuing the incineration option would “lead to false hopes in the community” and result in litigation that may “delay the cleanup indefinitely.”

The allegations by representatives of five oil companies were issued at an afternoon press conference in Fullerton, several hours before officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the state Department of Health Services met McColl-area residents across town to outline the incineration plan.

Federal officials believe the oil companies--Shell, Phillips Petroleum, Texaco, Arco and Unocal--are responsible for the toxic wastes at the World War II-era dump, and should pay the cleanup bill before any work begins.

Burning the wastes on site as recommended by the EPA would cost an estimated $117 million. The project would take 4 to 7 years to design and implement.

A plan put forth by the oil companies calls for “capping” or “containing” the wastes in the ground by covering the 12 contaminated sumps with multiple layers of synthetic material and soil approximately 7 feet thick. The option, opposed by local, state and federal officials as well as the majority of 1,000 homeowners who live within half a mile of the former dump, would cost about $22 million and take 3 to 5 years to implement. The EPA estimates it would cost another $500,000 to $1 million annually to monitor the site.

Duchie said the oil companies are motivated by “concern for the community,” not the cleanup costs, in opposing the incineration plan.

But Betty Porras, who lives behind the dump and heads a citizens group called the McColl Dump Action Group, said the oil companies are “worried about the bottom line and nothing else.”

In an interview before Tuesday night’s community meeting, Porras said, “We want cleanup, not a cover-up,” referring to the oil companies’ preference to leave the waste in the ground.

Porras was one of several dozen residents to question federal and state officials at the Fullerton hearing Tuesday night, which was attended by more than 350 people. Many of the questions focused on the specifics of the incineration, and few expressed approval or disapproval of the concept.

The EPA is not expected to make a final decision on its proposed incineration plan until August, and the oil companies acknowledge that they have little leverage in shaping that decision, short of stirring up public opposition to the plan.

The oil companies scheduled the press conference because they were were not allowed to make a presentation at Tuesday night’s meeting, coalition officials said. EPA officials said the forum was designed strictly for residents.

‘Metallic Vapors’ Cited

In contrast with the EPA’s contention that burning the McColl wastes on site would probably present little or no risk, the oil companies warned that incineration would not completely destroy some of the contaminants buried at McColl.

Heavy metals make up a portion of the wastes at the site, said Catherine St. Hilaire, an environmental and health risk consultant hired by the oil companies to review the EPA plan. She said that heavy metals are not destroyed by incineration but become “metallic vapors,” which are released into the atmosphere through the incinerator exhaust.

As a result, St. Hilaire said, the risk of developing cancer from exposure to emissions from incineration is “500 times greater” than the risk from leaving the wastes in the ground.

“Incinerator emissions will be deposited on the soil and vegetation of yards and gardens and recreational areas,” St. Hilaire said. “Contaminated soils, vegetables and surface waters can contribute at least as much risk as breathing contaminated air.”

The EPA contends that burning the waste on site would probably be safe, although they have expressed concerns that incinerator emissions may exceed local air quality standards. To measure the level and toxicity of emissions, the EPA has planned three test burns using McColl waste, including one monthlong demonstration burn at the dump itself.

The oil companies’ proposal to leave the waste in the ground has been questioned because of the potential for contaminants seeping into the ground water. St. Hilaire said it is “highly unlikely” that such seepage would occur because the cover over the waste would prevent moisture from reaching the contaminants and carrying them into the ground water.

Drinking Water Not Affected

She acknowledged, however, that the issue of ground water contamination near McColl must be studied further.

Recent tests of ground water 250 feet below the site show traces of sulfur-based chemicals found in the dump. But EPA officials said there is no evidence that local drinking water supplies have been contaminated.

The dump sits under a vacant field and part of the Los Coyotes Country Club golf course, and is bordered on three sides by expensive homes. It was created in the 1940s when oil companies began depositing wastes from the production of high-octane military aviation fuel on a vacant patch of land that is now near the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Sunnyridge Road. Controversy over the dump’s noxious odors surfaced in the late 1970s. An attempt to dig up the sludge and haul it to a landfill in Kern County was halted in May, 1985, by the courts, which ordered the state to conduct an environmental impact study.

Duchie said the EPA’s incineration plan could lead to similar legal threats, again shutting down the cleanup effort.

“If the agency continues on its current path, it will be stopped again just like in 1985 by some community surrounding the area that says the risk is too great,” Duchie said. “They will say, ‘We know you don’t want the waste, but we don’t want the risk.’ ”