EPA Proposes New McColl Dump Remedy : Environment: Toxic waste would be partly solidified and left encased in the ground. Oil companies, area residents express reservations.

After a decade of government gridlock, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed a controversial remedy for the McColl toxic-waste dump that would leave the poisonous sludge in the ground, solidify about half of it and encase the site.

Homeowners near the 22-acre Superfund site, as well as five oil companies targeted to pay for the work, immediately reacted with strong reservations to the EPA’s plan, although they said it is a vast improvement over the agency’s original idea.

Thursday’s long-awaited announcement signals a dramatic turnabout by the EPA, which declared in 1989 that the best option was to excavate and incinerate all the waste. At the time, the federal officials said leaving it in the ground would not provide a permanent solution and would risk chemicals seeping into water.

But the oil companies and residents fought the idea as too dangerous and costly, and the federal agency launched a new review. The EPA now says excavation is too time-consuming, difficult and risky to the neighborhood because it would release sulfur dioxide fumes.

Jeff Zelikson, director of the hazardous materials division at the EPA’s regional office in San Francisco, acknowledged that leaving toxic waste in the ground means “baby-sitting it indefinitely” and makes McColl “a burden for society for the long haul.”

But he said the new proposal--which essentially is containment rather than cleanup--is a safer, easier and cheaper option. The agency estimates that it will cost $80 million, which the EPA plans to seek from five major oil companies, and take five years.

“There is no question getting rid of the material is better if it can be done, but as it turns out that isn’t practical,” Zelikson said. “ . . . This is the next-best option. The only practical thing to do is try to contain the material and make sure it stays that way.”

Considered one of the nation’s most hazardous dump sites, the McColl landfill for 14 years has haunted an affluent neighborhood in the northwest tip of Fullerton, next to the Los Coyotes Country Club. McColl is one of the nation’s most infamous Superfund sites because of the EPA’s chronic delays and indecision.

The dump, used for disposal of oil refinery wastes from 1942 through 1946, has 12 large pits that contain highly acidic, toxic materials, including arsenic, sulfur and cancer-causing hydrocarbons.

Under the EPA’s proposal, almost half of the toxic waste--the thick underbelly of acidic material--would remain untreated, enough to fill several thousand trucks. Only the soft, tarry wastes near the top would be solidified and reduced in toxicity, by injecting ash and lime.

To limit the chance of leaks from the remaining toxic materials, permanent underground walls reaching 60 feet deep, clay and plastic covers at least seven feet thick, and 25-foot tall retaining walls would be constructed. There would be no protection on the bottom.

The site would be monitored by wells for leaks “in perpetuity” and eventually be landscaped and turned into a park, the EPA says.

In case the effort to solidify and neutralize the waste fails, the EPA proposed a backup solution of simply building the cover and walls--with no treatment of any waste.

The EPA’s final decision is due in June; designing the project would then take two years, and the work could commence in late 1995 and end in the year 2000. The EPA will solicit public comments for the next 30 days and hold a community meeting at 7 p.m. Sept. 17 at Parks Junior High School in Fullerton to discuss its plan.

The new proposal closely resembles a compromise plan that was created by a coalition of five oil companies that the EPA has named responsible for the cleanup--Atlantic Richfield Co., Phillips Petroleum Co., Shell Oil, Texaco Inc. and Union Oil Co.

But the resemblance is not close enough to please those companies.

A spokesman for the oil company coalition said Thursday that the EPA proposal is “unimplementable” because it tries to solidify too much waste and uses an untried technique--a shroudlike device to collect fumes during the solidification. On the other hand, the oil companies were extremely pleased that the EPA abandoned the idea to excavate and incinerate the wastes, which would cost them two to four times more.

“We got some good news here and some bad news. . . . We are happy about the fact that they have abandoned the extreme alternatives. But the agency has chosen an alternative that has a lot of uncertainty,” said William Duchie, manager of environmental affairs for Shell Oil and spokesman for the coalition.

Many area homeowners also expressed reservations because some aspects of the proposal are experimental and not all their concerns were addressed--such as designing the cover to ensure that it looks presentable and constructing sidewalks and walls.

Like the oil companies, most of the residents vehemently opposed the EPA’s original plan to remove and burn the waste and consider this plan a far better one. However, they prefer the oil companies’ version, which they think would be done more quickly and would finally end the disputes and litigation.

Angered by the EPA’s long delays and indecision, they say the solutions are much closer in content now, so they are hopeful.

“It’s a start, but there are many remaining issues we are insisting upon,” said David Bushey, president of the 350-member Fullerton Hills Community Assn. and a father of five who has lived near McColl for 14 years. “I see it being a much shorter road now. But we’ve been down this route before, haven’t we?”

The EPA plan would require solidification of at least twice as much waste as the oil companies consider necessary, raising the risk of emitting fumes and increasing the cost, the companies’ spokesman said.

Instead, the companies propose to isolate and treat only the tarry waste that poses the most risk of leaking, instead of treating all the soft material. Duchie said they would implement that plan immediately and pay up to $90 million--an offer widely endorsed by the homeowners association, Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton) and Fullerton’s state legislators.

The EPA, however, said the oil company can’t prove that it can find and isolate the tarry wastes, so all the soft material at the top should be removed.

City officials have opposed both the EPA’s choice and the oil companies’ proposal, preferring instead a complete excavation and cleanup of the site. But since the EPA now disagrees, leaving the city staff alone in its opinion, Fullerton Chief Planner Barry Eaton said the staff will have to reconsider.

“This proposal doesn’t get rid of the site. . . . We’ve said we don’t want to support a choice that would leave it there, and the city has not changed its position yet,” Eaton said.

The EPA plan poses a risk that the chemicals could eventually leak into ground water and might be disturbed by earthquakes. It also might permanently lower property values there. But Zelikson said wells would monitor the ground water “indefinitely” so that cleanup measures could be taken, should leakage be detected.

The solidification technology, used successfully at other Superfund sites, would be tested first at one of the 12 pits. The EPA says the uncertainty lies in whether the technology will work when combined with the air pollution filtering system.

Identified by local authorities as a major toxic threat 14 years ago, McColl was declared a Superfund site, making it a national priority for cleanup, in 1982. About $20 million has already been spent on studies and experiments.

Some chemicals have seeped into the ground water under the dump, but routine tests show no drinking-water wells have been polluted. A 1988 health study conducted by state officials found no increased cancer rates among residents near the site, although it showed that they experience symptoms such as nausea and headaches that could be linked to odors and fumes.

The bureaucratic and legal quagmire dates back to 1985, when the EPA was within three days of starting to haul the waste to a Kern County landfill for disposal. A court order blocked the trucks because the federal agency had done an insufficient review of the environmental impacts.

Sealing Toxic Site The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed an $80- million solution for the McColl dump in Fullerton. Only half of the 100,000 cubic yards of toxic waste would be treated before being covered. Work could begin in 1995 and last about five years. Buried in ‘40s In the 1940s, oily sludge was poured into 12 pits at the McColl site. Later, mud produced by nearby oil drilling operations was dumped to cover the highly acidic sludge. Concern in ‘70s In warm weather, some soft sludge seeps to the surface. It emits fumes and contains several cancer-causing chemicals. Complaints about odors and health problems began after homes were built nearby in the 1970s. Stopping the Seeps The soft, upper layer of each pit will be solidified into a gravel-like substance by mixing in ash or cememt. Lime will be added to neutralize acidity. Isolating the Hazard The pits will be covered by a protective cap and surrounded by underground walls. Above-ground retaining walls will provide support. A look at the EPA’s solution: The Cap: Made of several layers, including clay, sand, dirt and synthetic liners. Collects and filters fumes as well as captures rain and runoff. Retaining Wall: Will be used to support the cap. Future Uses: Dump could become a recreational park or golf course. Box Without a Bottom: Deep trenches will be dug and filled with a cement-clay material to form walls. They will prevent runoff from migrating through the toxic waste. The bottom will remain unsealed. The water tables lies about 150 feet below the waste. 1942-46: Sludge dumped 1951-62: Mud dumped Sources: Environmental Protection Agency, Fullterton Chief Planner Barry Eaton, McColl Site Group Researched by DANNY SULLIVAN / Los Angeles Times