Toxic-Waste Burner Plans for La Jolla Come Under Fire

On the eve of a federal environmental hearing on GA Technologies’ proposal to test an experimental hazardous-waste burner on Torrey Pines Mesa, a small group of skeptics and critics of the plan have begun mobilizing an opposition movement.

Bright yellow flyers have circulated near the downtown La Jolla post office, rallying passers-by to attend the hearing set for tonight. The La Jolla community planning group voted Tuesday to oppose the burner and reconsider only if GA prepares an environmental impact report.

Meanwhile, an environmental group active on toxics issues adopted the same position, and asked the San Diego City Council to have the city begin regulating waste facilities. A council committee initially approved the proposal, which will go this month to the full council.

“We don’t know what is going to come out of this test-burn facility,” said David Tompkins, president of La Jollans Inc., the planning group. “We are concerned about emissions and we are also somewhat concerned about waste material being brought into a heavily populated area for the purpose of testing.”

GA, a high-technology research and development firm, has been testing the burner on smaller amounts of waste in La Jolla over the past year. Now it has asked the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for permission to test samples of wastes from firms contemplating buying GA incinerators.

Under the proposed EPA permit, the subject of tonight’s hearing, GA could burn wastes on 365 operating days or over five calendar years, whichever is shorter. It could burn up to 438,000 gallons of liquid waste over the full life of the permit.

The permit would also contain an hourly maximum limiting GA to burning no more than 50 gallons of liquid or 500 pounds of solid wastes an hour. The permit would include limits on the types of wastes burned and on emissions into the air.

“We need alternatives to dumping our hazardous waste into the ground,” said John Hart, an EPA official working on the permit. “Just as important, these alternatives must be done properly. That’s the aim of the permit, to make sure they do it the best way possible.”

Last Tuesday, La Jollans Inc. held a special meeting to hear presentations from GA and the Environmental Health Coalition, which has doubts about the plan. After hearing both sides, the group voted to oppose the incinerator at least until GA prepares an environmental impact report.

An EIR, which would predict the environmental effects of the project, is not required for the research, development and demonstration permit EPA is considering. Members of La Jollans Inc. and the Coalition would like GA to do one voluntarily, in order to provide the information and as a show of good faith.

But GA considers an EIR unnecessary and expensive, a time-consuming effort that would delay putting its waste-disposal technique into use. GA spokeswoman Nicki Hobson said the company has the results of past tests which prove the burner operates well within federal and state pollution guidelines.

“We believe that we have experimental data that have demonstrated that there is negligible impact on the environment from our operation,” said Hobson. “In our mind, that kind of data is much more reassuring than the hypothetical study that an EIR is.”

She added, “The whole idea of a research, development and demonstration permit is to try to help people who are developing alternative technologies for hazardous waste disposal get those tested and out into use. And because it is a demonstration kind of thing, not for commercial use, the need for an EIR is waived.”

Environmental concerns raised by La Jollans Inc., the coalition and individuals in La Jolla center on pollution from the incinerator, transportation of hazardous wastes into the community and the risks of operating such a facility in a populous area.

Although GA states that emissions are “negligible,” skeptics express concern about the small amounts that may be released. They also question the company’s ability to predict what will be in those emissions, when the incinerator will handle a wide variety of wastes.

“Sometimes very small quantities of very toxic materials can affect the population,” said Dr. Cedric Garland, an epidemiologist and assistant professor of community and family medicine at UC San Diego, who said he had not had an opportunity to study the proposal closely but was opposed to the principle of incineration. “What they might consider a very small amount might be large in terms of potential health effects over time. There are a lot of unknowns involved.”

As for GA’s position that its emissions meet regulatory standards, Garland said, “Federal and state standards are usually many years behind epidemiological findings because the process of putting them into place is cumbersome. So from a scientific viewpoint, that is not reassuring.”

Others, including Diane Takvorian of the Environmental Health Coalition, pointed out that federal and state regulators have yet even to develop standards for many pollutants that might be emitted. Because so little is known about their environmental and health effects, it is impossible to say what levels are safe, she said.

Critics have also questioned the wisdom of testing a hazardous-waste incinerator in a heavily populated area. What if a jet from Miramar Naval Air Station crashed on the facility? some ask. Tompkins suggested the burner be tested “in the desert” where an accident would not jeopardize human health.

Takvorian also pointed out that the EPA permit would allow GA to store up to 400 55-gallon drums on its property off Genessee Avenue and North Torrey Pines Road. She said, “You wonder why they need to store so many drums if they’re only testing small quantities.”

Finally, Takvorian and Garland questioned the reliability of current incineration techniques as a way of destroying toxic waste. Takvorian quoted an EPA advisory board’s finding that predictions of incinerators’ performance often are based only on performance during optimal burning conditions.

For those reasons and others, the coalition last month encouraged the San Diego City Council to set up a city permit process to review plans for waste facilities such as GA’s. The Public Services and Safety Committee unanimously approved the proposal, which now goes to the full council.

The proposed resolution would also direct city officials to examine the city’s zones to determine whether GA’s burner and other proposed facilities conform to current zoning. Takvorian said it would enable the city to require an EIR and to ask questions that otherwise might go unanswered.

Nicki Hobson of GA said the company sympathizes with the concerns voiced by some residents but feels that “the concerns are not totally warranted.”

She said the amounts and types of waste that would be shipped into the community for testing “are extremely small and are nothing compared to the hazard of what is out on the freeway every single day.” Citing fuel trucks and chemical trucks, Hobson said the increase in risk would be minimal.

She said the reason the permit allows up to 400 barrels on the site is simply to cover every possible contingency. She said 400 drums is “far more than we will ever need,” and many of the barrels will probably be used to store the non-toxic ash they say will result from the incineration process.

The ash will be returned to the generator of the waste.

As for the plant’s location, Hobson noted that a lot of high-tech firms in the area already work with toxic materials and processes. She pointed out that GA’s burner has been doing test burns there (under an earlier permit) for more than a year.

“The burns we have done in the past have met or exceeded every regulatory standard,” said Hobson.

Finally, in response to questions about financial liability, Hobson said GA is required by EPA to have an insurance policy providing up to $1 million coverage per occurrence and up to $2 million per year. She said GA has other liability insurance as well.

GA’s equipment, a circulating bed combustor, is described as an advanced treatment technique for burning combustible material. Air is mixed with the waste for efficient combustion, and limestone is added to neutralize acid gases.

GA has stated that the types of wastes to be tested may include contaminated soils, solvents and sludges. It predicts that it is likely to treat only about half of the 438,000 gallons that would be allowed under the permit.

John Hart of the EPA said the permit would limit the amount of heavy metals in the waste and the size of of the solids put in. It would hold to one part per million the amount of cancer-causing dioxins in any of the waste being treated.

The 20-page draft permit would also require that the facility have a “bag house,” a form of air pollution control device to collect particles being emitted. It would not require another common device called an acid-gas scrubber because the limestone inside the burner neutralizes acid gas.

Before each test, GA will have to submit a test plan describing the waste, how much will be treated and under what conditions. After each test series, it must submit a final report within 240 days.

Tonight’s hearing is scheduled for 7 p.m. in the forum hall of the Great American Savings Bank at University Towne Center, 4433 La Jolla Village Drive.