Council Votes Itself Role in Toxic-Waste Disposal Test

Responding to growing public opposition, the San Diego City Council has unanimously granted itself a veto over any move to step up operations of an experimental hazardous-waste incinerator in La Jolla.

An emergency ordinance passed late Tuesday requires that anyone operating an experimental hazardous-waste treatment or disposal plant apply to the city Planning Department for a conditional use permit and receive the approval of the council. Previously, only state and federal approval were required.

The council action was triggered by public objections to an incinerator operated by GA Technologies. Such plants will now be required to run the same regulatory gantlet as proposed airports and amusement parks, with the council empowered to approve plans, deny them, or impose conditions on their approval.

“I think that the general feeling on the part of the community and the council is that they were feeling somewhat mistrustful about the federal and state (approval) process,” said Councilwoman Abbe Wolfsheimer, whose district includes the GA Technologies incinerator.

“They wanted to maintain local control . . .” Wolfsheimer said. “The attitude is, ‘Better safe than sorry,’ I guess.”

GA Technologies, a high-technology research and development firm on John Jay Hopkins Drive in La Jolla, has applied to the federal Environmental Protection Agency for a research and development permit to expand its testing of the experimental incinerator.

But rising community opposition to the plan recently provoked Councilman Uvaldo Martinez to propose that the city also have the power to approve or deny a permit for the plant. His plan has had the backing of the Environmental Health Coalition, which represents environmental groups and has played an active role in scrutinizing GA’s plan.

Under the ordinance passed Tuesday and effective immediately, GA and any other firms proposing similar activities would have to apply to the Planning Department for a conditional use permit after receiving a research, development and demonstration permit from the EPA. The agency recently created the research permit in an effort to encourage firms to search for solutions to the country’s toxic-waste disposal problems.

Deputy City Atty. Fred Conrad, who wrote the ordinance, said the Planning Commission would hold a hearing on any proposal and make a recommendation to the council. The council would then hold its own public hearing and decide whether to grant the conditional use permit.

Under the municipal code, in order to approve a conditional use permit, the council must find that a proposed facility would not contradict the neighborhood, general plan or community plan and would not harm the health, safety and welfare of people working in the area. It must also find that the facility complies with other regulations, such as the building code.

Few facilities are expected to fall under the emergency ordinance, because it applies only to facilities with federal research permits. Fewer than 30 firms nationwide have applied to the EPA for such permits, and only two have been granted so far, officials said.

Spokesmen for GA could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

GA, which has been testing its incinerator on a limited basis for more than a year, now wants permission to test samples of wastes from firms considering buying incinerators of their own. If granted, its EPA permit would allow it to burn wastes on 365 operating days, or over five calendar years, whichever is shorter.

The EPA permit would also limit GA to burning no more than 50 gallons of liquid or 500 pounds of solid wastes per hour. The permit would include limits on the types of wastes burned and on emissions into the air.

The GA equipment, called a circulating bed combustor, is described as an advanced treatment technique for burning combustible material. The principal byproduct would be an ash that GA officials say would be non-toxic and would be returned to the companies whose waste samples are being tested.

La Jolla residents and others have complained that the plant is too close to a densely populated area. They have argued that GA has no way of predicting how public health would be affected by emissions from the incinerator’ 30-foot stack.

Others have raised questions about earthquake risks and GA’s liability insurance in the event of an accident. GA’s plan has been opposed by La Jollans Inc.--the area’s community planning organization--and some homeowner groups.