Test Burning of Hazardous Wastes Gets EPA Consent

A controversial plan to operate an experimental hazardous-waste incinerator in La Jolla won federal approval Wednesday when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved a permit for test burning over the next five years.

EPA officials granted the permit to Ogden Environmental Services, which bought the incinerator in December from GA Technologies. The permit allows Ogden to burn samples of waste from customers considering buying a similar installation.

The permit was modified in response to public criticism of the proposed plan, an EPA spokesman said. The changes include a reduction in the amount of waste to be burned and a ban on burning chemical warfare agents, radioactive materials and explosives.

“The permit conditions ensure that human health and the environment are adequately protected,” said Terry Wilson, a spokesman for the EPA in San Francisco. The permit becomes effective March 30, although Ogden needs several other permits before it can begin operation.

But a leader of a group of environmentalists and La Jolla residents who have raised questions about air pollution from the facility and its effect on public health accused the EPA of granting the permit without an objective analysis of the plant’s environmental impact.

“We feel they’re flying blind,” said Diane Takvorian, director of the Environmental Health Coalition. “They’re using exclusively GA Technologies’ data as to what the emissions will be and they are using no data on what the health impact would be.”

Takvorian contended that the agency should have done its own environmental impact statement and health risk assessment before approving the permit. She also said the permit fails to specify what wastes can be burned, making it impossible to predict results.

The plant is unlikely to operate in the near future, however.

It must first receive a permit from the California Department of Health Services, which is completing the first stage of its review. Then it needs approval from the San Diego City Council under a new ordinance passed specifically to regulate the La Jolla facility.

“There’s no need at this point for any precipitous action,” said Brian Baxter, executive vice president of Ogden. In the meantime, Baxter said, “we do appreciate EPA’s confidence in our technology and we look forward to working with (state and city) officials.”

The incinerator, on John Jay Hopkins Drive on Torrey Pines Mesa, is called a circulating bed combustor. It is described as an advanced treatment technique for burning combustible material, such as contaminated soils and chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents.

GA, a high-technology research and development firm, tested the experimental burner earlier under a limited EPA permit. It applied for the more extensive research, development and demonstration permit in 1985.

Under the permit granted this week, Ogden may burn wastes on 365 operating days or over five calendar years, whichever is shorter. Each test series is to consist of burning no more than 150 drums of waste, EPA officials said.

Before each test, Ogden must submit to the EPA 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.

As a result of criticism at a crowded hearing in September, the EPA cut the allowable amount of waste storage at the site from 400 to 150 55-gallon drums. It also reduced the amount of waste burned in each series from 350 to the 150 drums.

The EPA will also occasionally require comprehensive testing to measure combustion performance in the incinerator and the presence of critical hazardous organic compounds. The permit sets limits on total unburned hydrocarbons--the products of incomplete combustion.

The permit requires that the facility have a “bag house,” an air-pollution control device to collect particles emitted. It does not require another common device, called an acid-gas scrubber, because the limestone inside the burner is said to neutralize acid gases.

On Wednesday, Baxter stressed that the facility is merely a small pilot plant.

“The point here that I think needs to be made is that we are in a scientific research zone,” he said. “We have not applied to perform any merchant operations. It is not a production facility.”

But Takvorian said she and other critics of the plan intend to appeal the EPA’s decision on the permit--an option that remains open for the next 30 days. She said they have also urged state authorities to require an environmental impact review before granting a permit.

“If that fails, we will go to the city,” she said.