State OKs Toxic Waste Test Burning in La Jolla

A controversial proposal to burn toxic wastes in La Jolla drew a step closer to reality Friday when state health officials approved a permit allowing operation of the experimental incinerator over the next five years.

A spokesman for the state’s Toxic Substances Division said a decision granting the permit to Ogden Environmental Services Inc. was made after a thorough review of evidence presented by opponents of the project, who worry that it may threaten the environment and health of surrounding residents.

“I think the key issue was that (Ogden) did a very detailed, in-depth analysis and there did not appear to be any reason to deny the permit,” said Bob Borzelleri, spokesman for the health department in Sacramento. “The amounts of materials (released into the atmosphere) are so small that the probability of having exposure at a level that could in any way be harmful or injurious is just very, very, very low.”

Opponents of the incinerator expressed disappointment at the decision and said they would announce next week whether they will make good on earlier threats to sue the state over the issue.

Led Opposition

“We feel that the permit is without scientific or technical merit and that the State of California has ignored the concerns of the public,” said Diane Takvorian, executive director of the nonprofit Environmental Health Coalition, which led the fight against Ogden’s proposal.

The coalition, along with neighborhood groups in La Jolla and County Supervisor Susan Golding, had requested that the state require a full-scale environmental impact report before issuing a permit for the incinerator. Takvorian said she believes the state’s failure to do so could constitute non-compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

“We don’t feel they have met the letter of the law, which requires that they do an EIR on facilities that have controversy surrounding them regarding their public health effects or the environmental degradation they may cause,” Takvorian said.

Borzelleri, however, said that a health risk assessment and other studies commissioned by Ogden had sufficiently proven that the incinerator is safe and effective. “Because so much technical work was already done and substantiated the company’s claim with regard to the safety of the process, we saw no reason to require an EIR,” he said.

Ogden officials, meanwhile, expressed delight at the state’s decision and praised officials for not being swayed by opponents’ claims, which a spokeswoman dismissed as “totally groundless.”

“I couldn’t be happier. That’s terrific,” Ogden spokeswoman Al Mogilner said when informed of the state’s verdict Friday. “As the EPA pointed out in granting their approval, (opponents of the incinerator) presented absolutely no scientific basis for their claims. . . . Most of it was simply thin air. We’re pleased that the state saw that.”

Although state approval was a key hurdle for Ogden officials, they still must obtain a conditional use permit and the endorsement of the San Diego City Council before commencing test burns. The first hearing in that process is scheduled for Monday. If the approvals proceed without a hitch, Mogilner predicted the first experimental burn could take place as early as January.

Ogden’s incinerator is a circulating-bed combustor that is billed as an advance treatment technique for disposing of hazardous material. The 16-inch-diameter mechanism would burn solvents, sludges and contaminated soils at a minimum temperature of 1,350 degrees Fahrenheit, leaving only an ash that company officials say is non-toxic.

In February, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued Ogden a permit to conduct test burns on 365 days or over five calendar years, whichever is shorter. Under the EPA permit, no more than 150 drums containing 55 gallons of waste may be burned during each test series. The state permit imposes similar limits.

Although the permits allow only experimental burns, Ogden hopes someday to market the technology commercially. Much of the waste treated will come from industries interested in purchasing an incinerator.

Company officials say their studies show that emissions from the incinerator will pose no threat to the surrounding community, which is home to three hospitals, UC San Diego and numerous homes and industries.

EPA and state officials agree, arguing that conditions built into the permit will sufficiently protect humans and the environment from harm. The EPA, for example, required installation of a pollution control device to trap particles emitted from the incinerator’s 30-foot stack and will periodically require testing to ensure that the equipment is functioning properly.

Moreover, before each test burn, Ogden must send state and federal officials a plan describing the amount and type of waste to be burned. The company also must alert the county Air Pollution Control District, which will conduct a risk assessment for each material to be treated in the incinerator. Follow-up reports will be issued by Ogden and reviewed by the regulatory agencies.

Such safeguards, however, have not mollified critics, who are dubious of the emission controls proposed by Ogden and complain that La Jolla is a poor site for such an experiment. Opponents also complain that the facility on John Jay Hopkins Drive will make La Jolla a toxic-waste magnet, luring hazardous substances from far corners of the nation.

Borzelleri said the state “carefully considered all the issues raised by opponents both in public testimony and in writing” and became convinced that the risk of operating an incinerator in La Jolla was acceptable.

He said one key criticism raised by opponents--whether the incinerator was effective--was proven unfounded by studies showing that it produced emissions with a 99.99% toxic removal rate.