Pollution Controls Ordered on Toxic Waste Incinerator

A Superior Court judge Thursday rejected a request for a comprehensive environmental impact report on a proposed toxic waste incinerator in Vernon but ruled the plant must be equipped with up-to-date pollution controls before beginning operations.

Judge Kurt Lewin’s order would add at least $6 million to the incinerator’s $29-million price tag and result in a delay of at least 20 months in beginning operations, said Alfred Grossman, chairman of Security Environmental Systems of Garden Grove, the parent company of the plant’s builder, California Thermal Treatment Services.

He declined comment on what effect the ruling might have.

Lewin said he will issue an order requiring the Southern California Air Quality Management District “to extend the (operating) permit without the conditions requiring an extended environmental impact report or new health assessment, but with the condition requiring the installation of state-of-the-art (anti-pollution) equipment.”

The AQMD and state Department of Health Services came under fire for approving permits for the incinerator’s operation without first requiring an environmental impact report.

When the AQMD finally refused to extend the plant’s permit unless it commissioned the environmental and health risk reports, California Thermal filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court earlier this year.

Environmentalists are concerned that the incinerator, which would burn such wastes as pesticides, alcohol, paint sludge and metal residue, would spew dangerous fumes into the air near food-processing plants.

At first, opposition to the plant was limited to the mostly Latino, low-income residents living around Vernon, an industrial city 3 1/2 miles southeast of downtown Los Angeles.

Lawmakers Join Opponents

As the public outcry grew, others, including local and state lawmakers, joined in opposition to the proposed plant.

If built, the plant would be the first commercial hazardous waste incinerator in a metropolitan area. It would burn 22,400 tons of hazardous waste each year, about 20% of the toxic waste generated within a 15-mile radius.

Tom Eichhorn, an AQMD spokesman, said the district was pleased by the judge’s requirement for anti-pollution devices but disappointed with his ruling striking down the requests for an environmental report and new health assessment.

Another lawsuit over the plant is pending. The city of Los Angeles, several community groups and lawmakers sued the state Department of Health Services to try to reverse the department’s approval of health permits for the plant and to require an environmental impact report.

AQMD Called Too Late

Lewin, in his ruling, said the AQMD was too late in trying to require an environmental impact report. But the state health department could still block the incinerator’s operation if it finds that the plant would pose a health hazard, he said.

“Finally, it should be recognized that society is fast running out of alternatives for the disposal of the ever increasing toxic substances that will be accepted by this facility,” Lewin said in his written ruling.

“Construction of such facilities cannot be postponed indefinitely, nor can they be continuously relocated to someone else’s bailiwick,” he said.