Water Experts Call for Ban on Utility’s Acid Waste Ponds

Citing the possibility of earthquake-related spills, regional water experts say Southern California Edison should be barred from storing highly acidic boiler-cleaning waste in holding ponds at its Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Long Beach and Oxnard power plants.

Staff analysts for the state Regional Water Quality Control Board are making the recommendation in advance of a Dec. 4 meeting at which the board will consider whether the Edison ponds should be exempted from California’s Toxic Pits Cleanup Act.

Edison officials are arguing hard against the staff position, saying it would unnecessarily force them to spend $2.1 million to build above-ground storage tanks for the waste.

“We think it’s unreasonable,” said Frank Malone, an Edison environmental specialist, pointing out that the waste is stored in the ponds infrequently and only for brief periods. “We have run a computer program on this, and it shows a 1-in-40,000 chance of an earthquake occurring when there’s waste water in the impoundments.”

The author of the toxic pits law, state Assemblyman Richard Katz, disagrees.

“The earthquake standards were put in there for a reason,” said Katz (D-Sylmar). “Particularly--a month after the San Francisco earthquake--to ask us to ignore these standards is ridiculous.”

Edison has staged a four-year battle to win an exemption from the toxic pits law, which state officials say will cause holding ponds at more than 150 facilities statewide to shut down, including refineries, utilities, waste disposal sites and crop-dusting operations.

The law, enacted in 1984, is intended to ensure that holding ponds are either made safe or closed so that they do not cause air or water pollution.

Edison was allowed to use the ponds at its Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Long Beach and Oxnard plants until June, 1988, pending action on its exemption request. It has been renting portable tanks as a temporary measure since then at the request of the regional water board staff, company officials say.

Edison argues that the holding ponds pose little environmental risk because they are only used for brief periods two or three times a year, after plant boilers have been flushed with cleaning solutions. The solutions, which vary depending on the type of boiler being cleaned, include powerful acids that remove deposits from boiler surfaces.

Within two weeks of being discharged into a holding pond, the company says, the waste liquid is pumped through a truck-mounted treatment system that neutralizes the acids and removes harmful heavy metals, leaving effluent that is suitable to be dumped into the sea.

The question facing the regional water board is whether to risk a release of the untreated boiler-cleaning waste.

Edison officials assert that even if a major earthquake were to hit when the holding ponds are full, environmental losses would be minimal.

Ground water under the four plants, which are on the coast, is already brackish and unsuitable for drinking, they point out. And acidic waste reaching the ocean would quickly be dispersed and neutralized by wave action and currents.

“It’s overkill to make us put in above-ground tanks when those surface impoundments really don’t represent a threat to the environment,” said Robert Reid, Southern California Edison’s environmental affairs supervisor. “Basically, what we’re asking the board to do is (to) use their judgment and be reasonable about this.”

The board voted last year--over staff objections--to grant Edison the exemption if the holding ponds meet certain conditions: that they not be used to store “extremely hazardous” waste, that they be used for periods no longer than 30 days, that they be inspected regularly and that they conform to construction and monitoring standards spelled out in the toxic pit law.

In its recommendations for next month’s meeting, the water board staff has pronounced Edison unable to meet the final condition. The problem is that the ponds probably could not withstand an earthquake rated 7.

Edison’s own consultant, the Dames & Moore engineering firm, admits in an Aug. 22 report that “significant damage to (the) impoundments would probably occur” as a result of an earthquake rated 7 or higher.

Soils underlying the ponds at all four plants could become highly unstable in a major quake, the report says, causing “liner damage ranging from minor cracking to near destruction.” Edison officials don’t dispute the findings.

“Our surface impoundments do not meet that (earthquake) provision. We admit that,” Reid said.

Board staff members acknowledge, given the hydrology under the four Edison plants, that liquid spilled from holding ponds would be unlikely to reach underground drinking water reserves. But in its recommendations, the staff indicated that a spill could do “immediate and significant” damage to any marine life it encounters before being dispersed and neutralized at sea.

“If you happen to be a fish that’s in the way, you’re gone,” said Dennis Dasker, a supervising engineer with the board. “We have to take the conservative approach and assume the worst case--that (the water) would be calm, and a spill would sit there and affect a large population of marine organisms.”

Whether a worst-case approach is taken with Edison is up to regional water board members, Dasker added, saying: “If they think it’s being reasonable to take this risk, then that’s up to them.”

Water board members, meanwhile, are keeping their options open. Said board Chairman Clark Drane, a retired Tujunga insurance executive:

“Even though the staff makes a recommendation one way, that doesn’t mean I have to view it in the same light.”

WHERE ACIDIC WASTE IS STORED Southern California Edison wants an exemption for holding ponds at the following plants:

Alamitos Generating Station

690 Studebaker Rd., Long Beach

El Segundo Generating Station

301 Vista Del Mar Blvd., El Segundo

Mandalay Generating Station

393 N. Harbor Blvd., Oxnard

Redondo Generating Station

1100 Harbor Dr., Redondo Beach