State Officials Cite Scrap Yard for Hazardous Waste Danger : Violations: Cal/EPA says soil stored at Hugo Neu-Proler’s facility on Terminal Island is laced with toxic pollutants.

State environmental officials have cited a Terminal Island scrap yard for breaking hazardous waste laws, asserting that large piles of soil stored on the site are laced with toxic pollutants.

The action by the California Environmental Protection Agency comes amid signs that the yard, operated by Hugo Neu-Proler Co., contains extensive soil contamination that will require millions of dollars to clean up.

The Port of Los Angeles, the owner of the 26-acre property, wants Hugo Neu-Proler to remove or neutralize pollutants on the land before it will extend the company’s lease, which comes up for renewal in 1994.

Experts say that will mean a big job for Hugo Neu-Proler, a 30-year port tenant that each day grinds up hundreds of tons of discarded automobiles, appliances and other metal junk and loads the scrap onto ships for export.

“It’s a very hazardous site,” said an environmental consultant familiar with the yard. “It’s undoubtedly one of the most hazardous sites on the island.”

In its action against Hugo Neu-Proler, taken March 25 and announced this week, Cal/EPA cited the scrap company for two violations of state law.

The first--illegal disposal of hazardous waste--concerned large mounds of soil contaminated with lead, zinc and polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs. A Cal/EPA spokesman declined to estimate the quantity of tainted soil involved, but experts familiar with site estimated it at 6,000 cubic yards--equivalent to a single pile 17 yards wide at the base and nearly five stories high.

The second violation concerned Hugo Neu-Proler’s failure to secure a state permit before attempting to neutralize the pollution with a mobile soil-treatment machine, said the Cal/EPA spokesman, Allan Hirsch.

“By not storing and treating contaminated soil properly, they were creating at the very least a potential threat to public health and the environment,” Hirsch said. “By not covering these piles with tarps, for instance, they could create a situation where this soil is blown off-site.”

Hugo Neu-Proler was ordered to correct the problems by April 28. The violations, discovered in a Cal/EPA inspection of the scrap yard Sept. 6, carry a maximum penalty of $50,000 for each day they go unresolved. But Hirsch said his agency will await Hugo Neu-Proler’s response before deciding what enforcement action, if any, to take.

“We want to see what they tell us they’ll do, and then we’ll determine the enforcement question,” he said, declining to elaborate. “We’re taking this one step at a time.”

John Prudent, the general manager of Hugu Neu-Proler, declined to comment for this story. But Apset Chater, the company’s environmental manager, said Hugo Neu-Proler officials were taken aback by the Cal/EPA action because they had thought they had resolved the issues raised by the agency in a meeting held Sept. 18, 12 days after the inspection.

“We met with them after the inspection and many issues were discussed,” Chater said. “We do not know what prompted them to send that letter out.” He added that his company is preparing a formal response.

Hugo Neu-Proler’s tangle with Cal/EPA comes after the company crossed paths with other environmental agencies.

Last May, state water quality officials charged that as Hugo Neu-Proler shredded metal and loaded the scrap on ships, it was sprinkling the harbor with fine dust containing PCBs. Without admitting guilt, the company agreed to take steps to control dust.

In June, the Los Angeles County Fire Department’s hazardous-waste unit cited the company for violations similar to those alleged by Cal/EPA. The case was referred to the state agency’s attention.

The Port of Los Angeles, meanwhile, has learned firsthand that soil pollution at Hugo Neu-Proler may be extensive.

Last year, 1.6 acres of the property that was transferred to port control as part of a container terminal project had to be cleaned up at a cost of $880,000. The port picked up $290,000 of the tab and Hugo Neu-Proler paid the rest, port and company officials say.

If it is indeed widespread, soil pollution would concern water quality officials because it could potentially reach the water table.

“The ground water there is not used for drinking, but it can come into contact with seawater from the harbor,” said Anne Saffell, a ground water expert with the State Regional Water Quality Control Board. “And in the harbor you have marine life like shellfish and fish.”

In addition to the attention it has received from environmental agencies, Hugo Neu-Proler has drawn fire from various Wilmington residents and boat owners who charge that the operation has been a health hazard and a nuisance.

In a letter sent to Cal/EPA after its notice of violation, the Wilmington Home Owners association (WHO) applauded the agency for its action and urged that it take steps to assure the scrap yard’s cleanup.

“WHO is pleased that, finally, a regulatory agency has confirmed what we in the community have known for a long time,” said the letter, which outlined a litany of environmental concerns about the site.

Donald Rice, the port’s environmental chief, has said cleanup of the Hugo Neu-Proler yard could cost up to $10 million. Some industry experts estimate that the cost could be as high as $15 million to $20 million.

In the past, the scrap company has questioned whether it should be solely responsible for all the cleanup work, asserting that the contamination could largely be the result of previous occupants. Hugo Neu-Proler also enjoys a measure of bargaining power: Its successful scrap operations produce substantial dockage and wharf fees for the port--$1.4 million last year.

But the port appears determined to take a hard line.

“In our negotiations with Hugo Neu, we have expected them to thoroughly evaluate the effect their operation has on the environment and to clean up any contamination that is on the site,” Rice said.