Share This Page

Possible expansion of Calif. toxic waste dump doesn't sit well

| Tuesday, July 2, 2013, 5:36 p.m.

FRESNO, Calif. — California regulators are recommending allowing a major expansion of the largest hazardous waste dump in the Western United States, even though some residents blame the dump for birth defects and have opposed the expansion, officials said on Tuesday.

The California Department of Toxic Substances Control said it has issued a draft expansion permit that would allow the landfill near Kettleman City — a farmworker community in the state's Central Valley midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles — to expand by 5 million cubic yards.

The landfill, which is operated by Chemical Waste Management, houses 10.7 million cubic yards of hazardous waste.

Environmental organizations and residents have opposed the expansion of the 1,600-acre landfill for years. The landfill has been fined numerous times by state and federal regulators for improper waste disposal and other problems.

“A draft permit will send a message to industrial polluters that you can violate your permit constantly for years, commit serious and chronic violations and still get your permit,” said Bradley Angel of the group Greenaction.

The expansion permit was based on “bogus studies” and “hiding the number of birth defects and infant deaths,” Angel said, adding that officials did not give Spanish speakers, who make up a large number of Kettleman City residents, enough time to testify at hearings.

The dump's owners say there's no evidence linking the facility to the birth defects and cancer-causing chemicals there were too low to affect the nearby community.

A recent report by California health officials found no common cause for the birth defects and left residents to speculate about what other potential hazards — a constant flow of diesel trucks, pesticide residue in the surrounding fields and multiple high-tension power lines — might pose the biggest risk to their children.

The permit expansion carries restrictive requirements, including enhanced air and groundwater monitoring and sampling, a clean truck program that would reduce emissions from incoming diesel trucks, more inspections and enhanced public outreach, state officials said.

The landfill accepts toxic waste not allowed into most landfills, including carcinogenic PCBs, herbicides and other chemicals, and lead-contaminated soil from cleanup sites.

Last November, the state issued 72 violations alleging the company failed to report small spills that occurred between 2008 and 2012 — though they posed no health threats to the public. In May 2011, the state levied $46,000 in fines against the company for failing to report two spills.

That same year, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state toxics department levied $1 million in fines against the firm for having improperly calibrated lab equipment that thwarted efforts to accurately analyze chemical concentrations in waste. The EPA found the same problem with equipment five years earlier and said officials failed to fix it.

Federal officials fined the operator nearly $10,000 for improper waste disposal.

Officials said the violations caused no off-site health impacts and “have not reached a level that would trigger a permit denial,” said Brian Johnson, director of hazardous waste management.

The public has 60 days to comment on the draft permit, which still requires final approval from the toxics department.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.