Proposal for 2nd Waste Facility in Vernon Rekindles Criticism

VERNON — There is an acronym describing the strong opposition to two proposed hazardous-waste disposal facilities in this city.

“They call us NIMBYs. That’s for ‘Not In My Back Yard,’ ” said Martha A. Molina-Aviles, an aide to Assemblywoman Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles).

Last week, she and more than 100 local politicians, community leaders and environmental activists turned out for a hearing by state health officials on a proposed plant to treat hazardous chemicals. More than a dozen spoke out against the plant, the second such facility in a year to seek an operating license here.

State Department of Health Services and Vernon officials have tentatively approved a treatment plant at the site of an abandoned warehouse complex on East Slauson and Boyle avenues. Chem-Clear Inc.--which operates disposal facilities for hazardous wastes in Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and Chester, Pa.--would build the plant.

The company would process up to 60,000 gallons of cyanide, hexavalent chromium and other hazardous materials daily for eventual disposal into area landfills or the county sewer system.

Despite repeated assurances by Chem-Clear officials that the plant “would do nothing to endanger the environment or the public,” those who oppose the proposed facility complain that the site is too close to schools, houses and hospitals.

“We have had to bear enough negative projects,” said Molina-Aviles.

Many community leaders have grown tired of the poor, mostly Latino, communities being “dumped on” by businesses that are not allowed to locate in wealthier areas, Bell City Councilman George Cole said at the public hearing in Bell.

No ‘Danger to Community’

Chem-Clear has not proved that the Vernon project “is environmentally sound and can be operated without danger to the community,” said Robert Morales, an aide to state Sen. Art Torres (D-Los Angeles).

They also criticized health services officials for not requiring an environmental impact report before issuing a draft permit to Chem-Clear.

“A hazardous-waste facility has once again been approved without adequate notification to residents in surrounding communities and without giving the community its due benefit of an environmental impact report,” Roybal-Allard said.

Six months ago, politicians joined residents and community leaders to oppose an incinerator for hazardous wastes two miles north, on Bandini Boulevard.

Prompted by petitions and often-emotional testimony against the $29.9-million incinerator, health services officials two weeks ago ordered California Thermal Treatment Services to provide an environmental impact report before receiving final approval to build the facility. The incinerator would burn solvents, industrial liquids and infectious debris from hospitals.

At last week’s Bell public hearing on the new proposal, several community leaders and local politicians also said Vernon and health services officials failed to investigate Chem-Clear thoroughly before giving tentative approval.

Chem-Clear Cited

As recently as November, according to a Greenpeace spokesman and Roybal-Allard, Chem-Clear was cited for improper maintenance of buildings and equipment at its Chester plant near Philadelphia.

But a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources said the plant has had no serious violations for at least a year. “We have no problems with them,” said the spokesman, H. Hugh Hinzman.

Other violations that date back to early 1981 include “not taking immediate action to . . . contain or dispose of a very large amount of . . . contaminated soil”; not labeling storage tanks for hazardous wastes, and allowing “numerous chemical spills,” according to documents from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.

Inspectors noted that about 350,000 pounds of chemicals had been spilled in 1981-83 and that employees had not been trained adequately.

“It’s digging up old skeletons,” Hinzman said. “If they cleared up the problem, I don’t see where (past violations) would come into play.”

City and state officials acknowledge that they tentatively approved the facility without knowing of the past violations.

“I was not aware of the documentation,” said John A. Hinton, chief of the state Department of Health Services unit that issues permits to such facilities. “We’ll have a close look at it, and, if necessary, contact Pennsylvania.”

Victor H. Vaits, Vernon’s director of community services, who last year ruled that the proposed hazardous-waste facility would not affect the surrounding environment, said city officials may have to reexamine their favorable rating.

“If we had information that an operation is being conducted by an irresponsible company, we would be taking that into consideration,” Vaits said.

Chem-Clear official Martin Smith, who would become general manager of the Vernon plant, said the company responded promptly to concerns of state inspectors and explained or corrected any violations cited at the Chester plant.

Smith said the company will respond in writing soon to the apparent violations listed in documents submitted to the state by Roybal-Allard and Zachary Singer, a Greenpeace representative.

State Review Ahead

Hinton said the state will review evidence submitted by July 29, before it decides whether to require an impact report.

Molina-Aviles said any record of violations should be taken seriously. “They can tell us they have corrected those things now, but even little things can create major accidents,” she said.

She pointed to a May 23 incident in which a Lincoln Heights metal-plating company caught fire. Several square miles around the burning factory were evacuated because of concerns that barrels of cyanide and hydrosulphuric acid stored in the building would cause a toxic cloud.

Councilman Cole, who lives less than two miles east of the proposed site, said: “We’re not going to sit back and take a back row on this. We are serious about protecting our way of life in our community.”

A spill from a truck carrying cyanide or chromium would affect about 22,000 residents living less than a mile from the site, Cole said.

He also said local industry, including several food-processing and distribution firms, would be disrupted.

Goldberg & Solovey, a food distribution plant, is across the street from the proposed site.

Robert Niccum, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Unified School District, also argued against the facility, saying six public schools, serving more than 10,000 students, lie within a mile of the complex.

“Thousands of high school students will be placed in tremendous danger” in the event of a chemical spill or fire, said Niccum, noting that Huntington Park High School is 100 yards from the site.

To a round of clapping and loud cheers, Bell resident Juana Martinez asked: “Why is it always us? We live here. It’s our community. Why not put this plant in Beverly Hills?”

Plants to Serve Industry

Chem-Clear’s Smith said the plant would serve local industry that already produces the chemicals that the plant will treat for proper disposal.

The wastes are generated by companies that manufacture computers, automotive parts, building materials and plated steel, Smith said.

“We’re not doing anything but helping matters,” Smith said. “We’re providing close-by disposal.”

But Molina-Aviles and others believe officials should not allow one more plant that handles hazardous waste in the southeast area of the county.

“Enough is enough,” Molina-Aviles said. “There are communities all over the state that are facing the same kinds of problems. “We’re saying that we need to stop everything and examine what we are doing.”