logo
California regulators want to weaken hazardous waste disposal rules

California regulators want to weaken hazardous waste disposal rules

Yahoo12-03-2025

California environmental regulators are considering rolling back the state's hazardous waste disposal rules, potentially permitting some municipal landfills to accept more contaminated soil from heavily polluted areas.
From lead-acid battery smelters to rocket testing facilities, heavy industry over the past century in California has left large swathes of land imbued with dangerous chemicals. As a result, contaminated soil that has been removed during major environmental cleanups or new construction has typically comprised the largest bloc of hazardous waste in California each year. More than 560,000 tons of toxic dirt are excavated every year on average, according to a 2023 DTSC report.
The vast majority of this polluted soil would not qualify as hazardous waste outside of California, because the state has more stringent rules than the federal government. But now the California Department of Toxic Substances Control is recommending loosening the state's hazardous waste rules for contaminated soil, arguing that many nonhazardous landfills are adequately equipped to accept chemical-laced dirt, according to an unpublished draft plan obtained by The Times.
DTSC spokesperson Alysa Pakkidis said the agency is exploring ways to manage California-only hazardous waste "under different standards while still protecting public health and the environment," as required by a 2021 state law. The agency's recommendations will be detailed in the state's first Hazardous Waste Management Plan, a document that is intended to help guide state strategy on potentially dangerous wastes and which the 2021 law requires be published every three years.
The law called for the first version to be published by March 1. But as of March 11, it has still not been posted publicly.
The DTSC proposal comes as hazardous waste, namely in the form of soil polluted after the recent L.A. wildfires, has become top of mind. Government agencies are facing blistering criticism over their decision to allow untested — and potentially hazardous — wildfire ash and soil to be disposed of in municipal landfills across Southern California.
Environmental groups say allowing nonhazardous waste landfills to accept chemical-laced soil would be a grave mistake. By dumping more toxic substances into the landfills, there's a higher chance of chemicals leaking into groundwater or becoming part of airborne dust blowing into nearby communities.
"The reason we established these waste codes was to protect California's groundwater and public health,' said Jane Williams, executive director of California Communities Against Toxics, an environmental nonprofit. 'You can see how effectively [the state is] regulating landfills without the hazardous waste. We're finding vast noncompliance."
California's more rigorous hazardous waste standards have led to higher costs for industry and government, as under the current rules, contaminated soil must be transported to a specialized hazardous waste facility in California or hauled to landfills in neighboring states.
California currently has only two hazardous waste landfills: Kettleman Hills and Buttonwillow, both in San Joaquin Valley. Oftentimes, contaminated soil is taken to nonhazardous landfills in neighboring states that rely on the more lenient federal standards. The average distance driven to dispose of California-designated hazardous soil is about 440 miles, according to a DTSC draft report.
"Because there's only two and they're kind of far away from everything, it is very expensive to take material there,' said Nick Lapis, director of advocacy for Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento-based environmental nonprofit. "So people are always looking for ways to not take material there, and that has sometimes resulted in people taking material out of state."
The proposed changes would in theory give private industry a larger selection of in-state landfills to which they could send their waste. DTSC argues that this would result in shorter trucking distances, less air pollution and lower costs.
But the state could also see cost savings from relaxing its policies. California has been funding the removal and replacement of soil in neighborhoods around the Exide battery plant in Southeast L.A. County — the state's most expensive cleanup. State contractors are trucking hazardous soil from that site to nonhazardous waste landfills in Utah, Nevada and Arizona — states that rely on the more lenient federal hazardous waste standards.
California currently uses three tests to determine whether solid waste is hazardous. One ensures waste doesn't exceed state-established limits for certain toxic substances when the waste is in a solid form. For example, soil with 1,000 parts per million of lead is considered toxic by the state.
The other two tests measure the concentration of toxic substances that seep out of solid waste when it is exposed to an acid. These are intended to simulate how solid waste could release chemicals inside the landfill as it's exposed to leachate — liquid waste from rainfall or decomposing garbage. One of these tests is based on federally established methods, and the other is based on the stricter California state-established standards.
DTSC recommends allowing contaminated soil that fails the state's leakage test to be dumped at nonhazardous waste landfills, so long as it passes the other two tests. They stressed that hazardous soil would be sent to landfills with liners and leachate collection systems — equipment that gathers and pumps out liquid waste that trickles to the bottom of the dump.
Environmental advocates say liner systems can fail when damaged by earthquakes or extreme heat. They argue that sending chemical-laced soil into such systems would eventually imperil groundwater near landfills and could lead to long-term contamination risks.
Residents who live near the landfills that are already accepting debris from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires say they are also worried about toxic dust.
One of these sites is the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, a 1,036-acre landfill located in a blustery mountain pass in the northeastern San Fernando Valley where gusts often blow dust and odors into nearby communities. The landfill is less than a mile away from a popular recreational area with soccer fields and baseball diamonds.
After trucks moved fire debris to the landfill, Erick Fefferman, a resident of nearby Granada Hills, decided against allowing his son to participate in a youth soccer league there this year.
"We keep hearing about liners and leachate, but we're not hearing about wind," said Erick Fefferman. "Things don't just sink down — they also get lifted up."
Contaminated soil is allowed to be used as "daily cover," a layer of material spread over municipal waste to prevent odors and pests. In a November 2024 meeting, when state officials were asked if California-only hazardous soil could be used as a cover, a DTSC representative said 'it is a consideration."
California's hazardous waste laws were first established in 1972 to direct the state to regulate the handling, transportation and disposal of dangerous materials within the state. The state adopted a more rigorous classification system and regulations, including the state leakage test, in the 1980s. Though California's regulations are among the strictest in the nation, they have been loosened over time.
In 2021, for example, the state legislature adopted rules allowing for wood coated with toxic metals like chromium and arsenic to be taken to nonhazardous waste facilities.
Contaminated soil could be next. DTSC is working to identify regulatory or statutory avenues that would allow for soil that could be contaminated with heavy metals to be dumped at California landfills. To do so, the agency will need the cooperation of the state Water Resources Board and CalRecycle, which regulate nonhazardous waste landfills. Landfill owners would also need to volunteer to accept contaminated soil, according to the DTSC draft plan.
The Board of Environmental Safety, a five-member committee that provides oversight of DTSC, will host a series of public meetings on the state's hazardous waste plan. The board is scheduled to vote on whether to approve the plan in July.
Environmental advocates say the plans will likely face stiff opposition.
"If we need more disposal capacity, maybe we should be requiring everybody to have the same standards as a hazardous waste landfill," said Lapis, the advocacy director for Californians Against Waste. "Deregulation is not the right solution, the fact that they're even proposing it is kind of crazy to me."
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk Picks a Fight With the White House and Tesla Loses
Musk Picks a Fight With the White House and Tesla Loses

Bloomberg

timean hour ago

  • Bloomberg

Musk Picks a Fight With the White House and Tesla Loses

After the world's least surprising blowup, we the people are reportedly to be treated to its least convincing truce. Investors in Tesla Inc., nominally run by Elon Musk, the chief-buddy-turned-chief-critic of President Donald Trump, are apparently relieved. The stock bounced in trading Friday after Thursday's epic slide took Tesla's value back below $1 trillion. There are relief rallies and there are delusion rallies. This one bears a striking resemblance to the latter. Tesla's valuation, largely an extension of Musk himself, has lately also become an extension of his relationship with Trump — which he has now trashed. Regardless of any bromides on Friday, the bust-up has laid bare the enumerable risks to which Tesla is exposed by Musk's politicking. And all this on the eve of its robotaxi launch, now relegated to a side show.

Four Democrat-Led States Ask FDA to Lift Restrictions on Abortion Pill
Four Democrat-Led States Ask FDA to Lift Restrictions on Abortion Pill

Gizmodo

time3 hours ago

  • Gizmodo

Four Democrat-Led States Ask FDA to Lift Restrictions on Abortion Pill

The attorneys general of four Democrat-led states—New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California—petitioned the Food and Drug Administration on Thursday, June 5, asking the agency to lift what they view as unnecessary restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone. The petition aims to force the FDA to acknowledge robust clinical evidence and decades of mifepristone use that support the drug's safety and efficacy. The move comes just one month after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Congress that he ordered a safety review of the abortion pill. An FDA spokesperson confirmed plans for the review in a statement to CBS News on Tuesday, June 3. According to the FDA, mifepristone, approved by the regulator in 2000, is a drug that blocks the hormone progesterone, which is necessary for pregnancy to continue. It is most commonly used in combination with the drug misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy within 10 weeks of gestation. An analysis of 2023 data by the Guttmacher Institute found that medication abortions account for more than half (63%) of all abortions in the U.S. But in the years since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 17 states have banned this medication, and an additional 10 states have placed restrictions on it, according to the Washington Post. 'The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare—especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas,' California attorney general Rob Bonta told the Los Angeles Times. The petition specifically asks the FDA to lift the mifepristone Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program. This additional regulatory framework is designed to 'help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks,' according to the FDA. REMS has been applied to 325 medications since its inception and currently applies to 71 drugs. REMS places multiple restrictions on mifepristone use, including that prescribers be put on national and local abortion provider lists; patients give written statements that they intend to end their pregnancies; and pharmacies keep records of mifepristone prescribers and users. The attorneys general argue that these rules 'impose unnecessary and burdensome hurdles on patients, prescribers, pharmacists, and the healthcare system.' They also point out that mifepristone has been marketed in the U.S. for decades and has been safely used by more than 7.5 million American women. 'Moreover, no new evidence raising safety concerns has emerged in the last two decades,' they state. These states are not alone in their pursuit of expanded mifepristone access. Seventeen other Democratic-led or -leaning states, plus Washington D.C., are suing the FDA in Spokane, Washington, to loosen restrictions on the drug, Reuters reported in February. What's more, leading medical organizations have called on the FDA to remove REMS restrictions on mifepristone for years. If the FDA declines to remove REMS, Thursday's petition asks the agency to 'exercise its discretion not to enforce' some or all of the restrictions in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and California, as these states already place 'rigorous restrictions' around the practice of medicine.

Tesla stocks rebound in pre-market trading, following Musk spat with Trump
Tesla stocks rebound in pre-market trading, following Musk spat with Trump

CBS News

time3 hours ago

  • CBS News

Tesla stocks rebound in pre-market trading, following Musk spat with Trump

Tesla stock was climbing ahead of the market open, signaling a potential comeback after an online spat between President Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk sent stocks plunging yesterday. Share prices were up 4.5% before the bell Friday. Tesla stock plunged 18% in intraday trading yesterday, the sharpest sell-off in almost five years. It closed down 14.3%. Wedbush tech analyst Dan Ives suggested the dispute was unnerving for Tesla investors. "Musk needs Trump and Trump needs Musk for many reasons and these two becoming friends again will be a huge relief for Tesla shares," Ives wrote in a research note Friday. Still, he remains optimistic the stocks would rebound in spite of yesterday's turbulence. "We will be monitoring the situation closely today but we believe Tesla shares are way oversold on this news as this spat between Trump and Musk does not change our firmly bullish view of the autonomous future looking ahead that we value at $1 trillion alone for Tesla," he wrote. Tesla shares tumbled Thursday following a heated exchange on social media between the president and Musk after the billionaire Tesla CEO denounced Mr. Trump's "big, beautiful bill." The traded jabs on X and Truth Social, with Mr. Trump at one point threatening to strip Musk's company of its government contracts. Musk responded saying he would order SpaceX to halt its Dragon spacecraft, which has been used for NASA missions. Musk's net worth on Thursday plunged $34 billion, putting his valuation at $335 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. In addition to Tesla, Musk owns The Boring Company, Neuralink, SpaceX, X (formerly known as Twitter) and xAI. Tesla share prices have fallen 30% year to date.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store