Senate Bill 712, by Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Huntington Park, was not debated, and faced no opposition even from the Republican minority.

SB712 would authorize the DTSC to suspend or not renew temporary permit applications from companies that have hazardous waste facilities. According to the bill analysis, it is aimed at one company, Exide Technologies, based in Milton, Ga., a battery manufacturer. Specifically, the bill targets Exide’s facility in Vernon, Calif., which “recycles 23,000 to 41,000 batteries daily.” And on average it produces “100,000 to 120,000 tons of lead per year.”

Exide is one of the world’s largest producers and recyclers of lead-acid batteries, with facilities in 80 countries. Its Vernon plant is a secondary lead smelting facility, which recovers lead from recycled automotive batteries. The Vernon plant, purchased by Exide in 2000, has been in operation since 1922, and runs 24/7.

Specifics

The bill would authorize the DTSC to suspend, or not renew, Exide’s temporary permit, after issuing temporary permits to the company for 30 years. Exide is the only company in the state falling under the temporary permitting status.

CalWatchdog.com contacted representatives of Exide, the DTSC and state Senator Lara to ask: Why did the DTSC issue only temporary permits to Exide for 30 years, never any permanent permits?

And: Why suspend or decide not to renew the permit now?

After all, Exide is only one of two battery recyclers west of the Rockies. The other is Quemetco in the City of Industry. Battery recycling is state mandated, so batteries do not end up in landfills.

Exide and Lara’s office called back. The DTSC did not respond to inquiries.

What is the need for legislation?

According to a statement provided by Lara’s office, he has been under pressure from environmental justice activists to carry the legislation shutting Exide down. The statement said:

“ ‘We are tired of DTSC dragging its feet, allowing this facility to operate for decades without an enforceable permit and to poison our neighborhoods over and over again.  Today we moved one step closer to finally forcing DTSC and Exide to be accountable to the public,’ said Maya Golden Krasner with Communities for a Better Environment.

“ ‘I was very pleased to see that the committee fully supported SB712.  We believe this is a necessary step to protect the health of the public in the district.  The community members that made the long trek from South East Los Angeles to the Capitol were excited to see their representative move this bill forward,’ said Angelo Logan from East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice.”

Communities for a Better Environment is an organizing environmental justice activism group with close ties to Earthjustice, a litigating environmentalist activist group.

KPCC Public Radio did a story about Exide in June, and reported there is no concrete evidence that Exide’s operation has caused health problems in the surrounding communities. “In heavily industrial urban areas, it is exceedingly difficult to determine a direct link between a specific facility and an individual’s health condition,” KPCC found.

Speaker Perez

Outgoing Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, also has focused on Exide over concerns the battery recycler has been polluting the community.

Perez wrote in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Daily News last week:

“The story of Exide is a decades-long cycle of emissions violations, patchwork responses, and then business as usual. This time it has to be different. This time we have to end the cycle once and for all. Either Exide is regulated sufficiently so it cleans up its act and operates in a way consistent with public health and safety, or the determination must finally be made that the plant cannot operate safely and must cease operations.”

Yet only the week before, Exide announced that a Southern California Air Quality Management District report found the firm successful in substantially reducing arsenic emissions:

“Since identifying elevated emissions levels early last year, the company has worked tirelessly with regulators to address their concerns, invest in substantial plant upgrades and further reduce emissions. In a December 2013 Rule Staff Report, South Coast Air Quality Management District presented the latest source testing results, confirming a plant-wide 95 percent reduction in arsenic emissions, which has been maintained since April 2013. Those documented test results show the facility meeting SCAQMD’s current toxic air contaminant rule limits for existing facilities.”

Since 2010, Exide has invested $20 million in equipment and technology to bring the battery recycling plant into compliance with the the AQMD and the DTSC. It pointed out:

“Exide strives to make the Vernon plant a premier recycling facility and considers the health and safety of the community, its workforce and the environment a top priority.”

DTSC and Exide working together

Exide and DTSC executed an agreement in Nov. 2013 outlining enhancements to plant operations and providing a path forward for securing a permanent permit for waste disposal. Exide announced:

“The Department has unfortunately had a long history of constant turnover and uncertain standards – a situation that has left permittees frustrated with frequently shifting oversight, guidance, requirements and deadlines. With new and engaged leadership now at the department, Exide is working cooperatively and constructively to overcome these historic challenges and obtain its permanent permit.”

The agreement between Exide and DTSC resolves issues stemming from a suspension order in April 2013 that shut down the Vernon plant for more than seven weeks. The plant resumed operations in late June after obtaining a preliminary injunction ruling in its favor from a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

Exide’s complaints about the DTSC coincide with a CalWatchdog.com story earlier this week, “Hearing reveals DTSC clogged with regulatory problems.”

Ironically, SB712 gives even more power to the DTSC before its own regulatory difficulties have been cleared up.

By Katy Grimes

Whenever environmental or social justice activists want something banned, they create a health or safety reason supporting their policy.

This is the case with the attempt by the South Coast Air Quality Management District to ban fire rings and bonfires on Southern California beaches.

‘Bonfire of the Vanities’ refers to the burning of objects that are deemed to be occasions of sin. With beach bonfires, they are occasions of joy, happiness, family and friends. Apparently occasions of joy, happiness, family and friends are offensive to some.

Say goodbye to beach bonfires – and memories

The SCQMD proposed amendments to Rule 444, which would ban open burning in beach areas.

“The fire rings have been an important part of our beach experience for over 60 years,”  ‘Save the Southern California Beach Bonfire Rings’ explains on its website and Facebook page. “They provide an affordable means of gathering family and friends on Southern California shores to celebrate our outdoor beach lifestyle with s’mores and hotdog roasting under the stars, all while enjoying the glow of a warm fire.”

So why would anyone want to put an end to this wholesome, inexpensive, family fun?

There are several reasons. But the primary reason really driving the bonfire ban is area home owners. Those who live along the ocean don’t like the crowds, and have complained to local officials about the noise from the night time bonfires. Even though they bought the property knowing it was attached to publicly accessed beaches, homeowners have demanded government regulators ban the fire pits to keep people off the beaches at night.

And that’s how it always works. Regulations anymore are rarely about real health or safety issues, and almost always are sponsored by special interest groups seeking to either kill a competitive business, or by a group of people wishing to limit the activities and rights of others.

However, that  makes the home owners look as if they are being spoiled whiners. So they got the American Lung Association to claim the fire pits are a health hazard.
 
“’Fire rings are creating hazards in communities that are damaging to one’s health and to the health of residents who live nearby,’ said Bonnie Holmes-Gen, senior director for policy and advocacy for the American Lung Association in California,” a recent story at Heartlandnews.org explained.

“We’re very concerned about the impact of the smoke, … and it contributes to asthma attacks, strokes, a number of respiratory illnesses, and it can even cause premature death.”

The Wood Smoke Health website, “advocates for clean air,” concurs.

This is a real “are you kidding me?” moment.

To answer the absurdity, as well as the loss of a treasured beach activity, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, introduced ACR 52, honoring California’s beach lifestyle, and supportive of continuing access to California’s beaches and the enjoyment of beach bonfires in fire rings.

Allen is a resident of Huntington Beach and a surfer. “I am honored to commemorate California’s beaches and access to those beaches,” Allen said after introducing his resolution. “Activities such as beach bonfires are a beloved pastime that is a safe and inexpensive recreational activity enjoyed by all the members of our community. I look forward to joining my fellow legislators in honoring our beaches and the timeless community pastimes that our beaches provide.”

Environmental justice

Bonfires on the beach are one of the remaining low-cost activities for Southern California beach visitors. But the bonfire ban has a long history thanks to the fairly recent bans on stove and fireplace fires. SCAQMD’s Rule 444, “Wood-burning Devices & Open Burning,” also names the pesky wood fires are an unsafe and dangerous activity. It was natural for the environmental justice crowd to eventually go after beach bonfires.

Sacramento banned the use of fireplaces on “spare the air” days, and encourages neighbors to rat out their wood-burning neighbors. This is particularly stupid given that Sacramento is located on two massive rivers and the Delta, and enjoys daily breezy winds and the famous “Delta Breeze.”

In Sacramento we suffer from allergies thanks to the abundant agricultural valley in which we live; wood fires, not so much.

Ironic is the silence from the environmental justice crowd about the very real health and safety issues from wildfires – a subject rarely addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency, air quality districts, or environmental justice seekers.

Loss of revenue

The state and local governments earn significant revenue from beach visitors.

Banning bonfires has the potential to cut $1 million annually from parking revenue for the City of Huntington Beach.

The California State Parks of Orange County receives more than 11.9 million visitors annually, resulting in $19 million dollars in revenue.

A survey by the California State Parks found they could lose as much as 50 percent of the current revenue from camping, if bonfires and fire rings are banned.

“The negative economic impact on the many hoteliers, restaurateurs, grocery, retail and concessions that rely on visitor spending would be astounding. This does not even include the impact it would have on cities such as Newport Beach, Dana Point, and Los Angeles,” the petition to stop the SCAQMD from banning bonfires says.

Beach bonfire cheerleader

Allen has been hosting bonfires on most weekends for the community, to bring more focus to California beaches and the local community in Huntington Beach.

“California has a wonderful history and beach culture that is deeply woven into our communities, especially in Southern California,” said Assemblyman Allen. “Beach bonfires are an essential part of the beach lifestyle that has helped define California around the world.  ACR 52 further highlights a lifestyle that has brought people together for generations.”

The SCAQMD will vote on the regulations for the Southern California beach bonfires, and many bonfire supporters will be in attendance — Friday, July 12 at 9:00 a.m., at the SCAQMD Headquarters, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.