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soil, arguing that many nonhazardous landfills are adequately equipped to accept chemical-laced dirt, according to an unpublished draft plan obtained by The Times.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.”
