Audio By Carbonatix
In California, it’s a hazardous waste, but in Arizona, it’s a bargain.
It’s used oil from industrial plants, car engines and a host of other sources, and it’s polluted with an alchemist’s nightmare of heavy metals and PCBs. California doesn’t want it.
But trainload-size gaps in Arizona law have resulted in this spent and adulterated fuel being shipped here and marketed as a cheap alternative to natural gas and propane. County health officials aren’t testing this “alternative” fuel. Nor are they monitoring it for specific chemicals being spewed from the smokestacks of industrial plants throughout the Valley which are burning used oil.
And state lawmakers, trying to end the four-month-long session, think they have a crisis on their hands but aren’t sure exactly what–if anything–to do about it. These days they rail against Arizona becoming a garbage dump for its environmentally savvy neighbor to the west. But earlier in the session they deep-sixed a measure that would have helped solve the problem.
Further confusing the matter is that this crisis actually isn’t new: Industries have been burning used oil for years, pollutants and all. It only became an issue when executives from Southwest Gas Corporation suddenly realized that customers were switching to the cheaper used oil. That meant less money in the pockets of company shareholders.
Part of what makes used oil so cheap is a three-year-old California law which classifies most of it as hazardous waste. The statute specifically limits the amount of lead, arsenic, cadmium, chromium and PCBs–a known carcinogen used with oil in electrical transformers–that can be burned in used oil in California. And the rest of it? The law gives handlers two choices: Refine and recycle it, which is expensive, or ship it out of state.
And ship it they do. Dick Foreman, lobbyist for Southwest Gas, says customers are being approached by California firms anxious to get rid of what is now a waste product. In fact, they can get it for free, paying only for the costs of bringing it by freight cars to Arizona where it is mixed with diesel fuel for burning.
That was news to Bob Evans, the county’s air-quality chief. Contacted early last week, he said some companies had inquired about burning used oil but no one had actually applied for a permit to do so. Yet New Times turned up firms which have been doing so for years, as well as a supplier who boasts of selling about a half-million gallons of the stuff a month in Arizona. By week’s end–after New Times demanded inspection reports–Evans was back on the phone insisting his staff knew about it all along and is on top of the situation.
Not exactly. Evans admits no one at his department actually checks the levels of lead and other heavy metals in the fuels being burned here, whether they are produced locally or imported from California. That apparently is left up to the companies that sell the stuff.
Dan Walden, president of All Western Oil, says he does check raw used oil when it comes to his plant before it is mixed with diesel. But his checks are nothing more than “indicators” that a batch might have high levels of certain pollutants. A full analysis is performed only when an indicator test shows potential problems; he says he would test all used oil if the state would help pay for it.
Still, Evans maintains, there’s no reason to worry. County rules require most smokestacks to have devices to reduce particulate emissions. And these places are required to test smokestack gases periodically for particulates. “If we noticed any increase in particulates, any heavy metals would certainly be directly proportionate,” he says.
But Tony Jones, a field supervisor in Evans’ agency, says the connection is, at best, a casual one. He says the fact that smokestack-particulate emissions fall within acceptable levels is no guarantee that what is escaping doesn’t include unhealthy quantities of heavy metals or PCBs.
Meanwhile, out at the Arizona State Legislature Foreman has been playing Paul Revere, decrying the export of California’s waste problem to Arizona. He glosses over the fact that burning used oil has been legal–and practiced–here for years. And no one seems to be able to say exactly how much used oil is coming from California. He does know that gas customers here are cutting their heating costs by a whopping 25 percent if they use a 50-50 mixture of used oil and diesel fuel.
All this has lawmakers confused.
John Hays, chairman of the Senate Natural Resources, Welfare, Aging and Environment Committee, says he can’t tell whether used oil is a real public health menace or just some bitching by Southwest Gas. And, with the legislature set to adjourn within four weeks–actually, they were supposed to be gone by last Saturday, according to their own rules–he isn’t sure if there’s time to do much of anything about it. Hays says it’s likely lawmakers will form a special commission to study the problem during the summer, taking action next year if it appears necessary.
But Senator Pete Corpstein, who has a Southwest Gas golf cap in his office, doesn’t think that’s good enough. He wants Arizona to enact laws similar to those in California. At the very least he wants a moratorium on the burning of used oil while the matter is studied. That means companies must either switch to much more expensive virgin fuel oil or, more likely, modify their equipment once again to burn natural gas.
Corpstein points out car owners must make and pay for engine adjustments to reduce pollutants. On top of that, federal law has virtually eliminated lead even in so-called “leaded” gasolines. He says it makes no sense to cut emissions from vehicles only to allow dirty-burning fuels to be used by industry.
The feds are as paralyzed and confused as Arizona legislators. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed rules four years ago to outlaw the burning of used oil. They have yet to be enacted.
Lawmakers are, at best, ambivalent about the whole issue of hazardous wastes winding up in Arizona.
Earlier this session the House Environment Committee reviewed a bill to tax hazardous wastes being shipped here from other states. It also addressed the California used-oil problem indirectly, saying any product classified as a hazardous waste in its home state would be classified as a hazardous waste here, even if it wasn’t similarly listed in Arizona statutes. That would have imposed a tax on the used fuel shipped here, making it less economical for Arizona industries to use.
But Representative Jim Hartdegen worked to eliminate any import tax, reminding lawmakers of a six-year-old promise they made to a firm called Ensco, whom they contracted with to operate a hazardous-waste landfill near Mobile in southwest Maricopa County. Company officials said at the time there wasn’t enough hazardous waste generated in Arizona to make the operation economically feasible so they had to be able to import waste from elsewhere. Hartdegen says it would be unfair to Ensco to change the rules now and make it harder for them to attract wastes from across the West.
So Arizona will continue to be California’s garbage can for used oil and much more for the foreseeable future.
NEXT, WE’LL HAVE BEER COPS Arizona has entirely too many places where beer and wine are sold. At least that’s what the Arizona liquor chief thinks. And guess what, folks, agreement comes from the beer sellers he’s supposed to be regulating. So, there’s a bill that’s almost made it through the entire legislature that would guarantee no more than one beer and wine outlet . . . per intersection.
Hugh Ennis, director of the Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, complains there has been a proliferation of convenience stores throughout the state, with a new beer and wine outlet taking root every three days. Ennis says this is ridiculous, particularly when some intersections feature convenience stores and gas stations on each corner that sell beer and wine.
His original solution was a quota of one outlet for every 4,000 residents, the same as already exists for stores that sell hard liquor. But that idea drew fire from another special-interest group: the owners of convenience stores. So senators came up with another idea: If the problem is too many stores too close together, why not simply specify how far apart these stores have to be? They came up with the figure of 1,000 feet.
This was just fine with Don Isaacson, who represents many of the folks who already have licenses to sell booze. The proposal amounts to an exclusive franchise with no worry for the corner grocery store that someone else is going to move in across the street and take away business.
That eliminated the opposition from the convenience-store owners but created a new enemy: owners and developers of shopping centers. This group is even more feared and respected at the legislature than the liquor dealers. They’re so powerful that several years ago they forced lawmakers to craft a special provision in property-tax laws just for them. The result was lower tax bills.
They didn’t like the fact that the 1,000-foot restriction applied not only to places that sold beer and wine to go but also to liquor stores. “Strip shopping centers couldn’t develop,” Ennis explains of their opposition. “You’d have like a Safeway and a Revco next door to each other and only one of them would be able to sell liquor.” So the House of Representatives obliged, making the 1,000-foot restriction applicable only to beer and wine stores.
Republican Representative Jim Skelly chided his colleagues for campaigning on a free-market platform and then turning right around and saying the state knows best how many beer and wine stores there ought to be. Skelly also recognized the alliance between Ennis and the dealers on this one. “They’re creating a closed shop,” he complained. But he was in the minority as Republicans and Democrats alike approved the measure overwhelmingly.
Ennis also sees nothing wrong with the state saying only one store per intersection, even if there is enough business to support more. Anyway, he adds, he’s doing it for the taxpayers of the state. “You really have some costs imposed upon the municipalities and upon my agency,” he says. More stores that sell beer and wine means more work for his agents.
But Ennis, while admitting the stores cost money to police, isn’t asking the legislature to increase the fees. So the cost for a new license to sell beer and wine remains at $1,550, with only a $50 annual renewal fee.
That isn’t the end of the damage the bill would do. A couple of lawmakers got alarmed that a Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the Valley managed to get itself a license to sell beer and wine with its charbroiled burgers. Isaacson fanned that spark into a flame, with visions of McDonald’s and Jack-in-the-Box outlets across the state suddenly offering Coors as well as Coke. Then he added the specter of all these fresh-faced kids–whom the restaurants hire because they work for next-to-nothing wages–being exposed to demon booze. Whipped into a frenzy, lawmakers amended the bill to prevent liquor from being sold at fast-food restaurants.
But the fast-drawn fast-food amendment may prove to be more than the legislature can chew.
In an effort to define a “fast-food restaurant” they listed five conditions. One is that a “substantial portion” of the total employees are younger than eighteen years old. Even Isaacson acknowledges that in some communities there are more adults than youngsters behind the counters. And, yes, he admits, that could result in some McDonald’s restaurants being able to sell beer while others could not.
Another condition requires that the food be ordered either at a drive-up window or at a special ordering counter. Isaacson concedes that means a pizza joint with waitresses, like a Pizza Hut, could serve beer; the Peter Piper Pizza down the block could not.
Even Ennis can’t support this section of the bill. “I do not disagree with the concept,” he says, being careful not to annoy the lawmakers who pushed the change. “But the definition [of a fast-food restaurant] leaves something to be desired.” So Ennis is proposing something that lawmakers clearly understand: Let’s study it for a year.
