Existing law requires the Department of Toxic Substances Control, on or before July 1, 1995, to revise any standard or regulation it has adopted that requires the preparation of a contingency plan to allow the person preparing the contingency plan to use a format adopted pursuant to a repealed provision of law.

This bill would repeal the above-specified requirement for the department to revise any standard or regulation it has adopted that requires the preparation of a contingency plan.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 1289

SUBJECT: Hazardous materials: non-RCRA hazardous waste: landfill disposal

DIGEST: This bill requires non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste that is destined for land disposal to only be disposed of in a federally permitted hazardous waste landfill (regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to authorize the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes throughout its life cycle. (42 United States Code (USC) §§ 6901 et seq.)
2. Establishes Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 to provide a federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. (42 USC §§ 9601 et seq.)
3. Prohibits the federal administration from providing any remedial actions to a state unless the state assures the availability of a hazardous waste disposal facility in compliance with federal requirements for the management of hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, as specified. (42 USC § 9604(c)(3))
4. Requires a permitted facility to submit a permit modification request to the director of a state program to make changes to a hazardous waste facility permit. (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 270.42)

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) to authorize the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to regulate the management of hazardous wastes in California. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 25100 et seq.)
2. Requires DTSC to develop and adopt regulatory criteria and guidelines for the identification of hazardous wastes and extremely hazardous wastes. (HSC § 25141(a))
3. Authorizes DTSC to issue permits for the use and operation of one or more hazardous waste management units at a facility that meets the standards adopted pursuant to the HWCL. (HSC § 25200 (a))
4. Requires DTSC, on or before January 1, 2018, to adopt regulations establishing or updating criteria used for the issuance of a new or modified permit or renewal of a permit, including addressing cumulative impacts. (HSC § 25200.21)
5. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to spearhead an environmental impact report (EIR) for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a negative declaration (ND) for a project that will have no significant effects on the environment, or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for projects that have no significant effects after mitigation. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §§ 15000 et seq.)
6. Establishes the Board of Environmental Safety (BES) within DTSC with five voting members that represent the general public interest and act to protect public health and reduce risks of toxic exposure with a particular focus on disproportionately burdened and vulnerable communities. (HSC § 25125)

This bill requires non-RCRA hazardous waste that is destined for land disposal to only be disposed of in a landfill regulated by Subtitle C of RCRA.

Background

1. The hazardous waste management hierarchy. To ensure protections for public health and the environment, hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA, which establishes a program that provides the safe management of hazardous waste from its generation to disposal or “cradle-to-grave.” Most states have been authorized to implement some or all of the RCRA Subtitle C program. State RCRA programs must be at least as stringent as the federal program, but states can also adopt more stringent requirements. In California, the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) implements and enforces the federal hazardous waste law and authorizes DTSC to regulate the management of hazardous waste in the state.

DTSC’s approach to hazardous waste management incorporates the concept of a “waste management hierarchy,” as the hierarchy is crucial for minimizing the adverse effect of hazardous waste on human health and the environment.^[1] In the hierarchy, source reduction is the most preferred method, followed by recycling and reuse, treatment, and lastly, land disposal.^[2] Land disposal is considered to be the most unsustainable approach because of the potential for toxic leachate and emissions impact the environment and public health, however, land disposal is often the selected management approach because of its cost-effectiveness and ease, or the waste may not be viable for other management methods within the hierarchy.^[3]

1. The stringency of the state’s hazardous waste. Since states’ RCRA programs must be at least as stringent as the federal program, California is authorized to implement a program that is broader in scope. The HWCL was enacted a few years prior to the enactment of RCRA and defined hazardous waste more broadly than federal laws and regulations. Waste classified as hazardous under federal law is denoted as RCRA hazardous waste, and waste classified as hazardous in California only is denoted as non-RCRA hazardous waste. Examples of non-RCRA hazardous waste include certain contaminated soils, treated wood waste, and used oil filters. Both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste, with few exceptions, are required to be managed under the provisions of the state’s program within state lines. If a generator of hazardous waste selects disposal as their management method and decides to manage the waste in California, then both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste must be disposed of at a federally permitted [Subtitle C] hazardous waste disposal facility.

The majority of hazardous waste generated in California is non-RCRA hazardous waste. According to the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, over 80% (17 million tons) of the manifested (tracked) hazardous waste generated in the state since 2010 was non-RCRA hazardous waste.² Contaminated soil from site cleanups makes up the largest hazardous waste stream every year, with an average of over half a million tons manifested every year. Between January 2010 and May 2022, over 93% of the manifested contaminated soil generated in the state was considered non-RCRA hazardous waste.²

The identification and classification of hazardous waste is essential in ensuring its effective management,³ and the current state regulation requiring the management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at federally permitted, Subtitle C facilities is intended to ensure a high level of protection against contamination entering the environment and impacting public health.

1. Subtitle C vs. Subtitle D facilities. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that manage hazardous waste are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. These federally permitted facilities are subject to stringent operational rules, requirements, and conditions, designed to prevent emissions or leakage of hazardous materials into the environment. There are currently two operating Subtitle C disposal facilities in California, both within the San Joaquin Valley:

• Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Kettleman Hills located in Kettleman City of Kings County; and
• Clean Harbors Buttonwillow located in Buttonwillow of Kern County.

In contrast, Subtitle D of RCRA establishes regulations for disposal facilities of non-hazardous, solid waste, such as municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. While Subtitle D facilities are still subject to minimum criteria for their operations and designs, they are inherently less protective than Subtitle C facilities and not designed to manage hazardous waste.

To landfill most non-RCRA hazardous waste, generators currently have the choice to manage at the in-state Subtitle C facilities, out-of-state Subtitle C facilities, and out-of-state Subtitle D MSW landfill facilities. This bill would eliminate the option of managing non-RCRA hazardous waste at the out-of-state Subtitle D facilities

1. A context of cost pressures. Subtitle C facilities, as well as many generators of RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste, are subject to regulatory fees that fund oversight from DTSC. Generators also face management fees from businesses, as they are required to properly transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of the hazardous waste they generate. The revenue from management fees supports these businesses, including Subtitle C disposal facilities, with their operation and maintenance costs, regulatory costs, and other expenses outside of profits. Subtitle C facilities can also be subject to additional costs embedded in the conditions of their permits and local agreements.

In recent years, and following DTSC Reform (SB 158, Senate Budget Committee, Chapter 73, Statutes of 2021), both generators and Subtitle C facilities have grappled with increases in regulatory costs and the overall cost of doing business. This has impacted the decisions of these entities, as they attempt to alleviate their cost pressures.

• 1. The decisions of generators. The cost pressures on some generators have resulted in the out-of-state management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at less-protective, Subtitle D facilities, where California’s HWCL does not apply. Because Subtitle D facilities are not subject to the same stringent requirements as Subtitle C facilities, they are less expensive to operate and maintain, thus more affordable for generators of non-RCRA hazardous waste. Estimates derived from DTSC have shown that the cost to manage non-RCRA hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities in-state can be about 20-60% higher than out-of-state disposal due to fees, taxes, and scheduling difficulties.^[4]

The non-RCRA hazardous waste that is ultimately managed out-of-state is primarily contaminated soil from site cleanups. While manifest data does not specify the generators, anecdotally, state agencies and developers, including those investing in affordable housing, are the culprits that seek relief to lower their management costs. The 2021 DTSC Reform, addressed a structural deficit at DTSC in part by sharply increasing developers’ regulatory fees by shifting to a flat-rate per-ton generation and handling fee. Developers have since sought financial relief from these higher fees through legislation and budget trailer bills (SB 143, Senate Budget Committee, Chapter 196, Statutes of 2023; SB 2686, Grayson, 2024; SB 328, Grayson, 2025). Although managing non-RCRA hazardous waste out-of-state does not reduce regulatory fees, it has provided developers with another pathway to lower costs with less expensive management methods.

• 1. The endeavors of Subtitle C facilities. Because a large portion of non-RCRA hazardous waste is being managed outside of the state, Subtitle C facilities receive less revenue to alleviate their cost pressures. While this bill would ensure the most protective management of non-RCRA hazardous waste, this bill, sponsored by Chemical Waste Management and Kings County, also has the effect of diverting the revenue associated with non-RCRA hazardous waste leaving the state to the state’s Subtitle C facilities, providing financial relief. This bill comes at a time when both Subtitle C facilities are nearing the end of the permit renewal process with DTSC, in which their draft permits present dozens of new permit conditions that are not only more protective, but more expensive. This bill still allows for Subtitle C facilities outside of the state to receive non-RCRA hazardous waste, however, logistically, it would favor the state’s facilities.

1. When waste makes haste across state lines. Despite California’s long-standing intention to manage its hazardous waste within state lines, much of California’s generated hazardous waste is managed outside the state.^[5] According to the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, nearly 57% of non-RCRA hazardous waste was managed at an out-of-state Subtitle D facility between 2010 and 2022.² Of the 42 other states that have managed California’s non-RCRA hazardous waste from 2010-2022, Utah and Arizona received the most (over 5.2 million tons).² Between 2018 and 2023, a CalMatters investigation found that California had disposed of over 600,000 tons of contaminated soil in Arizona Subtitle D landfills and nearly 1 million tons of contaminated soil in a Utah landfill, consisting of hazardous materials from redevelopment and military base cleanups across the state.⁴ This same investigation also found that even DTSC disposed of over 100,000 tons of contaminated soil from the Exide residential cleanup in an Arizona Subtitle D landfill due to costs, despite their regulatory role in overseeing the state’s more protective Subtitle C facilities.

Some of the Subtitle D landfills in Arizona that receive non-RCRA hazardous waste are within miles of Native American reservations and are subject to limited oversight. One of the landfills was found to have various issues by Arizona regulators between 2020 and 2022.⁴ While some waste industry experts and academics argue that modernized Subtitle D landfills are sufficiently protective to manage non-RCRA contaminated soil, presenting little risk, there is significant disagreement amongst other academics, environmental groups, and communities near these Subtitle D facilities.⁴

To prevent non-RCRA hazardous waste from being dumped in Subtitle D landfills, some states practice reciprocity, in which wastes considered hazardous in the state of origin are treated as hazardous in the state in which it is managed. Oregon and Nevada have adopted variations of this rule, and non-RCRA hazardous waste must be managed at a Subtitle C facility in those states.^[6],[7] It may not be likely that Utah or Arizona adopt similar reciprocity rules, as both states consider the economic benefits associated with receiving non-RCRA hazardous waste from California, to the benefit of some of the state’s generators.

SB 1289 would prevent non-RCRA hazardous waste from being disposed of in Subtitle D facilities in other states, including Arizona and Utah. This bill is similar to the reciprocity rules practiced in other states, but the restriction applies to hazardous waste generated within California.

1. A long history with the host communities. This bill comes at an existential moment for some of the state’s hazardous waste facilities, so there may be various significant consequences to its passage or failure. It is important to understand the history behind these facilities and their relationships with the host communities to understand the implications associated with this bill’s passage and failure and to address its complications.
   1. Kettleman City and WM Kettleman Hills. Kettleman Hills is located approximately three miles from the nearest community of Kettleman City, an unincorporated, farmworker community, whose population is over 98% Hispanic or Latino. Surrounded by farmland and nested between Interstate 5 and State Highway 41, the communities of Kettleman City are routinely exposed to trucking emissions and pesticides. Kettleman City experiences a higher pollution burden than over 80% of California, which includes poor air quality and impaired water quality, according to CalEnviroScreen,^[8] and face relatively higher socioeconomic and health burdens, including high rates in birth defects, respiratory diseases, and cancer.

Tensions between the residents of Kettleman City and Kettleman Hills date back to the 1980’s. Waste Management bought the landfill in 1979 and was authorized by DTSC to operate and dispose of hazardous waste, but the residents of Kettleman City were largely unaware of its operations. When an incinerator was proposed to be built at the Kettleman Hills facility in 1988, the residents of Kettleman City organized and filed a lawsuit and applied political pressure. Shortly after, Waste Management withdrew the proposal.^{[9],[10],[11],[12]}

In the late 2000’s, the community experienced a birth defect cluster suspected by the community to be connected to the operations and hazardous waste spills involving polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that occurred at Kettleman Hills around that time.^[13],[14] The Department of Public Health conducted an investigation and concluded that the overall birth defects rate in Kettleman City over the course of 20 years was not higher than expected and a common underlying cause could not be identified, though the investigation was limited in its ability to determine an environmental cause.^{[15],[16],[17]} Generally, the health risk assessments and other investigations conducted by Kettleman Hills and state agencies have claimed that there is no health risk to the residents of Kettleman City resulting from the facility’s operations.^{[18],[19],[20]}

In 2014, DTSC approved a permit modification that would have allowed Kettleman Hills to expand. In response, community organizations filed a Title VI Complaint with the U.S. EPA Office of Civil Rights against DTSC and CalEPA, alleging that the decision to approve the permit modification and permitting process was intentionally discriminatory against Latinos and Spanish-speaking individuals, and had an unlawful disparate impact on Latinos.¹⁰ This resulted in a settlement agreement in 2016 that required DTSC to undertake various efforts increasing environmental protections, ensuring compliance with civil rights laws, enhancing public engagement, and considering community vulnerability in the permit decision for Kettleman Hills.^[21]

Despite a more recent record of consistent compliance with hazardous waste laws,^[22] a near-zero violation scoring procedure (VSP) score,^[23] and stringent requirements for monitoring, emissions control and inspections,^[24] some community sentiments for the facility remain soured and many residents would prefer the operations at Kettleman Hills to cease. Environmental organizations and community members have continued to call for source reduction of hazardous waste such that it would be prevented from impacting communities near hazardous waste landfills. Other members of the community and environmental organizations also resent the long history of injustice, but acknowledge the need to manage hazardous waste responsibly and demand community benefits from the facility.

Kettleman Hills has provided funding for Kettleman City to access clean and affordable drinking water, create recreational spaces, and support educational programs.^19,[25] Aside from these benefits and others that resulted from the provisions under the Tanner Act (HSC § 25199.7) and the 2016 Settlement agreement, the residents of Kettleman City have been demanding certain improvements to the community for decades. Kings County collects a portion of Waste Management’s revenue through memorandums of understanding (MOU) and franchise and property taxes, generating funds on the order of millions annually. Kings County has noted that the revenue from Kettleman Hills makes up about 10% of the County’s general budget. Despite this cash flow to the County, anecdotally, the communities in Kettleman City have not received the outstanding benefits they so desire, and some say deserve. It is not clear to staff at this time what would prevent the County from directing additional funding from Kettleman Hills to Kettleman City. However, involved groups have suggested and implied that the lack of representation within County governance, challenges associated with unincorporated communities, and competing County funding priorities could present a few factors.

• 1. Buttonwillow and Clean Harbors Buttonwillow. Buttonwillow is also an unincorporated, farmworker community in Kern County, whose population is over 80% Hispanic or Latino. Similar to Kettleman City, Buttonwillow faces a higher pollution burden than 87% of California, with exposure threats from pesticides, impaired groundwater, and poor air quality.⁸

Historically, dynamics similar to Kettleman City have occurred in Buttonwillow. While the facility was under the ownership of Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., lack of representation in County governance, language barriers in and exclusion from participatory decision-making frameworks, and County taxes benefiting all but the community closest to the facility have strained the relationship between the community and facility.^[26] Additionally, a series of birth defects in the early 1990’s lead to an investigation that resulted in inconclusive results and the absence of evidence.⁹ The residents of Buttonwillow and community organizations have also fought previous expansion efforts of the facility and its intake of radioactive waste.^[27]

For a variety of reasons, advocacy against the Buttonwillow facility has waned over the years relative to that of Kettleman Hills^[28] and since the facility’s acquisition by Clean Harbors in 2002, investments have been made in the Buttonwillow community. Clean Harbors has indicated that the company has invested over $5.5 million in the Buttonwillow area, supporting ongoing activities that directly benefit the residents, focusing on education, environmental stewardship, and community.^[29]

There have been continued concerns within the last decade and as the facility works to renew its permit. Since 2017, several significant violations have been uncovered by DTSC at the facility,^[30] and Clean Harbors has since conducted corrective action and remediation efforts. Currently, Clean Harbors Buttonwillow has a relatively higher VSP score compared to Kettleman Hills but is considered within the acceptable compliance tier.²³

With a more recent expansion request with Kern County, in 2024, some residents expressed concerns on the impacts to the environment and quality of life of the community.^[31] As part of the Buttonwillow facility’s permit renewal process, community members expressed concerns related to birth defects, cancer rates, air and water quality. Residents also expressed the need for safer jobs in the community, and still the need for employment that Clean Harbors Buttonwillow provides.^[32]

The history and current relationships of these facilities to their host communities provides an important perspective with the consideration of this bill. While this bill would ultimately increase the revenues these facilities receive, which may (or may not) trickle down to and benefit these communities and the Counties of which they are sited, it would also increase the operations and amount of waste that enters these facilities. There are concerns from members of these communities and environmental organizations that the communities will have to bear the additional pollution burdens that would result from the enactment of this bill. Some have expressed that this bill perpetuates injustice and rewards these facilities, ignoring the discriminatory nature of which they were established. There are further considerations on how quickly the influx of non-RCRA hazardous waste to these facilities will reduce their capacity and lead to decisions of expansion, which may be complicated given that both communities have a history of successfully resisting previous attempts to expand.

1. Considering capacity. CERCLA Section 104(c)(9) requires that prior to the U.S. EPA providing federal funding for any remedial actions (Superfund), a state must assure 20 years of hazardous waste management capacity in the form of treatment or disposal Subtitle C facilities within the state and/or outside of the state in accordance with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority.^[33],[34] The intent of this requirement is to ensure that hazardous waste management capacity is available to avoid improper disposal and waste management issues.

If 20 years of capacity is not assured, then funds the state receives from the Superfund could be in jeopardy. The federal Superfund currently supports remediation of the state’s orphan sites.^[35] As of fiscal year 2025/2026, California maintains 22 sites that are active on the National Priorities List (NPL) and are partially funded with federal Superfund funding.^[36]

The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report estimated that the state’s two Subtitle C facilities had a combined remaining capacity of 20.1 years.² This estimate was based on the rate of disposal at that time and the 2019 National Capacity Assessment Report,^[37] which indicated that the two facilities had a total remaining permitted capacity of 9.7 million tons. The 2025 National Capacity Assessment Report indicates that the total remaining permitted capacity at the two state Subtitle C facilities at the end of 2023 was 9.3 million tons, so the time remaining may be comparable to DTSC’s 2023 estimate.³⁴

The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report estimated that the two facilities would have a combined remaining permitted capacity of 9.6 years if 100% of the state’s generated hazardous waste, RCRA and non-RCRA, were disposed of in the state. While this bill may not reduce the permitted capacity to 9.6 years, as generators will still manage their RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste at other Subtitle C facilities outside the state, it would reduce permitted capacity towards that figure. The rate at which it would be reduced depends on a variety of factors, including each facility’s operating capacity and generator management decisions.

SB 1289 would almost certainly reduce in-state capacity to under 20 years. This does not necessarily mean that the state would be ineligible for the federal Superfund, as California can assure additional capacity with Subtitle C facilities in other states. It is unclear to staff at this time the amount of capacity the state currently assures through interstate or regional agreements, but given that generators across the state have historically managed their hazardous waste at various Subtitle C facilities across the nation, it might be possible to ensure that the state’s access to the federal Superfund is unaffected.

If the state decided to assure additional capacity in-state, then the state would be faced with decisions to site new Subtitle C facilities or to expand its existing facilities. If these facilities were permitted to expand, they would be able to receive more hazardous waste in the long term, however, there are outstanding questions regarding how much they would be able to receive in the short term. These facilities can reach operational capacity or experience other operational constraints, as managing hazardous waste takes time and there are throughput limits for these facilities. This bill may risk acutely increasing the demand for hazardous waste management within the state because it would be more costly for generators to manage outside the state, while sharply decreasing the in-state supply for hazardous waste management. This raises a myriad of questions, discussed in comments 6 and 7 below.

1. SB 673: Cumulative impacts. In 2015, SB 673 (Lara, Chapter 611, Statutes of 2015) was signed into law to improve the permitting process for hazardous waste facilities with DTSC. Implementation of SB 673 provided DTSC with an opportunity to address long standing environmental justice concerns stemming from the location, operation, and expansion of hazardous waste facilities. The provisions of SB 673 provided for stronger permit criteria to further protect communities and consider “the vulnerability of, and existing health risks, to nearby populations” when issuing new or modified permits and permit renewals.

DTSC's efforts to implement SB 673 included dividing the regulations into two tracks.^[38] Notably, the draft regulations for the second track were proposed in November 2025 and included two permit criteria: community vulnerability and setback distances.^[39] Community vulnerability considers various factors that may put a population at risk of negative impacts, such as the environmental pollution burden, public health, and socioeconomic challenges a community may face. A community vulnerability profile would inform permit conditions to mitigate adverse impacts on the community. A setback distance is the distance between the location of a sensitive receptor that may experience the highest exposure hazards and a facility. Permit criteria that consider setback distances would initiate additional health risk assessments, propose permit conditions to reduce risk, or deny a permit application if it is not sufficiently protective.

Because these regulations are not finalized, though SB 673 was enacted over a decade ago, they did not apply to the permit renewals for the Kettleman Hills or Buttonwillow facilities. However, both draft permits include dozens of new permit conditions that are intended to increase compliance with the HWCL and environmental protections.^[40],[41]

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “SB 1289 strengthens California’s economic and environmental framework by ensuring that hazardous waste generated in the state is managed in a way that supports in-state investment, job creation, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Currently, nearly half of California’s hazardous waste is transported out of state and disposed of under less stringent federal standards. This dynamic not only undermines California’s environmental protections, but also results in lost economic opportunity, reduced demand for in-state hazardous waste infrastructure, and foregone state and local revenue tied to treatment, disposal, and regulatory oversight.

SB 1289 corrects this imbalance by aligning disposal practices with California’s higher standards, regardless of where the waste is ultimately managed. In doing so, the bill creates a more level playing field for in-state operators, encourages investment in hazardous waste facilities and technologies, and supports workforce development in a critical environmental sector. Equally important, this policy ensures that the true cost of hazardous waste management is borne responsibly. SB 1289 reaffirms California’s commitment to environmental stewardship while advancing an economic model that prioritizes accountability, sustainability, and equitable community protections.”

1. Increasing the pollution burden. This bill would ensure that all non-RCRA hazardous waste is managed at Subtitle C facilities. Although there are other Subtitle C facilities in Utah and Nevada, depending on the region, transportation to those facilities may present a cost barrier. It will likely be the most feasible for generators to manage their non-RCRA hazardous waste at Kettleman Hills or Buttonwillow.

This would increase truck traffic to these facilities, which would contribute to additional air emissions. The 2009 subsequent EIR for Kettleman Hills indicated that truck round-trips would not exceed a total of 568 trucks per day (400 for hazardous waste, 168 for non-hazardous waste).^[42] The EIR for Buttonwillow limits the amount of tonnage a facility can accept each day, which can influence a limit on daily truck traffic. The Buttonwillow facility could receive a maximum of 338 trucks per day. Both facilities have indicated that their limits have yet to be reached.^[43] However, the truck traffic that would result from this bill may be vastly different from what the host communities currently experience.

This bill would also result in additional emissions from the increased operations of these facilities, and the extent depends on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and efficacy of emissions controls.^[44],[45] Emissions and exposure to hazardous materials can also be related to compliance with hazardous waste control laws, as the regulations are designed to prevent accidents and releases of hazardous materials into the environment.

Compared to what the host communities currently perceive and experience, the additional emissions that would be generated as a result of this bill warrant consideration of current community needs and demands. Environmental groups and community members have stressed the importance of source reduction to eliminate the risk of exposure at the lower levels of the management hierarchy.

Some streams of non-RCRA hazardous waste, such as contaminated soil, cannot be reduced at the source as it may be excavated from site remediation projects. In these cases, investments in the other parts of the hazardous waste management hierarchy, including recycling, reuse, and treatment, would mitigate or avoid the pollution burdens associated with disposal. Promising technologies are not yet available at scale or are studied in laboratory settings,^{[46],[47],[48]} and there is a need to support generators with training programs and resource investment on the tools and technologies that are already at their disposal to manage hazardous waste with preferred methods.

State investment in source reduction and other preferred management methods should be prioritized and in the interest of the state, given the pollution burden communities carry and the ever-diminishing capacity of hazardous waste disposal facilities. Funding to support such programs and innovation is difficult to come by, and should this bill move forward and pass, the additional revenue this bill would bring from out-of-state back into the state could partially fund such efforts. The author may wish to consider mechanisms to invest in source reduction programs and more protective management technologies from a portion of the additional revenue that this bill would bring into the state.

1. Community benefits. In recognition of the history behind these facilities and their host communities, the pollution burden associated with these facilities, and the additional burdens this bill would bring, the author has indicated a strong desire for benefits for the host communities. Acknowledging the significant contributions that these hazardous waste disposal facilities have made to the County budgets and local initiatives, this bill ensures financial solvency for the facilities, keeping them as an essential local source of revenue. This is particularly vital at a time where federal funding cuts have caused disruptions to critical programs impacting the lives of people in these very communities.

The benefits host communities receive can fall short, however, as the host communities exist within unincorporated areas within the counties. For a variety of reasons, this can make it more difficult for funding to trickle down to the specific needs of the host communities. There is a need for targeted efforts to ensure that the host communities receive their fair share.

While there is no amount of compensation that could offset or resolve historical injustice and impacts to community health, diverting funds to serve the needs of the host communities is the least that should be done. Should this bill pass with the intent of increasing facility and local revenue, it would be remiss to not consider an opportunity to benefit the host communities, since SB 1289 would bring revenue from out-of-state back into the state. How this would be accomplished in this bill, however, is an open question.

There are three potential sources of revenues to fund community benefits implicated by SB 1289: the generators of non-RCRA hazardous waste, the Subtitle C facilities, and the counties. Each of these sources would come with trade-offs and would likely involve levying a new tax or fee. Although addressing the impacts of hazardous waste disposal facilities on nearby communities falls within this committee’s purview, developing policies to raise and direct local funds does not.

Given the author’s justified interest in ensuring benefits are provided to the communities around hazardous waste disposal facilities, further amendments will be necessary to this bill that are beyond the scope of this analysis. The author is strongly encouraged to work with the appropriate policy committees and stakeholders to develop such policy with the necessary consideration of Constitutional restrictions and other policy issues.

Because this bill is singly referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, and including community benefits would significantly impede on other policy committee jurisdictions, including, but not limited to Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee and Senate Local Government Committee, then it is in the best interest of the author and committee to proceed with an understanding that this work would be underway.

This bill could represent an important opportunity to address historical environmental injustices in the host communities of California’s two Subtitle C facilities, but doing so would require substantial amendments that would have to be made in the second house. Such amendments are beyond this committee’s purview but are indispensable in response to the additional pollution burden host communities would experience as a result of this bill.

Should the committee wish to advance this measure, the author and committee may wish to consider establishing a firm commitment to develop a framework for community benefits with review by the appropriate policy committees.

1. The management of treated wood waste. Although contaminated soil is the most abundant type of non-RCRA hazardous waste generated in the state, other materials such as used oil filters and treated wood waste (TWW) exist as well. TWW has alternative management standards designed to encourage safe and cost-effective disposal, which includes enabling disposal at an authorized Subtitle D facility instead of disposal at a Subtitle C facility.^2,[49],[50]

Alternative management standards for TWW have been a long-standing practice since 2004. When SB 68 (Galgiani, 2020), which removed the sunset for alternative management standards for TWW, was vetoed, generators of TWW, homeowners, landfills, and DTSC faced various waste management challenges.² As a result, DTSC granted variances for the disposal of TWW until AB 332 (Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Chapter 147, Statutes of 2021) restored the alternative management standards for TWW.

This bill applies broadly to all non-RCRA hazardous waste, looping TWW back into disposal requirements at Subtitle C facilities, which will create confusion and cost pressures for generators of TWW. There are several potential approaches to resolve this issue. Although an exemption for TWW could be applied to stay consistent with current management practices, this could set a precedent for other carveouts. Targeting a specific waste stream, such as contaminated soil, would avoid looping in other waste streams, and an incentive approach might avoid other unintended consequences, as described in comment 8.

1. Expanding landfill capacity. If the state decided to assure additional capacity in-state, then the state would be faced with decisions to site new Subtitle C facilities or to expand its existing facilities. Both facilities have indicated intent to expand their permitted capacity if this bill were to be enacted, as they own more land than is currently permitted.

Expansions have already taken place over the last decade. In 2009, Kings County approved an expansion for Kettleman Hills which included an existing hazardous waste landfill unit (B-18) and additional hazardous waste landfill unit (B-20) and certified a final subsequent EIR, pursuant to CEQA. The expansion of the B-18 landfill unit was permitted by DTSC in 2014, but the B-20 landfill unit has yet to be permitted.^[51],[52] Kern County approved a request from Clean Harbors Buttonwillow in 2024 that would allow the Buttonwillow facility to expand its capacity for storage, treatment, recycling, and landfilling. The landfill expansion is primarily for non-hazardous waste, but DTSC is in the process of approving four new hazardous waste treatment buildings associated with the expansion.^31,[53]

The Buttonwillow facility has a remaining maximum permitted hazardous waste landfill capacity of over 6 million tons as of the end of 2023.³⁴ Assuming similar rates of disposal as estimated in the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, approximately 12 years of capacity remain at this facility. This figure represents a ceiling, as this is based on data from 3 years ago and this bill would significantly reduce that capacity. Kettleman Hills, on the other hand, has 3.3 million tons of permitted hazardous waste landfill capacity remaining. This equates to approximately 8 years of permitted capacity remaining, another ceiling that would lower with the enactment of this bill.

Whether or not SB 1289 is enacted, another hazardous waste landfill expansion at either facility could be anticipated within the next 10 years. Given that the host communities have fought expansions for both facilities in the past, future expansions are likely to be controversial and if California decides to manage its hazardous waste at either of these facilities, it will be important to understand potential environmental impacts, involve the public, uplift their concerns, and address them.

If either facility were to expand their permitted capacity for hazardous waste management and disposal further, then the facilities would need to submit a Class III permit modification application to DTSC as it constitutes a significant change in facility operations (40 CFR § 270.42(c)). These modifications can be subject to certain provisions of CEQA and other provisions within the HWCL prior to approval. Outlined below are recommendations to improve the review process— specifically for Class III modifications as it pertains to the expansion of Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facilities.

• 1. Early engagement during preliminary review. In accordance with CEQA, when a facility submits an application for a Class III modification to DTSC, DTSC has 30 days to review the application for completeness before deciding to conduct an initial study or prepare an EIR. During this time, DTSC is to be alert for any environmental issues that would require an EIR or additional information from the applicant. This is an ideal time to raise any additional information or perspective on environmental impacts that might influence the decision to prepare an EIR or investigate potentially significant environmental impacts. Members of the Board of Environmental Safety (BES), who have actively engaged with the public and host communities, could be authorized to provide additional insights or indicate the need for an EIR, as necessary. The participation of any member of BES in the preliminary review would need to be done in accordance with any meeting restrictions pursuant to Article 2.1 of Chapter 6.5 of HSC.

DTSC may also engage with the applicant, upon their request, and prior to the submission of their application through consultation to discuss potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and potential significant effects on the environment. DTSC may include any public agency in this consultation that would have an interest in the proposed project. This could also be an opportunity for members of BES to engage. The author and committee may wish to consider authorizing BES to engage during preliminary review, as described in the CEQA guidelines, or after for Class III modifications. Functionally, this would include:

• • 1. Requiring the applicant to send notice of a modification request to BES;
    2. Requiring DTSC to consult with any member of BES during preliminary review or after upon their request and within existing resources;
    3. Requiring DTSC to send any member of BES an initial study, if applicable and upon request; and
    4. Authorizing DTSC to include any member of BES during a preapplication consultation and authorizing any member of BES to participate within existing resources.
  1. Addressing outdated EIRs & public review. If DTSC decides to prepare an EIR, the agency will rely on the most recent EIR and additional CEQA documents to impose additional mitigation measures or conditions on the permit modification. A Class III modification would trigger an analysis of previous CEQA documents to determine if project changes or new information reveal new significant impacts. If new significant or increased impacts are found, then DTSC will prepare an EIR, subsequent EIR, or supplemental EIR and identify mitigation measures. If no significant new impacts are found, then DTSC may prepare an Addendum. Addenda are prepared when there are minor technical changes and they analyze how the conditions that trigger subsequent or supplemental EIRs do not apply.

Typically, the preliminary review and/or initial study determine whether there would be significant impacts or new information, triggering an EIR. Initial studies are not required in advance of an addendum. Although DTSC has previously issued an initial study alongside an addendum for a Class III modification, it is possible that an addendum could be prepared without the full evaluation of an initial study, and potential significant impacts may be overlooked.

EIRs, including subsequent and supplemental EIRs, tend to be outdated. The most recent [subsequent] EIR for Kettleman Hills was prepared in 2009, and the expansion modification in 2014 and renewed draft permit in 2024 relied on the 2009 EIR with addenda prepared.^52,[54]

Since the subsequent EIR for one of the facilities is over 15 years old and an expansion of either facility would be anticipated within 10 years, an initial study may be worth conducting to ensure that there are no new significant impacts prior to the preparation of an addendum. The author and committee may wish to consider requiring the conduct of an initial study for projects with full, subsequent, or supplemental EIRs prepared more than five years prior to the submission of an application for a Class III modification.

Additionally, addenda are not required to be circulated for public review. DTSC has previously circulated addenda voluntarily,⁵² however, this is not guaranteed. To increase transparency and public review, the author and committee may wish to consider requiring the circulation of any prepared addenda for a Class III modification.

• 1. Considering cumulative impacts. As highlighted in the background, SB 673 required DTSC to establish additional permit criteria for hazardous waste management facilities that consider the cumulative impacts to communities. According to the proposed regulations, permit modifications may not be subject to certain requirements, such as the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and transparency and accessibility mechanisms. Many permit modifications, such as Class I or II, can be minor or administrative, implicating little to no impact on the public or environment. Class III modifications tend to major, such as hazardous waste landfill expansion and the addition of new treatment or storage units.

SB 673 proposed implementing regulations allow DTSC discretion in requiring an HHRA for Class III modifications, which implies that any hazardous waste landfill expansion may not require a human health risk assessment. HHRAs can provide additional information and be important in understanding community vulnerability. With the addition of new landfill units or certain types of waste being introduced to the facility, it may be important to understand the compounding effects such activities may have and mitigate them where possible. The author and committee may wish to consider requiring the completion of an HHRA in accordance with SB 673 and its implementing regulations for Class III modifications.

1. Reaching operational capacity. The design of a hazardous waste facility comes with various physical and operational constraints,^2,[55] which can determine how much waste a facility can accept over a period of time. This bill would significantly increase the amount of waste managed at the two in-state facilities, which could result in operational capacity. Although reaching operational capacity would bring significant additional revenues to these facilities, doing so would also limit disposal options for generators.

Even before this bill was proposed, generators have been turned away from in-state facilities due to operational constraints, maintenance, or other technical issues.^2,4 The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report noted that hazardous waste landfills are “under no obligation to accept every waste presented to them.” This could be further complicated with any anticipated expansion. In the past, Kettleman Hills slowed down operations and accepted less waste while awaiting approval of their permit modification. As a result, the proportion of hazardous waste shipped out of state increased from 25% to 50%.²

If operational capacity is reached, the implications for generators can be costly. Generators would face higher transportation costs, as the nearest Subtitle C facilities in Utah and Nevada are over 300 to nearly 700 miles away from the state’s major metropolitan areas, compared to both in-state facilities that are less than 300 miles away. If transportation costs are too high, then generators may be forced to wait in line to manage at the in-state facilities, which could lead to uncontrolled stockpiling and delays in remediation projects, including that of housing development and transmission undergrounding. Management costs at the in-state facilities could also rise, as increasing the amount of waste managed at a facility increases operational costs.⁵⁵ These costs would ultimately be passed down to generators.

There could be costs to public health and the environment if generators are left with no choice but to illegally dump their hazardous waste.^[56],[57] Previous state legislation that would have capped the amount of hazardous waste a facility could accept raised concerns of illegal dumping (AB 2870, Bronzan, 1985). SB 1289 would have a similar effect.^[58] And given previous attempts to establish alternative management standards for non-RCRA hazardous waste,^[59],[60] controversial legislative and regulatory efforts may emerge, as generators may attempt to increase access to management options and lower costs. These efforts may reflect deregulation and act to reduce the stringency of hazardous waste criteria.

With this bill, are the in-state facilities biting off more than they can chew? Mandating the management of all non-RCRA hazardous waste, essentially at the only two in-state facilities, has ramifications beyond their financial solvency. If the state should choose to maintain these facilities, striking a balance that increases facility revenues yet ensures accessibility of management options is critical to affordability, the pursuit of state priorities, and protecting the environment and public health. It is highly recommended to consider an incentive approach instead of a mandate, and an alternative approach is described in comment 8 below.

1. A limited market. To landfill most non-RCRA hazardous waste, generators currently have the choice to manage at the in-state Subtitle C facilities, out-of-state Subtitle C facilities, and out-of-state Subtitle D MSW landfill facilities. This bill would eliminate the option of managing non-RCRA hazardous waste at the out-of-state Subtitle D facilities. Although this is in favor of arguments expressing a need to protect communities near Subtitle D facilities from potential exposure due to less protective management practices, this approach to restrict management decisions could lead to unfavorable consequences for the generators and the environment.

If this bill were enacted, the nearest options for hazardous waste land disposal from major metropolitan areas of the state would be the two in-state facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, a facility in Beatty, Nevada (Republic Services US Ecology), and two facilities in Utah (Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain and EnergySolutions Clive Facility). Because the cost of management at all Subtitle C facilities are higher relative to Subtitle D facilities and transportation costs will be higher for out-of-state management, it would be more cost-effective for generators to manage at the in-state facilities. This could give Waste Management and Clean Harbors more control over the market with competition eliminated and increase uncertainty in management costs, potentially leading to cost increases for generators. This would impact all generators, including smaller businesses, hospitals, utilities, municipalities, state agencies, housing developers, and more. Because of the broader potential impacts to generators, costs may be externalized and passed down to consumers, affecting affordability.

Furthermore, if this bill were enacted, it may be vulnerable to successful legal challenges in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, interpreted by the Supreme Court restricts states from erecting trade barriers and considers waste to be an article of commerce. Arguments made by opposing groups have asserted that by mandating the management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at certain facilities and prohibiting the export of waste to out-of-state facilities, the provisions of SB 1289 indirectly control the national market for waste and infringe on the sovereignty of neighboring states by preventing facilities considered federally qualified to manage non-RCRA hazardous waste from receiving waste. Proponents of the bill have argued that these provisions would not be ruled unconstitutional, since SB 1289 still allows for the export of non-RCRA hazardous waste outside of the state to other Subtitle C facilities. Ultimately, it is for the Courts to decide.

If enacted, the author and sponsors do risk subjecting these provisions to legal battles and if the provisions are deemed unconstitutional, thus null, the pursuit for financial solvency through this approach would be in vain. It is highly recommended to consider an incentive approach instead of a mandate to avoid Constitutional violations, potential monopolies, and broader financial impacts to generators and consumers. An alternative approach is described in comment 8 below.

1. Incentives, not mandates. In summary, in an attempt to generate revenue for in-state Subtitle C facilities and protect communities near out-of-state Subtitle D facilities, this bill would inadvertently raise costs and uncertainty for generators, lower access to hazardous waste management options, and sharply reduce in-state capacity, all while increasing the pollution burden for the historically marginalized host communities of these facilities. Recognizing the relative importance of maintaining these facilities within the state, it may be in the interest of the committee to provide the author with an opportunity to explore alternative solutions that consider the operational constraints of these facilities, generate sufficient revenue, and mitigate unintended consequences. Carefully crafting an incentive to responsibly manage non-RCRA hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities may present a path forward.

One such approach involves tying this bill to SB 328 (Grayson, 2025), currently pending in Assembly Appropriations. SB 328 seeks to impose regulatory fee caps on the generation and handling fee paid to DTSC for generators of hazardous waste from infill housing and master development projects. SB 1289 could instead include contingencies that would condition the fee caps in SB 328 on management at Subtitle C facilities, along with creating community benefits. The proposal would target both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste that is generated by developers. Compared to the current proposal, this approach has many advantages, as it would:

1. Target the generators that typically send hazardous waste out-of-state to Subtitle D facilities, rewarding environmental stewardship;
2. Reduce the impact on host communities (comment 2);
3. Reduce the impact on in-state disposal capacity (comment 5);
4. Avoid management complications with other types of non-RCRA hazardous waste (comment 4);
5. Avoid in-state operational constraints and ensure accessibility of management options for generators (comment 6); and
6. Maintain a competitive market between Subtitle C and D facilities, avoiding price hikes and uncertainties in management costs (comment 7).

While there may be open questions with this approach, the committee may find it worth exploring when faced with the various issues associated with SB 1289 as proposed. The author could continue to work with Senator Grayson to explore this pathway or alternative pathways that incentivize, instead of mandate, responsible management of hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities.

Going forward, the author and committee may wish to consider exploring opportunities to make regulatory fee caps for developers conditional on hazardous waste management at Subtitle C facilities, or alternative pathways that incentivize the responsible management of hazardous waste.

1. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee establish a firm commitment as described in comment 3 and adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment 5 above.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 328 (Grayson, 2025) would cap the hazardous waste G&H Fee at specified amounts for certain housing and master development projects. SB 328 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 158 (Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, Chapter 73, Statutes of 2021) mandated several policy reforms to DTSC, stabilized funding, and created the BES.  Enacted fee reform by eliminating and modifying some fees, including repealing the generator fee and establishing a new generation and handling fee. 

SB 673 (Lara, Chapter 611, Statutes of 2015) required DTSC to adopt regulations establishing criteria used for the issuance of a new or modified permit or renewal of a permit, including criteria for the vulnerability of, and existing health risks to, nearby populations.

SOURCE:

Kings County Board of Supervisors

Waste Management

SUPPORT:

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, INC.
Kings; County of
WM (Waste Management)

OPPOSITION:

1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations
1heartcares of LA Jolla, San Diego, Del Mar, Oceanside and LA Mesa.
Apex Diesel Repair
Avenal Care
Bayview Hunters Point Mothers and Fathers Committee
Bluezone Health Solutions
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Citizens for Chiquita Canyon Closure
Clever Community Development
Coalition of Filipino American Chambers of Commerce
Del Amo Action Committee
Del Mar Dog Rescue
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Cerritos (FAC3)
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Greater San Diego
Fix Auto Poway
Gaia (global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives)
Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Benicia
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Jesse Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership
Mapleview Bnm LLC
Middle Eastern and North American Chamber of Commerce
National Diversity Coalition
New Beginnings CDC
Optimist International Sacramento
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Republic Services
Robin Hilton Land and Tree Company, INC.
Sd Business Solutions, INC
South Asian Biz Alliance Network (SABAN)
Sweetwater Bnm LLC
Valley Improvement Projects (VIP)
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs

-- END --

1. Rosli, N.A., et. al. (2023). Management of Various Sources of Hazardous Waste. ↑

2. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). Hazardous Waste Management Report. ↑

3. Kumar, A. (2023). A critical review on sustainable hazardous waste management strategies: a step towards a circular economy. ↑

4. Lewis, R. (2023). California Toxics: Out of state, out of mind. ↑

5. California Governor’s Office. (1989). The State of California Capacity Assurance Plan for Hazardous Waste Management. ↑

6. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2026). Solid waste: General Provisions. ↑

7. Nevada Administrative Codes 444.8565(b). ↑

8. Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment. (2026). Draft CalEnviroScreen 5.0. ↑

9. Cole, L. W. and Foster, S. R. (2001). From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. ↑

10. Cabrera, Y. (2024). The decades-long fight in a community treated as a dumping ground. ↑

11. California Air Resources Board Environmental Justice. (2020). Kettleman City Environmental Justice Storytelling. ↑

12. UC Irvine EcoGovLab. (2023). Kettleman City, California: Birthplace of California’s Environmental Justice Movement. ↑

13. Leslie, J. (2010). What’s Killing the Babies of Kettleman City?. ↑

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. (2010). TSCA Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report. ↑

15. California Department of Public Health. (2010). Birth Defects in Kettleman City. ↑

16. Adams, J. (2010). Kettleman City cleft deformities raise questions of a cluster case. ↑

17. California Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA. ↑

18. Wenck Associates, Inc. and AECOM. (2013). Annual Screening Level Health Risk Assessment ES (Draft). ↑

19. Waste Management, Inc. (2026). Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Draft Environmental Justice Analysis for the Kettleman Hills Facility Proposed TSCA Permit. ↑

21. Altshuler Berzon LLP. (2023). Kettleman Civil Rights Analysis. ↑

22. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. (2026). Chemical Waste Management Inc Kettleman. ↑

23. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). Violations Scoring Procedure (VSP). ↑

24. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2014). DTSC Finalizes Permit Modification for Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility. ↑

25. Kings County Local Assessment Committee. (2009). Final Report and Recommendation: Kettleman Hills Facility Hazardous Waste Facility Expansion Project. ↑

26. Tan, E. (1995). Grassroots struggle for environmental justice: the need for a new approach to public health in Kern County California. ↑

27. Johnson, J. (2002). Field Workers Finally Win Fight with Dump. ↑

28. Wohlmuth, E. (2010). Situating Cost-Benefit Analysis for Environmental Justice. ↑

29. Clean Harbors. (2026). Buttonwillow Facility. ↑

30. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. (2026). Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC. ↑

31. Segall, P. (2024). Supervisors approve expansion for Buttonwillow waste facility. ↑

32. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Public Participation Plan. ↑

33. U.S. Code Title 42 § 9604. ↑

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). National Capacity Assessment Report. ↑

35. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). State Superfund Program. ↑

36. California Department of Finance. (2025). Budget Change Proposal: National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites. ↑

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). National Capacity Assessment Report. ↑

38. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). SB 673 Permit Criteria – Community Protection. ↑

39. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Criteria for Additional Community Protections: Proposed Regulatory Text. ↑

40. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2024). Public Notice for Proposed Renewal of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: Chemical Waste Management Inc. Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

41. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Public Notice for Proposed Renewal of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow. ↑

42. CH2M Hill. (2009). Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report: B-18/B-20 Hazardous Waste Disposal Project, Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

43. Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC. (2024). Draft Environmental Impact Report. ↑

44. Shen, T. T. (1981). Control Techniques for Gas Emissions from Hazardous Waste Landfills. ↑

45. Ravina, M., et. al. (2020). Halocarbon Emissions from Hazardous Waste Landfills: Analysis of Sources and Risks. ↑

46. Yu, Y. H., et. al. (2020). Hazardous waste treatment technologies. ↑

47. Marrone, P. A. (2013). Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction. ↑

48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Potential PFAS Destruction Technology: Supercritical Water Oxidation. ↑

49. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). Treated Wood Waste (TWW). ↑

50. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). DTSC Requirements for Generators of Treated Wood Waste. ↑

51. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2014). Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. ↑

52. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2013). Addendum & Initial Study to the final SEIR for the Existing B-18 Class I/Class II Landfill Expansion Project: Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

53. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Addendum to Previously Certified EIR: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC – Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal. ↑

54. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). Addendum to the final EIR for Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

55. Dhewa, D. (1999). Optimization of regional hazardous waste management systems: an improved formulation. ↑

56. Schwartz, S. I., et. al. (1989). Improving Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations among Small Businesses. ↑

57. Hohl, B. C., et. al. (2023). Community identified characteristics related to illegal dumping. ↑

58. Lennard, C. and Belsher, J. (1987). Hazardous Waste: The Failure of the California Regulatory Framework. ↑

59. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Goal 7: Identify alternative management standards for certain non-RCRA hazardous wastes. ↑

60. Board of Environmental Safety. (2025). Agenda Item 4 – DTSC 2025 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Blakespear, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 1289

SUBJECT: Hazardous materials: non-RCRA hazardous waste: landfill disposal

DIGEST: This bill requires non-Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste that is destined for land disposal to only be disposed of in a federally permitted hazardous waste landfill (regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA).

ANALYSIS:

Existing federal law:

1. Establishes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to authorize the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to manage hazardous and non-hazardous wastes throughout its life cycle. (42 United States Code (USC) §§ 6901 et seq.)
2. Establishes Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 to provide a federal “Superfund” to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites as well as accidents, spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment. (42 USC §§ 9601 et seq.)
3. Prohibits the federal administration from providing any remedial actions to a state unless the state assures the availability of a hazardous waste disposal facility in compliance with federal requirements for the management of hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA, as specified. (42 USC § 9604(c)(3))
4. Requires a permitted facility to submit a permit modification request to the director of a state program to make changes to a hazardous waste facility permit. (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 270.42)

Existing state law:

1. Establishes the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) to authorize the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to regulate the management of hazardous wastes in California. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 25100 et seq.)
2. Requires DTSC to develop and adopt regulatory criteria and guidelines for the identification of hazardous wastes and extremely hazardous wastes. (HSC § 25141(a))
3. Authorizes DTSC to issue permits for the use and operation of one or more hazardous waste management units at a facility that meets the standards adopted pursuant to the HWCL. (HSC § 25200 (a))
4. Requires DTSC, on or before January 1, 2018, to adopt regulations establishing or updating criteria used for the issuance of a new or modified permit or renewal of a permit, including addressing cumulative impacts. (HSC § 25200.21)
5. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to spearhead an environmental impact report (EIR) for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a negative declaration (ND) for a project that will have no significant effects on the environment, or a mitigated negative declaration (MND) for projects that have no significant effects after mitigation. (Public Resources Code (PRC) §§ 21000 et seq.; 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §§ 15000 et seq.)
6. Establishes the Board of Environmental Safety (BES) within DTSC with five voting members that represent the general public interest and act to protect public health and reduce risks of toxic exposure with a particular focus on disproportionately burdened and vulnerable communities. (HSC § 25125)

This bill requires non-RCRA hazardous waste that is destined for land disposal to only be disposed of in a landfill regulated by Subtitle C of RCRA.

Background

1. The hazardous waste management hierarchy. To ensure protections for public health and the environment, hazardous wastes are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA, which establishes a program that provides the safe management of hazardous waste from its generation to disposal or “cradle-to-grave.” Most states have been authorized to implement some or all of the RCRA Subtitle C program. State RCRA programs must be at least as stringent as the federal program, but states can also adopt more stringent requirements. In California, the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) implements and enforces the federal hazardous waste law and authorizes DTSC to regulate the management of hazardous waste in the state.

DTSC’s approach to hazardous waste management incorporates the concept of a “waste management hierarchy,” as the hierarchy is crucial for minimizing the adverse effect of hazardous waste on human health and the environment.^[1] In the hierarchy, source reduction is the most preferred method, followed by recycling and reuse, treatment, and lastly, land disposal.^[2] Land disposal is considered to be the most unsustainable approach because of the potential for toxic leachate and emissions impact the environment and public health, however, land disposal is often the selected management approach because of its cost-effectiveness and ease, or the waste may not be viable for other management methods within the hierarchy.^[3]

1. The stringency of the state’s hazardous waste. Since states’ RCRA programs must be at least as stringent as the federal program, California is authorized to implement a program that is broader in scope. The HWCL was enacted a few years prior to the enactment of RCRA and defined hazardous waste more broadly than federal laws and regulations. Waste classified as hazardous under federal law is denoted as RCRA hazardous waste, and waste classified as hazardous in California only is denoted as non-RCRA hazardous waste. Examples of non-RCRA hazardous waste include certain contaminated soils, treated wood waste, and used oil filters. Both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste, with few exceptions, are required to be managed under the provisions of the state’s program within state lines. If a generator of hazardous waste selects disposal as their management method and decides to manage the waste in California, then both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste must be disposed of at a federally permitted [Subtitle C] hazardous waste disposal facility.

The majority of hazardous waste generated in California is non-RCRA hazardous waste. According to the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, over 80% (17 million tons) of the manifested (tracked) hazardous waste generated in the state since 2010 was non-RCRA hazardous waste.² Contaminated soil from site cleanups makes up the largest hazardous waste stream every year, with an average of over half a million tons manifested every year. Between January 2010 and May 2022, over 93% of the manifested contaminated soil generated in the state was considered non-RCRA hazardous waste.²

The identification and classification of hazardous waste is essential in ensuring its effective management,³ and the current state regulation requiring the management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at federally permitted, Subtitle C facilities is intended to ensure a high level of protection against contamination entering the environment and impacting public health.

1. Subtitle C vs. Subtitle D facilities. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities that manage hazardous waste are regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA. These federally permitted facilities are subject to stringent operational rules, requirements, and conditions, designed to prevent emissions or leakage of hazardous materials into the environment. There are currently two operating Subtitle C disposal facilities in California, both within the San Joaquin Valley:

• Chemical Waste Management, Inc. Kettleman Hills located in Kettleman City of Kings County; and
• Clean Harbors Buttonwillow located in Buttonwillow of Kern County.

In contrast, Subtitle D of RCRA establishes regulations for disposal facilities of non-hazardous, solid waste, such as municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills. While Subtitle D facilities are still subject to minimum criteria for their operations and designs, they are inherently less protective than Subtitle C facilities and not designed to manage hazardous waste.

To landfill most non-RCRA hazardous waste, generators currently have the choice to manage at the in-state Subtitle C facilities, out-of-state Subtitle C facilities, and out-of-state Subtitle D MSW landfill facilities. This bill would eliminate the option of managing non-RCRA hazardous waste at the out-of-state Subtitle D facilities

1. A context of cost pressures. Subtitle C facilities, as well as many generators of RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste, are subject to regulatory fees that fund oversight from DTSC. Generators also face management fees from businesses, as they are required to properly transport, treat, store, and/or dispose of the hazardous waste they generate. The revenue from management fees supports these businesses, including Subtitle C disposal facilities, with their operation and maintenance costs, regulatory costs, and other expenses outside of profits. Subtitle C facilities can also be subject to additional costs embedded in the conditions of their permits and local agreements.

In recent years, and following DTSC Reform (SB 158, Senate Budget Committee, Chapter 73, Statutes of 2021), both generators and Subtitle C facilities have grappled with increases in regulatory costs and the overall cost of doing business. This has impacted the decisions of these entities, as they attempt to alleviate their cost pressures.

• 1. The decisions of generators. The cost pressures on some generators have resulted in the out-of-state management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at less-protective, Subtitle D facilities, where California’s HWCL does not apply. Because Subtitle D facilities are not subject to the same stringent requirements as Subtitle C facilities, they are less expensive to operate and maintain, thus more affordable for generators of non-RCRA hazardous waste. Estimates derived from DTSC have shown that the cost to manage non-RCRA hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities in-state can be about 20-60% higher than out-of-state disposal due to fees, taxes, and scheduling difficulties.^[4]

The non-RCRA hazardous waste that is ultimately managed out-of-state is primarily contaminated soil from site cleanups. While manifest data does not specify the generators, anecdotally, state agencies and developers, including those investing in affordable housing, are the culprits that seek relief to lower their management costs. The 2021 DTSC Reform, addressed a structural deficit at DTSC in part by sharply increasing developers’ regulatory fees by shifting to a flat-rate per-ton generation and handling fee. Developers have since sought financial relief from these higher fees through legislation and budget trailer bills (SB 143, Senate Budget Committee, Chapter 196, Statutes of 2023; SB 2686, Grayson, 2024; SB 328, Grayson, 2025). Although managing non-RCRA hazardous waste out-of-state does not reduce regulatory fees, it has provided developers with another pathway to lower costs with less expensive management methods.

• 1. The endeavors of Subtitle C facilities. Because a large portion of non-RCRA hazardous waste is being managed outside of the state, Subtitle C facilities receive less revenue to alleviate their cost pressures. While this bill would ensure the most protective management of non-RCRA hazardous waste, this bill, sponsored by Chemical Waste Management and Kings County, also has the effect of diverting the revenue associated with non-RCRA hazardous waste leaving the state to the state’s Subtitle C facilities, providing financial relief. This bill comes at a time when both Subtitle C facilities are nearing the end of the permit renewal process with DTSC, in which their draft permits present dozens of new permit conditions that are not only more protective, but more expensive. This bill still allows for Subtitle C facilities outside of the state to receive non-RCRA hazardous waste, however, logistically, it would favor the state’s facilities.

1. When waste makes haste across state lines. Despite California’s long-standing intention to manage its hazardous waste within state lines, much of California’s generated hazardous waste is managed outside the state.^[5] According to the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, nearly 57% of non-RCRA hazardous waste was managed at an out-of-state Subtitle D facility between 2010 and 2022.² Of the 42 other states that have managed California’s non-RCRA hazardous waste from 2010-2022, Utah and Arizona received the most (over 5.2 million tons).² Between 2018 and 2023, a CalMatters investigation found that California had disposed of over 600,000 tons of contaminated soil in Arizona Subtitle D landfills and nearly 1 million tons of contaminated soil in a Utah landfill, consisting of hazardous materials from redevelopment and military base cleanups across the state.⁴ This same investigation also found that even DTSC disposed of over 100,000 tons of contaminated soil from the Exide residential cleanup in an Arizona Subtitle D landfill due to costs, despite their regulatory role in overseeing the state’s more protective Subtitle C facilities.

Some of the Subtitle D landfills in Arizona that receive non-RCRA hazardous waste are within miles of Native American reservations and are subject to limited oversight. One of the landfills was found to have various issues by Arizona regulators between 2020 and 2022.⁴ While some waste industry experts and academics argue that modernized Subtitle D landfills are sufficiently protective to manage non-RCRA contaminated soil, presenting little risk, there is significant disagreement amongst other academics, environmental groups, and communities near these Subtitle D facilities.⁴

To prevent non-RCRA hazardous waste from being dumped in Subtitle D landfills, some states practice reciprocity, in which wastes considered hazardous in the state of origin are treated as hazardous in the state in which it is managed. Oregon and Nevada have adopted variations of this rule, and non-RCRA hazardous waste must be managed at a Subtitle C facility in those states.^[6],[7] It may not be likely that Utah or Arizona adopt similar reciprocity rules, as both states consider the economic benefits associated with receiving non-RCRA hazardous waste from California, to the benefit of some of the state’s generators.

SB 1289 would prevent non-RCRA hazardous waste from being disposed of in Subtitle D facilities in other states, including Arizona and Utah. This bill is similar to the reciprocity rules practiced in other states, but the restriction applies to hazardous waste generated within California.

1. A long history with the host communities. This bill comes at an existential moment for some of the state’s hazardous waste facilities, so there may be various significant consequences to its passage or failure. It is important to understand the history behind these facilities and their relationships with the host communities to understand the implications associated with this bill’s passage and failure and to address its complications.
   1. Kettleman City and WM Kettleman Hills. Kettleman Hills is located approximately three miles from the nearest community of Kettleman City, an unincorporated, farmworker community, whose population is over 98% Hispanic or Latino. Surrounded by farmland and nested between Interstate 5 and State Highway 41, the communities of Kettleman City are routinely exposed to trucking emissions and pesticides. Kettleman City experiences a higher pollution burden than over 80% of California, which includes poor air quality and impaired water quality, according to CalEnviroScreen,^[8] and face relatively higher socioeconomic and health burdens, including high rates in birth defects, respiratory diseases, and cancer.

Tensions between the residents of Kettleman City and Kettleman Hills date back to the 1980’s. Waste Management bought the landfill in 1979 and was authorized by DTSC to operate and dispose of hazardous waste, but the residents of Kettleman City were largely unaware of its operations. When an incinerator was proposed to be built at the Kettleman Hills facility in 1988, the residents of Kettleman City organized and filed a lawsuit and applied political pressure. Shortly after, Waste Management withdrew the proposal.^{[9],[10],[11],[12]}

In the late 2000’s, the community experienced a birth defect cluster suspected by the community to be connected to the operations and hazardous waste spills involving polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that occurred at Kettleman Hills around that time.^[13],[14] The Department of Public Health conducted an investigation and concluded that the overall birth defects rate in Kettleman City over the course of 20 years was not higher than expected and a common underlying cause could not be identified, though the investigation was limited in its ability to determine an environmental cause.^{[15],[16],[17]} Generally, the health risk assessments and other investigations conducted by Kettleman Hills and state agencies have claimed that there is no health risk to the residents of Kettleman City resulting from the facility’s operations.^{[18],[19],[20]}

In 2014, DTSC approved a permit modification that would have allowed Kettleman Hills to expand. In response, community organizations filed a Title VI Complaint with the U.S. EPA Office of Civil Rights against DTSC and CalEPA, alleging that the decision to approve the permit modification and permitting process was intentionally discriminatory against Latinos and Spanish-speaking individuals, and had an unlawful disparate impact on Latinos.¹⁰ This resulted in a settlement agreement in 2016 that required DTSC to undertake various efforts increasing environmental protections, ensuring compliance with civil rights laws, enhancing public engagement, and considering community vulnerability in the permit decision for Kettleman Hills.^[21]

Despite a more recent record of consistent compliance with hazardous waste laws,^[22] a near-zero violation scoring procedure (VSP) score,^[23] and stringent requirements for monitoring, emissions control and inspections,^[24] some community sentiments for the facility remain soured and many residents would prefer the operations at Kettleman Hills to cease. Environmental organizations and community members have continued to call for source reduction of hazardous waste such that it would be prevented from impacting communities near hazardous waste landfills. Other members of the community and environmental organizations also resent the long history of injustice, but acknowledge the need to manage hazardous waste responsibly and demand community benefits from the facility.

Kettleman Hills has provided funding for Kettleman City to access clean and affordable drinking water, create recreational spaces, and support educational programs.^19,[25] Aside from these benefits and others that resulted from the provisions under the Tanner Act (HSC § 25199.7) and the 2016 Settlement agreement, the residents of Kettleman City have been demanding certain improvements to the community for decades. Kings County collects a portion of Waste Management’s revenue through memorandums of understanding (MOU) and franchise and property taxes, generating funds on the order of millions annually. Kings County has noted that the revenue from Kettleman Hills makes up about 10% of the County’s general budget. Despite this cash flow to the County, anecdotally, the communities in Kettleman City have not received the outstanding benefits they so desire, and some say deserve. It is not clear to staff at this time what would prevent the County from directing additional funding from Kettleman Hills to Kettleman City. However, involved groups have suggested and implied that the lack of representation within County governance, challenges associated with unincorporated communities, and competing County funding priorities could present a few factors.

• 1. Buttonwillow and Clean Harbors Buttonwillow. Buttonwillow is also an unincorporated, farmworker community in Kern County, whose population is over 80% Hispanic or Latino. Similar to Kettleman City, Buttonwillow faces a higher pollution burden than 87% of California, with exposure threats from pesticides, impaired groundwater, and poor air quality.⁸

Historically, dynamics similar to Kettleman City have occurred in Buttonwillow. While the facility was under the ownership of Laidlaw Environmental Services Inc., lack of representation in County governance, language barriers in and exclusion from participatory decision-making frameworks, and County taxes benefiting all but the community closest to the facility have strained the relationship between the community and facility.^[26] Additionally, a series of birth defects in the early 1990’s lead to an investigation that resulted in inconclusive results and the absence of evidence.⁹ The residents of Buttonwillow and community organizations have also fought previous expansion efforts of the facility and its intake of radioactive waste.^[27]

For a variety of reasons, advocacy against the Buttonwillow facility has waned over the years relative to that of Kettleman Hills^[28] and since the facility’s acquisition by Clean Harbors in 2002, investments have been made in the Buttonwillow community. Clean Harbors has indicated that the company has invested over $5.5 million in the Buttonwillow area, supporting ongoing activities that directly benefit the residents, focusing on education, environmental stewardship, and community.^[29]

There have been continued concerns within the last decade and as the facility works to renew its permit. Since 2017, several significant violations have been uncovered by DTSC at the facility,^[30] and Clean Harbors has since conducted corrective action and remediation efforts. Currently, Clean Harbors Buttonwillow has a relatively higher VSP score compared to Kettleman Hills but is considered within the acceptable compliance tier.²³

With a more recent expansion request with Kern County, in 2024, some residents expressed concerns on the impacts to the environment and quality of life of the community.^[31] As part of the Buttonwillow facility’s permit renewal process, community members expressed concerns related to birth defects, cancer rates, air and water quality. Residents also expressed the need for safer jobs in the community, and still the need for employment that Clean Harbors Buttonwillow provides.^[32]

The history and current relationships of these facilities to their host communities provides an important perspective with the consideration of this bill. While this bill would ultimately increase the revenues these facilities receive, which may (or may not) trickle down to and benefit these communities and the Counties of which they are sited, it would also increase the operations and amount of waste that enters these facilities. There are concerns from members of these communities and environmental organizations that the communities will have to bear the additional pollution burdens that would result from the enactment of this bill. Some have expressed that this bill perpetuates injustice and rewards these facilities, ignoring the discriminatory nature of which they were established. There are further considerations on how quickly the influx of non-RCRA hazardous waste to these facilities will reduce their capacity and lead to decisions of expansion, which may be complicated given that both communities have a history of successfully resisting previous attempts to expand.

1. Considering capacity. CERCLA Section 104(c)(9) requires that prior to the U.S. EPA providing federal funding for any remedial actions (Superfund), a state must assure 20 years of hazardous waste management capacity in the form of treatment or disposal Subtitle C facilities within the state and/or outside of the state in accordance with an interstate agreement or regional agreement or authority.^[33],[34] The intent of this requirement is to ensure that hazardous waste management capacity is available to avoid improper disposal and waste management issues.

If 20 years of capacity is not assured, then funds the state receives from the Superfund could be in jeopardy. The federal Superfund currently supports remediation of the state’s orphan sites.^[35] As of fiscal year 2025/2026, California maintains 22 sites that are active on the National Priorities List (NPL) and are partially funded with federal Superfund funding.^[36]

The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report estimated that the state’s two Subtitle C facilities had a combined remaining capacity of 20.1 years.² This estimate was based on the rate of disposal at that time and the 2019 National Capacity Assessment Report,^[37] which indicated that the two facilities had a total remaining permitted capacity of 9.7 million tons. The 2025 National Capacity Assessment Report indicates that the total remaining permitted capacity at the two state Subtitle C facilities at the end of 2023 was 9.3 million tons, so the time remaining may be comparable to DTSC’s 2023 estimate.³⁴

The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report estimated that the two facilities would have a combined remaining permitted capacity of 9.6 years if 100% of the state’s generated hazardous waste, RCRA and non-RCRA, were disposed of in the state. While this bill may not reduce the permitted capacity to 9.6 years, as generators will still manage their RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste at other Subtitle C facilities outside the state, it would reduce permitted capacity towards that figure. The rate at which it would be reduced depends on a variety of factors, including each facility’s operating capacity and generator management decisions.

SB 1289 would almost certainly reduce in-state capacity to under 20 years. This does not necessarily mean that the state would be ineligible for the federal Superfund, as California can assure additional capacity with Subtitle C facilities in other states. It is unclear to staff at this time the amount of capacity the state currently assures through interstate or regional agreements, but given that generators across the state have historically managed their hazardous waste at various Subtitle C facilities across the nation, it might be possible to ensure that the state’s access to the federal Superfund is unaffected.

If the state decided to assure additional capacity in-state, then the state would be faced with decisions to site new Subtitle C facilities or to expand its existing facilities. If these facilities were permitted to expand, they would be able to receive more hazardous waste in the long term, however, there are outstanding questions regarding how much they would be able to receive in the short term. These facilities can reach operational capacity or experience other operational constraints, as managing hazardous waste takes time and there are throughput limits for these facilities. This bill may risk acutely increasing the demand for hazardous waste management within the state because it would be more costly for generators to manage outside the state, while sharply decreasing the in-state supply for hazardous waste management. This raises a myriad of questions, discussed in comments 6 and 7 below.

1. SB 673: Cumulative impacts. In 2015, SB 673 (Lara, Chapter 611, Statutes of 2015) was signed into law to improve the permitting process for hazardous waste facilities with DTSC. Implementation of SB 673 provided DTSC with an opportunity to address long standing environmental justice concerns stemming from the location, operation, and expansion of hazardous waste facilities. The provisions of SB 673 provided for stronger permit criteria to further protect communities and consider “the vulnerability of, and existing health risks, to nearby populations” when issuing new or modified permits and permit renewals.

DTSC's efforts to implement SB 673 included dividing the regulations into two tracks.^[38] Notably, the draft regulations for the second track were proposed in November 2025 and included two permit criteria: community vulnerability and setback distances.^[39] Community vulnerability considers various factors that may put a population at risk of negative impacts, such as the environmental pollution burden, public health, and socioeconomic challenges a community may face. A community vulnerability profile would inform permit conditions to mitigate adverse impacts on the community. A setback distance is the distance between the location of a sensitive receptor that may experience the highest exposure hazards and a facility. Permit criteria that consider setback distances would initiate additional health risk assessments, propose permit conditions to reduce risk, or deny a permit application if it is not sufficiently protective.

Because these regulations are not finalized, though SB 673 was enacted over a decade ago, they did not apply to the permit renewals for the Kettleman Hills or Buttonwillow facilities. However, both draft permits include dozens of new permit conditions that are intended to increase compliance with the HWCL and environmental protections.^[40],[41]

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, “SB 1289 strengthens California’s economic and environmental framework by ensuring that hazardous waste generated in the state is managed in a way that supports in-state investment, job creation, and long-term fiscal sustainability. Currently, nearly half of California’s hazardous waste is transported out of state and disposed of under less stringent federal standards. This dynamic not only undermines California’s environmental protections, but also results in lost economic opportunity, reduced demand for in-state hazardous waste infrastructure, and foregone state and local revenue tied to treatment, disposal, and regulatory oversight.

SB 1289 corrects this imbalance by aligning disposal practices with California’s higher standards, regardless of where the waste is ultimately managed. In doing so, the bill creates a more level playing field for in-state operators, encourages investment in hazardous waste facilities and technologies, and supports workforce development in a critical environmental sector. Equally important, this policy ensures that the true cost of hazardous waste management is borne responsibly. SB 1289 reaffirms California’s commitment to environmental stewardship while advancing an economic model that prioritizes accountability, sustainability, and equitable community protections.”

1. Increasing the pollution burden. This bill would ensure that all non-RCRA hazardous waste is managed at Subtitle C facilities. Although there are other Subtitle C facilities in Utah and Nevada, depending on the region, transportation to those facilities may present a cost barrier. It will likely be the most feasible for generators to manage their non-RCRA hazardous waste at Kettleman Hills or Buttonwillow.

This would increase truck traffic to these facilities, which would contribute to additional air emissions. The 2009 subsequent EIR for Kettleman Hills indicated that truck round-trips would not exceed a total of 568 trucks per day (400 for hazardous waste, 168 for non-hazardous waste).^[42] The EIR for Buttonwillow limits the amount of tonnage a facility can accept each day, which can influence a limit on daily truck traffic. The Buttonwillow facility could receive a maximum of 338 trucks per day. Both facilities have indicated that their limits have yet to be reached.^[43] However, the truck traffic that would result from this bill may be vastly different from what the host communities currently experience.

This bill would also result in additional emissions from the increased operations of these facilities, and the extent depends on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures and efficacy of emissions controls.^[44],[45] Emissions and exposure to hazardous materials can also be related to compliance with hazardous waste control laws, as the regulations are designed to prevent accidents and releases of hazardous materials into the environment.

Compared to what the host communities currently perceive and experience, the additional emissions that would be generated as a result of this bill warrant consideration of current community needs and demands. Environmental groups and community members have stressed the importance of source reduction to eliminate the risk of exposure at the lower levels of the management hierarchy.

Some streams of non-RCRA hazardous waste, such as contaminated soil, cannot be reduced at the source as it may be excavated from site remediation projects. In these cases, investments in the other parts of the hazardous waste management hierarchy, including recycling, reuse, and treatment, would mitigate or avoid the pollution burdens associated with disposal. Promising technologies are not yet available at scale or are studied in laboratory settings,^{[46],[47],[48]} and there is a need to support generators with training programs and resource investment on the tools and technologies that are already at their disposal to manage hazardous waste with preferred methods.

State investment in source reduction and other preferred management methods should be prioritized and in the interest of the state, given the pollution burden communities carry and the ever-diminishing capacity of hazardous waste disposal facilities. Funding to support such programs and innovation is difficult to come by, and should this bill move forward and pass, the additional revenue this bill would bring from out-of-state back into the state could partially fund such efforts. The author may wish to consider mechanisms to invest in source reduction programs and more protective management technologies from a portion of the additional revenue that this bill would bring into the state.

1. Community benefits. In recognition of the history behind these facilities and their host communities, the pollution burden associated with these facilities, and the additional burdens this bill would bring, the author has indicated a strong desire for benefits for the host communities. Acknowledging the significant contributions that these hazardous waste disposal facilities have made to the County budgets and local initiatives, this bill ensures financial solvency for the facilities, keeping them as an essential local source of revenue. This is particularly vital at a time where federal funding cuts have caused disruptions to critical programs impacting the lives of people in these very communities.

The benefits host communities receive can fall short, however, as the host communities exist within unincorporated areas within the counties. For a variety of reasons, this can make it more difficult for funding to trickle down to the specific needs of the host communities. There is a need for targeted efforts to ensure that the host communities receive their fair share.

While there is no amount of compensation that could offset or resolve historical injustice and impacts to community health, diverting funds to serve the needs of the host communities is the least that should be done. Should this bill pass with the intent of increasing facility and local revenue, it would be remiss to not consider an opportunity to benefit the host communities, since SB 1289 would bring revenue from out-of-state back into the state. How this would be accomplished in this bill, however, is an open question.

There are three potential sources of revenues to fund community benefits implicated by SB 1289: the generators of non-RCRA hazardous waste, the Subtitle C facilities, and the counties. Each of these sources would come with trade-offs and would likely involve levying a new tax or fee. Although addressing the impacts of hazardous waste disposal facilities on nearby communities falls within this committee’s purview, developing policies to raise and direct local funds does not.

Given the author’s justified interest in ensuring benefits are provided to the communities around hazardous waste disposal facilities, further amendments will be necessary to this bill that are beyond the scope of this analysis. The author is strongly encouraged to work with the appropriate policy committees and stakeholders to develop such policy with the necessary consideration of Constitutional restrictions and other policy issues.

Because this bill is singly referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, and including community benefits would significantly impede on other policy committee jurisdictions, including, but not limited to Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee and Senate Local Government Committee, then it is in the best interest of the author and committee to proceed with an understanding that this work would be underway.

This bill could represent an important opportunity to address historical environmental injustices in the host communities of California’s two Subtitle C facilities, but doing so would require substantial amendments that would have to be made in the second house. Such amendments are beyond this committee’s purview but are indispensable in response to the additional pollution burden host communities would experience as a result of this bill.

Should the committee wish to advance this measure, the author and committee may wish to consider establishing a firm commitment to develop a framework for community benefits with review by the appropriate policy committees.

1. The management of treated wood waste. Although contaminated soil is the most abundant type of non-RCRA hazardous waste generated in the state, other materials such as used oil filters and treated wood waste (TWW) exist as well. TWW has alternative management standards designed to encourage safe and cost-effective disposal, which includes enabling disposal at an authorized Subtitle D facility instead of disposal at a Subtitle C facility.^2,[49],[50]

Alternative management standards for TWW have been a long-standing practice since 2004. When SB 68 (Galgiani, 2020), which removed the sunset for alternative management standards for TWW, was vetoed, generators of TWW, homeowners, landfills, and DTSC faced various waste management challenges.² As a result, DTSC granted variances for the disposal of TWW until AB 332 (Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Chapter 147, Statutes of 2021) restored the alternative management standards for TWW.

This bill applies broadly to all non-RCRA hazardous waste, looping TWW back into disposal requirements at Subtitle C facilities, which will create confusion and cost pressures for generators of TWW. There are several potential approaches to resolve this issue. Although an exemption for TWW could be applied to stay consistent with current management practices, this could set a precedent for other carveouts. Targeting a specific waste stream, such as contaminated soil, would avoid looping in other waste streams, and an incentive approach might avoid other unintended consequences, as described in comment 8.

1. Expanding landfill capacity. If the state decided to assure additional capacity in-state, then the state would be faced with decisions to site new Subtitle C facilities or to expand its existing facilities. Both facilities have indicated intent to expand their permitted capacity if this bill were to be enacted, as they own more land than is currently permitted.

Expansions have already taken place over the last decade. In 2009, Kings County approved an expansion for Kettleman Hills which included an existing hazardous waste landfill unit (B-18) and additional hazardous waste landfill unit (B-20) and certified a final subsequent EIR, pursuant to CEQA. The expansion of the B-18 landfill unit was permitted by DTSC in 2014, but the B-20 landfill unit has yet to be permitted.^[51],[52] Kern County approved a request from Clean Harbors Buttonwillow in 2024 that would allow the Buttonwillow facility to expand its capacity for storage, treatment, recycling, and landfilling. The landfill expansion is primarily for non-hazardous waste, but DTSC is in the process of approving four new hazardous waste treatment buildings associated with the expansion.^31,[53]

The Buttonwillow facility has a remaining maximum permitted hazardous waste landfill capacity of over 6 million tons as of the end of 2023.³⁴ Assuming similar rates of disposal as estimated in the 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report, approximately 12 years of capacity remain at this facility. This figure represents a ceiling, as this is based on data from 3 years ago and this bill would significantly reduce that capacity. Kettleman Hills, on the other hand, has 3.3 million tons of permitted hazardous waste landfill capacity remaining. This equates to approximately 8 years of permitted capacity remaining, another ceiling that would lower with the enactment of this bill.

Whether or not SB 1289 is enacted, another hazardous waste landfill expansion at either facility could be anticipated within the next 10 years. Given that the host communities have fought expansions for both facilities in the past, future expansions are likely to be controversial and if California decides to manage its hazardous waste at either of these facilities, it will be important to understand potential environmental impacts, involve the public, uplift their concerns, and address them.

If either facility were to expand their permitted capacity for hazardous waste management and disposal further, then the facilities would need to submit a Class III permit modification application to DTSC as it constitutes a significant change in facility operations (40 CFR § 270.42(c)). These modifications can be subject to certain provisions of CEQA and other provisions within the HWCL prior to approval. Outlined below are recommendations to improve the review process— specifically for Class III modifications as it pertains to the expansion of Subtitle C hazardous waste disposal facilities.

• 1. Early engagement during preliminary review. In accordance with CEQA, when a facility submits an application for a Class III modification to DTSC, DTSC has 30 days to review the application for completeness before deciding to conduct an initial study or prepare an EIR. During this time, DTSC is to be alert for any environmental issues that would require an EIR or additional information from the applicant. This is an ideal time to raise any additional information or perspective on environmental impacts that might influence the decision to prepare an EIR or investigate potentially significant environmental impacts. Members of the Board of Environmental Safety (BES), who have actively engaged with the public and host communities, could be authorized to provide additional insights or indicate the need for an EIR, as necessary. The participation of any member of BES in the preliminary review would need to be done in accordance with any meeting restrictions pursuant to Article 2.1 of Chapter 6.5 of HSC.

DTSC may also engage with the applicant, upon their request, and prior to the submission of their application through consultation to discuss potential alternatives, mitigation measures, and potential significant effects on the environment. DTSC may include any public agency in this consultation that would have an interest in the proposed project. This could also be an opportunity for members of BES to engage. The author and committee may wish to consider authorizing BES to engage during preliminary review, as described in the CEQA guidelines, or after for Class III modifications. Functionally, this would include:

• • 1. Requiring the applicant to send notice of a modification request to BES;
    2. Requiring DTSC to consult with any member of BES during preliminary review or after upon their request and within existing resources;
    3. Requiring DTSC to send any member of BES an initial study, if applicable and upon request; and
    4. Authorizing DTSC to include any member of BES during a preapplication consultation and authorizing any member of BES to participate within existing resources.
  1. Addressing outdated EIRs & public review. If DTSC decides to prepare an EIR, the agency will rely on the most recent EIR and additional CEQA documents to impose additional mitigation measures or conditions on the permit modification. A Class III modification would trigger an analysis of previous CEQA documents to determine if project changes or new information reveal new significant impacts. If new significant or increased impacts are found, then DTSC will prepare an EIR, subsequent EIR, or supplemental EIR and identify mitigation measures. If no significant new impacts are found, then DTSC may prepare an Addendum. Addenda are prepared when there are minor technical changes and they analyze how the conditions that trigger subsequent or supplemental EIRs do not apply.

Typically, the preliminary review and/or initial study determine whether there would be significant impacts or new information, triggering an EIR. Initial studies are not required in advance of an addendum. Although DTSC has previously issued an initial study alongside an addendum for a Class III modification, it is possible that an addendum could be prepared without the full evaluation of an initial study, and potential significant impacts may be overlooked.

EIRs, including subsequent and supplemental EIRs, tend to be outdated. The most recent [subsequent] EIR for Kettleman Hills was prepared in 2009, and the expansion modification in 2014 and renewed draft permit in 2024 relied on the 2009 EIR with addenda prepared.^52,[54]

Since the subsequent EIR for one of the facilities is over 15 years old and an expansion of either facility would be anticipated within 10 years, an initial study may be worth conducting to ensure that there are no new significant impacts prior to the preparation of an addendum. The author and committee may wish to consider requiring the conduct of an initial study for projects with full, subsequent, or supplemental EIRs prepared more than five years prior to the submission of an application for a Class III modification.

Additionally, addenda are not required to be circulated for public review. DTSC has previously circulated addenda voluntarily,⁵² however, this is not guaranteed. To increase transparency and public review, the author and committee may wish to consider requiring the circulation of any prepared addenda for a Class III modification.

• 1. Considering cumulative impacts. As highlighted in the background, SB 673 required DTSC to establish additional permit criteria for hazardous waste management facilities that consider the cumulative impacts to communities. According to the proposed regulations, permit modifications may not be subject to certain requirements, such as the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and transparency and accessibility mechanisms. Many permit modifications, such as Class I or II, can be minor or administrative, implicating little to no impact on the public or environment. Class III modifications tend to major, such as hazardous waste landfill expansion and the addition of new treatment or storage units.

SB 673 proposed implementing regulations allow DTSC discretion in requiring an HHRA for Class III modifications, which implies that any hazardous waste landfill expansion may not require a human health risk assessment. HHRAs can provide additional information and be important in understanding community vulnerability. With the addition of new landfill units or certain types of waste being introduced to the facility, it may be important to understand the compounding effects such activities may have and mitigate them where possible. The author and committee may wish to consider requiring the completion of an HHRA in accordance with SB 673 and its implementing regulations for Class III modifications.

1. Reaching operational capacity. The design of a hazardous waste facility comes with various physical and operational constraints,^2,[55] which can determine how much waste a facility can accept over a period of time. This bill would significantly increase the amount of waste managed at the two in-state facilities, which could result in operational capacity. Although reaching operational capacity would bring significant additional revenues to these facilities, doing so would also limit disposal options for generators.

Even before this bill was proposed, generators have been turned away from in-state facilities due to operational constraints, maintenance, or other technical issues.^2,4 The 2023 DTSC Hazardous Waste Management Report noted that hazardous waste landfills are “under no obligation to accept every waste presented to them.” This could be further complicated with any anticipated expansion. In the past, Kettleman Hills slowed down operations and accepted less waste while awaiting approval of their permit modification. As a result, the proportion of hazardous waste shipped out of state increased from 25% to 50%.²

If operational capacity is reached, the implications for generators can be costly. Generators would face higher transportation costs, as the nearest Subtitle C facilities in Utah and Nevada are over 300 to nearly 700 miles away from the state’s major metropolitan areas, compared to both in-state facilities that are less than 300 miles away. If transportation costs are too high, then generators may be forced to wait in line to manage at the in-state facilities, which could lead to uncontrolled stockpiling and delays in remediation projects, including that of housing development and transmission undergrounding. Management costs at the in-state facilities could also rise, as increasing the amount of waste managed at a facility increases operational costs.⁵⁵ These costs would ultimately be passed down to generators.

There could be costs to public health and the environment if generators are left with no choice but to illegally dump their hazardous waste.^[56],[57] Previous state legislation that would have capped the amount of hazardous waste a facility could accept raised concerns of illegal dumping (AB 2870, Bronzan, 1985). SB 1289 would have a similar effect.^[58] And given previous attempts to establish alternative management standards for non-RCRA hazardous waste,^[59],[60] controversial legislative and regulatory efforts may emerge, as generators may attempt to increase access to management options and lower costs. These efforts may reflect deregulation and act to reduce the stringency of hazardous waste criteria.

With this bill, are the in-state facilities biting off more than they can chew? Mandating the management of all non-RCRA hazardous waste, essentially at the only two in-state facilities, has ramifications beyond their financial solvency. If the state should choose to maintain these facilities, striking a balance that increases facility revenues yet ensures accessibility of management options is critical to affordability, the pursuit of state priorities, and protecting the environment and public health. It is highly recommended to consider an incentive approach instead of a mandate, and an alternative approach is described in comment 8 below.

1. A limited market. To landfill most non-RCRA hazardous waste, generators currently have the choice to manage at the in-state Subtitle C facilities, out-of-state Subtitle C facilities, and out-of-state Subtitle D MSW landfill facilities. This bill would eliminate the option of managing non-RCRA hazardous waste at the out-of-state Subtitle D facilities. Although this is in favor of arguments expressing a need to protect communities near Subtitle D facilities from potential exposure due to less protective management practices, this approach to restrict management decisions could lead to unfavorable consequences for the generators and the environment.

If this bill were enacted, the nearest options for hazardous waste land disposal from major metropolitan areas of the state would be the two in-state facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, a facility in Beatty, Nevada (Republic Services US Ecology), and two facilities in Utah (Clean Harbors Grassy Mountain and EnergySolutions Clive Facility). Because the cost of management at all Subtitle C facilities are higher relative to Subtitle D facilities and transportation costs will be higher for out-of-state management, it would be more cost-effective for generators to manage at the in-state facilities. This could give Waste Management and Clean Harbors more control over the market with competition eliminated and increase uncertainty in management costs, potentially leading to cost increases for generators. This would impact all generators, including smaller businesses, hospitals, utilities, municipalities, state agencies, housing developers, and more. Because of the broader potential impacts to generators, costs may be externalized and passed down to consumers, affecting affordability.

Furthermore, if this bill were enacted, it may be vulnerable to successful legal challenges in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, interpreted by the Supreme Court restricts states from erecting trade barriers and considers waste to be an article of commerce. Arguments made by opposing groups have asserted that by mandating the management of non-RCRA hazardous waste at certain facilities and prohibiting the export of waste to out-of-state facilities, the provisions of SB 1289 indirectly control the national market for waste and infringe on the sovereignty of neighboring states by preventing facilities considered federally qualified to manage non-RCRA hazardous waste from receiving waste. Proponents of the bill have argued that these provisions would not be ruled unconstitutional, since SB 1289 still allows for the export of non-RCRA hazardous waste outside of the state to other Subtitle C facilities. Ultimately, it is for the Courts to decide.

If enacted, the author and sponsors do risk subjecting these provisions to legal battles and if the provisions are deemed unconstitutional, thus null, the pursuit for financial solvency through this approach would be in vain. It is highly recommended to consider an incentive approach instead of a mandate to avoid Constitutional violations, potential monopolies, and broader financial impacts to generators and consumers. An alternative approach is described in comment 8 below.

1. Incentives, not mandates. In summary, in an attempt to generate revenue for in-state Subtitle C facilities and protect communities near out-of-state Subtitle D facilities, this bill would inadvertently raise costs and uncertainty for generators, lower access to hazardous waste management options, and sharply reduce in-state capacity, all while increasing the pollution burden for the historically marginalized host communities of these facilities. Recognizing the relative importance of maintaining these facilities within the state, it may be in the interest of the committee to provide the author with an opportunity to explore alternative solutions that consider the operational constraints of these facilities, generate sufficient revenue, and mitigate unintended consequences. Carefully crafting an incentive to responsibly manage non-RCRA hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities may present a path forward.

One such approach involves tying this bill to SB 328 (Grayson, 2025), currently pending in Assembly Appropriations. SB 328 seeks to impose regulatory fee caps on the generation and handling fee paid to DTSC for generators of hazardous waste from infill housing and master development projects. SB 1289 could instead include contingencies that would condition the fee caps in SB 328 on management at Subtitle C facilities, along with creating community benefits. The proposal would target both RCRA and non-RCRA hazardous waste that is generated by developers. Compared to the current proposal, this approach has many advantages, as it would:

1. Target the generators that typically send hazardous waste out-of-state to Subtitle D facilities, rewarding environmental stewardship;
2. Reduce the impact on host communities (comment 2);
3. Reduce the impact on in-state disposal capacity (comment 5);
4. Avoid management complications with other types of non-RCRA hazardous waste (comment 4);
5. Avoid in-state operational constraints and ensure accessibility of management options for generators (comment 6); and
6. Maintain a competitive market between Subtitle C and D facilities, avoiding price hikes and uncertainties in management costs (comment 7).

While there may be open questions with this approach, the committee may find it worth exploring when faced with the various issues associated with SB 1289 as proposed. The author could continue to work with Senator Grayson to explore this pathway or alternative pathways that incentivize, instead of mandate, responsible management of hazardous waste at Subtitle C facilities.

Going forward, the author and committee may wish to consider exploring opportunities to make regulatory fee caps for developers conditional on hazardous waste management at Subtitle C facilities, or alternative pathways that incentivize the responsible management of hazardous waste.

1. Committee amendments. Staff recommends the committee establish a firm commitment as described in comment 3 and adopt the bolded amendments contained in comment 5 above.

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 328 (Grayson, 2025) would cap the hazardous waste G&H Fee at specified amounts for certain housing and master development projects. SB 328 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 158 (Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) establishes the Board of Environmental Safety (Board) within the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), restructures and increases charges that support the Hazardous Waste Management Account (HWCA), restructures and increases the tax that supports the Toxic Substances Control Account (TSCA), and provides funding to support brownfield cleanups and investigations across the state and Exide residential cleanup.

SB 673 (Lara, 2015) revises the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) permitting process and public participation requirements for hazardous waste facilities.

SOURCE:

Kings County Board of Supervisors

Waste Management

SUPPORT:

Clean Harbors Environmental Services, INC.
Kings; County of
WM (Waste Management)

OPPOSITION:

1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations
1heartcares of LA Jolla, San Diego, Del Mar, Oceanside and LA Mesa.
Apex Diesel Repair
Avenal Care
Bayview Hunters Point Mothers and Fathers Committee
Bluezone Health Solutions
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Environmental Justice Coalition
California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Citizens for Chiquita Canyon Closure
Clever Community Development
Coalition of Filipino American Chambers of Commerce
Del Amo Action Committee
Del Mar Dog Rescue
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Cerritos (FAC3)
Filipino American Chamber of Commerce of Greater San Diego
Fix Auto Poway
Gaia (global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives)
Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Benicia
Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice
Jesse Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership
Mapleview Bnm LLC
Middle Eastern and North American Chamber of Commerce
National Diversity Coalition
New Beginnings CDC
Optimist International Sacramento
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Area Chapter
Republic Services
Robin Hilton Land and Tree Company, INC.
Sd Business Solutions, INC
South Asian Biz Alliance Network (SABAN)
Sweetwater Bnm LLC
Valley Improvement Projects (VIP)
West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs

-- END --

1. Rosli, N.A., et. al. (2023). Management of Various Sources of Hazardous Waste. ↑

2. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). Hazardous Waste Management Report. ↑

3. Kumar, A. (2023). A critical review on sustainable hazardous waste management strategies: a step towards a circular economy. ↑

4. Lewis, R. (2023). California Toxics: Out of state, out of mind. ↑

5. California Governor’s Office. (1989). The State of California Capacity Assurance Plan for Hazardous Waste Management. ↑

6. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. (2026). Solid waste: General Provisions. ↑

7. Nevada Administrative Codes 444.8565(b). ↑

8. Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment. (2026). Draft CalEnviroScreen 5.0. ↑

9. Cole, L. W. and Foster, S. R. (2001). From the ground up: Environmental racism and the rise of the environmental justice movement. ↑

10. Cabrera, Y. (2024). The decades-long fight in a community treated as a dumping ground. ↑

11. California Air Resources Board Environmental Justice. (2020). Kettleman City Environmental Justice Storytelling. ↑

12. UC Irvine EcoGovLab. (2023). Kettleman City, California: Birthplace of California’s Environmental Justice Movement. ↑

13. Leslie, J. (2010). What’s Killing the Babies of Kettleman City?. ↑

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX. (2010). TSCA Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report. ↑

15. California Department of Public Health. (2010). Birth Defects in Kettleman City. ↑

16. Adams, J. (2010). Kettleman City cleft deformities raise questions of a cluster case. ↑

17. California Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Investigation of Birth Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, CA. ↑

18. Wenck Associates, Inc. and AECOM. (2013). Annual Screening Level Health Risk Assessment ES (Draft). ↑

19. Waste Management, Inc. (2026). Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). Draft Environmental Justice Analysis for the Kettleman Hills Facility Proposed TSCA Permit. ↑

21. Altshuler Berzon LLP. (2023). Kettleman Civil Rights Analysis. ↑

22. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. (2026). Chemical Waste Management Inc Kettleman. ↑

23. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). Violations Scoring Procedure (VSP). ↑

24. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2014). DTSC Finalizes Permit Modification for Kettleman Hills Hazardous Waste Facility. ↑

25. Kings County Local Assessment Committee. (2009). Final Report and Recommendation: Kettleman Hills Facility Hazardous Waste Facility Expansion Project. ↑

26. Tan, E. (1995). Grassroots struggle for environmental justice: the need for a new approach to public health in Kern County California. ↑

27. Johnson, J. (2002). Field Workers Finally Win Fight with Dump. ↑

28. Wohlmuth, E. (2010). Situating Cost-Benefit Analysis for Environmental Justice. ↑

29. Clean Harbors. (2026). Buttonwillow Facility. ↑

30. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor. (2026). Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC. ↑

31. Segall, P. (2024). Supervisors approve expansion for Buttonwillow waste facility. ↑

32. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Public Participation Plan. ↑

33. U.S. Code Title 42 § 9604. ↑

34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2025). National Capacity Assessment Report. ↑

35. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). State Superfund Program. ↑

36. California Department of Finance. (2025). Budget Change Proposal: National Priorities List and State Orphan Sites. ↑

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2019). National Capacity Assessment Report. ↑

38. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). SB 673 Permit Criteria – Community Protection. ↑

39. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Criteria for Additional Community Protections: Proposed Regulatory Text. ↑

40. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2024). Public Notice for Proposed Renewal of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: Chemical Waste Management Inc. Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

41. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Public Notice for Proposed Renewal of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow. ↑

42. CH2M Hill. (2009). Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report: B-18/B-20 Hazardous Waste Disposal Project, Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

43. Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC. (2024). Draft Environmental Impact Report. ↑

44. Shen, T. T. (1981). Control Techniques for Gas Emissions from Hazardous Waste Landfills. ↑

45. Ravina, M., et. al. (2020). Halocarbon Emissions from Hazardous Waste Landfills: Analysis of Sources and Risks. ↑

46. Yu, Y. H., et. al. (2020). Hazardous waste treatment technologies. ↑

47. Marrone, P. A. (2013). Supercritical Water Oxidation – Current Status of Full-scale Commercial Activity for Waste Destruction. ↑

48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). Potential PFAS Destruction Technology: Supercritical Water Oxidation. ↑

49. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). Treated Wood Waste (TWW). ↑

50. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2026). DTSC Requirements for Generators of Treated Wood Waste. ↑

51. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2014). Hazardous Waste Facility Permit. ↑

52. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2013). Addendum & Initial Study to the final SEIR for the Existing B-18 Class I/Class II Landfill Expansion Project: Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

53. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Addendum to Previously Certified EIR: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow, LLC – Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Renewal. ↑

54. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2023). Addendum to the final EIR for Kettleman Hills Facility. ↑

55. Dhewa, D. (1999). Optimization of regional hazardous waste management systems: an improved formulation. ↑

56. Schwartz, S. I., et. al. (1989). Improving Compliance with Hazardous Waste Regulations among Small Businesses. ↑

57. Hohl, B. C., et. al. (2023). Community identified characteristics related to illegal dumping. ↑

58. Lennard, C. and Belsher, J. (1987). Hazardous Waste: The Failure of the California Regulatory Framework. ↑

59. Department of Toxic Substances Control. (2025). Goal 7: Identify alternative management standards for certain non-RCRA hazardous wastes. ↑

60. Board of Environmental Safety. (2025). Agenda Item 4 – DTSC 2025 Hazardous Waste Management Plan. ↑