Trash-to-Energy Idea Encounters a Skeptical Public

Bruce Williams, who is trying to sell the public on construction of a huge incinerator in Azusa to turn trash into energy, considered his appearance before the Azusa Chamber of Commerce a success. “We had a good session,” he said. “They didn’t lynch me.”

Promoters of trash-to-energy projects say that escaping with their lives is about the most they can hope for these days when they appear at public meetings to try to persuade skeptics that their projects will not pollute the air, contaminate ground water, overload roads with trash trucks or otherwise further despoil the environment.

An estimated 400 people filled the Duarte City Council chambers last week to urge the council to oppose waste-to-energy plants in general and an Irwindale project in particular. The council complied, voting against the proposal, and one council member remarked later that failing to vote with the crowd would have been “political suicide.” Some members of the audience had spent the previous Friday night booing technical experts who had met with them to try to justify the Irwindale proposal.

Members of the Hacienda Heights Improvement Assn. who are fighting a waste-to-energy project at the Puente Hills landfill are urging a massive turnout for a hearing on the project’s environmental impact report at 7 p.m. Wednesday in the offices of the Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier. Leaders of the group already have denounced the plan offered by the districts, which run waste disposal operations for 76 cities.

West Covina Mayor Forest Tennant Jr., who has been on a crusade against all trash-to-energy projects in the San Gabriel Valley, said his efforts are cheered everywhere he goes. “I’m optimistic we’ll beat those suckers,” he said. “The valley has come alive.”

The projects are a hard sell in the valley because its dumps--which handle more than 55% of all trash in the county--have produced odors and pollutants, and residents fear that refuse-to-energy plants will be just as great a nuisance.

Public reaction counts for something, but ultimately local, state and federal agencies will have to rule on the merits of each project, deciding whether trash incinerators can be built here with little or no environmental damage or should not be built because of environmental dangers.

Most of the attention has centered on an incineration plant that Pacific Waste Management Corp. proposes for the bottom of a quarry in Irwindale. Miller Brewing Co., which owns a brewery near the proposed site, has hired a battery of lawyers and environmental experts to challenge the project. But the Irwindale plant, which would burn 3,000 tons of trash a day, is only one of four refuse-to-energy projects pending in the San Gabriel Valley. The others are:

- An Azusa plant proposed by Azusa Energy Systems Inc. that would burn 2,000 tons of trash a day, operated by Azusa Land Reclamation Inc. at the dump and on an adjoining lot used for auto salvage.

- A Pomona plant proposed by the sanitation districts that would burn 1,000 tons a day at the Spadra landfill.

- A Puente Hills landfill plant proposed by the sanitation districts that would burn up to 10,000 tons a day in one or two plants at the Hacienda Heights facility.

All of the plants would generate electricity, in amounts ranging from 24 megawatts at Spadra to 250 at Puente Hills. Southern California Edison Co. estimates that 1.6 megawatts will serve 1,000 homes. If all the plants planned for the San Gabriel Valley were built to their maximum proposed capacities, they could provide continuous power to 250,000 homes.

Early planning has begun on one other major project to turn refuse into energy. Omega Chemical Corp., a Whittier company that recycles hazardous waste, wants to move its operations to Irwindale and build an incinerator for liquid hazardous waste that would create 3 megawatts of power. The proposed site is in the San Gabriel Canyon area north of Foothill Boulevard on land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers.

In addition, projects to convert landfill gas to electricity are under development at the Puente Hills and Spadra dumps, the BKK landfill in West Covina and the Operating Industries landfill in Monterey Park.

All of the refuse-to-energy plants would be similar to those already operating in other parts of the United States, Japan and Europe.

Trash trucks would dump their loads in enclosed pits. The Irwindale and Spadra plants would use mass-firing technology, doing little or no processing of the refuse before burning it. The Azusa plant would use a shred-and-burn technique, removing cardboard and metals for recycling. Engineers at the sanitation districts say they have not decided which approach to take at Puente Hills.

Revenue would come from selling electricity to Southern California Edison Co. and collecting dumping fees from refuse haulers.

Kenneth Kazarian, president of the BKK Corp., which runs the BKK dump in West Covina, said the cost of dumping at landfills is so low that refuse-to-energy plants have not made economic sense in Southern California until now. Kazarian said his father proposed building a plant along the coast more than 20 years ago to burn trash for electricity and turn ocean water into fresh water. The proposal failed because electricity and fresh water could be obtained more cheaply elsewhere and trash haulers would not pay to have trash burned when they could drop it into dumps at one-fifth the cost.

Kazarian said dump prices are rising because some landfills have closed; public opposition makes establishment of new dumps in Los Angeles County unlikely, and the existing dumps are filling up.

Haul It or Burn It

Donald S. Nellor, supervisor of planning for the Sanitation Districts’ solid waste management department, said that when dumps in the county are full the only practical ways to dispose of trash will be to haul it from this area at a high cost or burn it.

The Sanitation Districts have estimated that the county will be producing 45,000 tons of trash daily in the year 2000. The districts’ goals are to recycle 5,000 tons, divert 27,000 tons to refuse-to-energy plants and bury the remainder.

But so far the only trash-to-energy plant under construction in the county is one in the city of Commerce that will handle 300 tons of trash a day. Outside the San Gabriel Valley, there are proposals to build trash-to-energy plants in South Gate to burn 375 tons of trash a day; in Long Beach to burn from 600 to 1,350 tons a day, and in Los Angeles to burn 1,600 tons a day. The Sanitation Districts are looking for a site in the South Bay or southwestern part of the county to handle 1,000 to 2,000 tons daily.

Mayor Tennant said the proposed refuse-to-energy plants would keep most of the county’s trash coming to the San Gabriel Valley indefinitely. Besides the environmental risks from dumps, the area would have tons of pollutants added to its already smoggy air, he said.

‘Better Than Landfills’

Tennant said he does not oppose refuse-to-energy plants in principle. “I like the technology,” he said. “They may be better than landfills.” But, he said, the plants should be placed in unpopulated areas.

Tennant said plant proponents are trying to manufacture “a garbage crisis” to rush approval of the plants when, in fact, there is ample time to find better sites.

Nellor said the Sanitation Districts suggested the Spadra and Puente Hills sites because it makes sense to build trash incinerators at landfills. The combustion process destroys 90% to 95% of the waste, but leaves a large amount of ash, which must be taken to a landfill for burial.

In addition, Nellor noted, not all waste is suitable for burning. Trash not usable could be buried at the adjacent landfill, he said.

Trash incinerators would emit several tons of pollutants a day through stacks reaching 200 to 450 feet in the air. The high stacks are designed to disperse the gas into the atmosphere, and proponents say the gas would not have any detectable odor.

Oxides of Nitrogen

Sanford M. Weiss, director of the engineering division for the South Coast Air Quality Management District, said the most troubling pollutants emitted from refuse-to-energy plants are oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and toxic substances.

Oxides of nitrogen are particularly troublesome, he said, because the best pollution control technology would reduce emissions only by half, and those emissions are a major component of smog.

The proposed Spadra plant, for example, would emit a ton of oxides of nitrogen a day; by comparison, the 669,000 people whose refuse would be burned at the plant drive cars that produce 23 tons of oxides of nitrogen each day, plant designers say.

Weiss said refuse-to-energy plants that cannot meet air emission standards can qualify for construction permits anyway if the owners reduce emissions from their other facilities or pay other plants to reduce emissions. These so-called “offsets” must more than equal the pollution generated by the new plant, Weiss said.

Provision in State Law

If the offsets are not available, state law allows construction of refuse-to-energy plants designed to produce less than 50 megawatts of power if the owners have made a “good faith” effort to acquire the offsets. Weiss said the law reflects a belief that refuse-to-energy plants have benefits that outweigh pollution increases.

Plants with power outputs above 50 megawatts do not qualify for the offset waiver but can meet smog requirements by using innovative technology to reduce emissions.

Weiss said the Irwindale plant is being redesigned because of difficulties in meeting smog standards for carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen. He said plant designers have that indicated their new approach will employ innovative technology.

R. Pete Watson, spokesman for HDR Techserv, which is overseeing the Irwindale project, said using new technology “seems like an easy way out,” but makes sense only if it works and is cheaper than buying offsets. He said it is not clear what technology will be employed, but engineers are looking at new ways to reduce carbon monoxide, which would also reduce oxides of nitrogen.

No Direct Jurisdiction

The air quality district does not have direct jurisdiction over plans for the proposed Irwindale plant because it is being licensed through the California Energy Commission, which regulates projects of 50 megawatts or more. But the district will review the plans and submit recommendations to the commission.

Refuse-to-energy plants also must obtain permits from the federal Environmental Protection Agency. And a number of other local, regional and state agencies must review plans before the plants can be built or operated.

Charles W. Carry, general manager of the county sanitation districts, told a recent meeting of mayors who sit on the sanitation districts’ boards that he is confident that refuse-to-energy plants can be built without damage to public health. “The biggest problem is financing these facilities,” he said.

The Irwindale project is the only one that has financing lined up. An agency of the city of Irwindale has sold $395 million worth of bonds for the project, but project organizers say financing arrangements will not be complete until the plant is licensed for construction. The energy commission is expected to act on the permit application next spring.

Electricity Agreements

The Irwindale and Azusa plants have the advantage of agreements to sell electricity to Southern California Edison Co. The sanitation districts are negotiating with the utility, but the state Public Utilities Commission recently dropped a requirement for Edison to offer power contracts under the comparatively lucrative terms that were available to the Azusa and Irwindale projects.

An environmental impact report prepared for the 2,000-tons-a-day incinerator proposed for Azusa places the cost of the project at $131 million. Williams, who is heading the project for Enercan Resources Inc., said financing will be found if the project receives the needed permits. The first hurdle will be a public hearing on the environmental impact report before the Azusa Planning Commission, tentatively scheduled for September.

The Spadra project already has won approval from the Pomona Planning Commission and the county Regional Planning Commission. Pomona Mayor G. Stanton Selby said opposition was so low-key that no one appealed the Planning Commission’s favorable decision to the City Council.

“I haven’t heard one whisper of doubt about the project,” Selby said, adding that he has confidence that the sanitation districts can build and run a plant safely.

“I think the sanitation districts have done as much homework as they can,” he said.

Opposition Expected

The Spadra landfill is comparatively isolated and its principal neighbor, Cal Poly Pomona, has supported the project. The sanitation districts expect stronger opposition to the Puente Hills project, particularly from Hacienda Heights homeowners who have fought landfill expansion in the past.

Sandy Johnson, who lives just east of the dump, said residents had thought closure of the dump might be in sight, but the trash-to-energy plant would not only prolong the dump’s life indefinitely, but also bring in more garbage, increasing truck traffic and degrading air quality.

Johnson said that although the project must receive approval from a number of regulatory agencies, residents are skeptical of the process because regulators in the past have pronounced dumps safe and then discovered air and water contamination.

CADRE Group Formed

Residents concerned about dumps in the San Gabriel Valley and elsewhere have formed Communities Against Dumps in Residential Environments (CADRE) to monitor sites and trade information.

Tom Walsh, a spokesman for CADRE and a leader in the successful campaign to close the BKK landfill to toxic waste, said the group opposes plans at landfills to draw gas out and convert it to electricity. Many of the same objections to refuse-to-energy plants also apply to gas-to-energy plants, he said.

BKK has received permits to built a plant generating 5 megawatts of power, and could increase it to 15. Puente Hills is planning to expand a system that generates 3 megawatts to one that develops 40 megawatts. The Spadra proposal would create 6 to 8 megawatts of electricity. Getty Synthetic Fuels, which currently extracts landfill gas at the Operating Industries dump and purifies it for sale to Southern California Gas Co., is seeking permission to construct facilities to burn the gas to generate electricity. The power output would be 5 megawatts.

Walsh said the process of converting gas to electricity releases toxic pollutants into the air. Weiss at the Air Quality Management District agreed that pollutants are emitted, but said the gas must be extracted and burned anyway and there is a gain for society in creating electricity.