Panel OKs Incinerator Controls

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday unanimously approved a bill aimed at protecting the public’s health from pollutants emitted by waste-to-energy plants, but rejected efforts to slow or halt construction of the high-tech incinerators.

It also approved on a 7-1 vote and sent to the Assembly Public Investments Committee a measure by Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles) to place a $250-million bond measure to build waste-to-energy plants on the November ballot.

Nearly three dozen of the huge incinerators are planned around the state as an alternative to landfills for the disposal of household waste. In recent months, criticism of the plants has been mounting, especially from community groups in South-Central Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley, where several are proposed. Their questions have focused on whether air quality would be harmed by such toxic pollutants as dioxins, which are byproducts of the trash burning.

Partly in response to that concern, the committee on a 10-0 vote approved the public health measure by Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) and sent it to the Ways and Means Committee.

The action came after three hours of lively hearings on the waste-to-energy issue, which legislators said has been heavily lobbied from all sides.

Environmental Reports

Under Sher’s bill, if waste-to-energy plants fail to meet tougher standards they would be denied construction permits. Among the bill’s provisions are a requirement for an environmental impact report for the plants, an assessment that plant emissions will not cause a significant increase in illness or death and that local authorities may require plants to add new pollution control equipment.

Under existing law, waste incinerators that generate more than 50 megawatts of electricity are subject to similar stringent environmental reviews by the state Energy Commission. Sher’s proposal would extend these regulations to include smaller projects, including the 39-megawatt Los Angeles City Energy Recovery (Lancer) project.

Mike Miller, Lancer’s project manager, said that the city already has completed an environmental impact report for the project and plans to assess the health risks. He said that if Sher’s measure should become law and new air pollution controls are required, the cost of the South-Central Los Angeles plant could rise by an undetermined amount. The City of Los Angeles is seeking a $235-million bond issue to finance the plant.

Mark White, senior vice president of Pacific Waste Management Corp., which has proposed a waste-to energy plant in Irwindale, said Sher’s bill might force new controls to be added to Pacific’s project. The plant is being reviewed by the state Energy Commission.

Los Angeles Backs Plants

Backers, including the City of Los Angeles and the county sanitation districts, have touted trash-to-energy plants as a logical alternative to rapidly filling landfills.

But the state’s one completed plant--a small facility at Lassen College in Susanville--has operated only sporadically. Elsewhere, about 33 plants are in various stages of planning or construction, including about a dozen in Los Angeles County.

Assemblywoman Moore said the goal of her bill is to encourage the projects to be “environmentally sound.” Her measure would earmark $250 million for loans, grants, research and upgrading of the waste-to-energy projects.

Two other bills failed to clear the committee.

One bill proposed by Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego) would have enacted an outright moratorium on the plants. Stirling said Sher’s approach is “at least a moderate step in the right direction.”

The other rejected bill, offered by Assemblyman Frank Hill (R-Whittier), would have stalled construction of plants in Irwindale and Puente Hills by prohibiting the purchase of air quality offsets in areas that fail to meet federal clean air standards. It was introduced at the request of Miller Brewing Co., which has a bottling plant near the proposed Irwindale project.