Trash-to-Energy Proposal Split Into 2 Stages

Developers of a trash-to-energy plant have proposed that it be built in two phases in an attempt to sidestep regulatory pressures and prove that it would not increase air pollution in the San Gabriel Valley.

Pacific Waste Management Corp. announced that it has filed an air emission offset package with the South Coast Air Quality Management District that will allow it to build a plant to burn 2,250 tons of trash a day, generating 55 megawatts of electricity for sale to Southern California Edison Co.

At the same time, the company amended its permit application with the state Energy Commission to split its project into two stages. After the initial plant is in operation for six months, the company said, it will seek expansion to the originally proposed capacity of 3,000 tons of trash a day, producing 80 megawatts of electricity.

Would Be Largest in State

For two years, Pacific Waste has been seeking permission to build the state’s largest trash burner in Irwindale despite opposition from many San Gabriel Valley cities, citizen groups and the neighboring Miller Brewing Co. The Energy Commission suspended proceedings in April and gave Pacific Waste until Oct. 1 to satisfy air emission requirements and until Dec. 1 to line up contracts for 75% of the trash needed to operate the plant.

Joseph W. Schilli, project manager for HDR Techserv, which is managing Pacific Waste’s permit applications, said the air emission requirements have been met and the company is negotiating waste contracts.

Schilli said the decision to reduce the size of the plant in its first phase makes it easier to meet regulatory requirements, since a smaller plant will burn less trash and release a smaller volume of pollutants. But, he said, the reduction is also a reaction to opposition based on the size of the plant. At 3,000 tons a day, the Irwindale plant would have been one of the largest in the country. At 2,250 tons, it would be similar in size to plants planned in San Diego and the San Francisco Bay area.

By building and operating a smaller plant first, Schilli said, Pacific Waste can demonstrate that “these things are not the death of everything in the San Gabriel Valley” and make expansion to 3,000 tons of trash a day acceptable.

But Duarte Councilman John Hitt, one of the leaders of the fight against the waste-to-energy plant, called the revised plan “a desperation maneuver” to save the project.

He said Pacific Waste in effect is admitting that it cannot get the air pollution credits and waste contracts it needs to build a plant of the original size. Splitting the plant’s construction into two stages does not make the project any more acceptable, he said.

Opposition has centered on the proposed plant’s impact on air quality through the release of pollutants, including such toxic contaminants as dioxins.

Pacific Waste has conceded that the plant poses air pollution problems, but says they can be overcome.

State and federal regulations will allow Pacific Waste to build the plant and emit certain pollutants by obtaining credits, called offsets, created through the reduction of pollution from other sources. Offsets can come from shutting down plants that emit pollutants or by installing pollution control equipment beyond that required by law.

Richard Jordan, an engineer with HDR Techserv, said a smaller Irwindale plant operating at 90% of capacity over a year would emit 508 tons of nitrogen oxides, 393 tons of sulfur oxides, 278 tons of carbon monoxide, 134 tons of suspended particulates and 27 tons of reactive organic gases.

To compensate for that, Jordan said, Pacific Waste has purchased or obtained options to buy offsets from two cities, a water district and eight companies in widely separated Southern California locations. Five of the sellers have closed plants; six have installed or will install extra pollution control devices.

Schilli said the offsets obtained by Pacific Waste will cost the company $8 million to $10 million. Jordan said the offsets represent yearly 968 tons of nitrogen oxides, 1,612 tons of sulfur oxides, 401 tons of carbon monoxide, 137 tons of suspended particulates and 132 tons of reactive organic gases that will not be released into the air. The pollutants will no longer be emitted because plants have shut down or new equipment has been or will be installed with funds provided by Pacific Waste.

Computing offset credits is a complicated process that involves more than just comparing pollution from the proposed plant with the offsetting reductions elsewhere. In this case, some of the offsetting reductions involve plants as far away as Costa Mesa and Saugus and they earn Pacific Waste less credit than pollution reductions obtained nearer the waste-to-energy site. In addition, plant shutdowns yield less credit than the installation of extra pollution control equipment.

Further complicating matters, Pacific Waste is claiming extra credit for reducing the pollution from Southern California Edison Co. power plants by selling electricity to Edison, lowering the load on Edison’s own generators.

Most of the reductions in oxides of nitrogen were obtained from agreements to pay for pollution control equipment at a Pasadena power plant and at facilities of the West Newport Oil Co. in Costa Mesa, and by a shutdown of Thatcher Glass Corp. in Saugus. Pacific Waste also submitted a new engineering study that claims that its air pollution control system for nitrogen oxides will be more effective than originally thought, reducing the need for offsets.

Pollution Controls on Engines

Carbon monoxide credits were obtained by agreements to pay for pollution control devices on engines operated by the city of Garden Grove, the Irvine Ranch Water District in Irvine and Southern California Gas Co. facilities in Valencia, Montebello, Northridge and La Habra.

Other offsets were obtained from equipment shutdowns at plants owned by the B. F. Goodrich Co. in Long Beach, Ajax Hardware in the City of Industry, Soule Steel in Carson and Great Lakes Carbon Corp. in Wilmington.

Terry O. Kelly, an attorney for Miller Brewing Co., said some of the offset credits will be challenged because the plant shutdowns occurred before Aug. 20, 1985, when the South Coast Air Quality Management District began considering Pacific Waste’s application. Pacific Waste contends that the regulations allow it to use offsets from plant shutdowns as early as 90 days before the application was filed.

Jordan said he believes that the offsets more than compensate for pollutants that would be released from the waste-to-energy plant and the result would be a net improvement in air quality in the San Gabriel Valley. The area would benefit not only from pollution reductions in Pasadena, Irwindale and Industry, he said, but also in Carson and Long Beach, since prevailing winds carry pollutants from those areas to the San Gabriel Valley.

Both Kelly, the Miller Brewing attorney, and Duarte Councilman Hitt scoffed at those claims. They noted that some of the heaviest emission reductions involve plants that are both outside the San Gabriel Valley and unconnected to its prevailing winds. However, Hitt noted, air pollution regulations allow Pacific Waste to obtain its offsets from anywhere in a four-county area.

Health Risk Analysis

The offset requirement applies only to certain kinds of pollutants. The impact of other air contaminants that would be emitted by the plant is being dealt with through a health risk analysis. Pacific Waste earlier this year submitted a study to the Energy Commission that analyzed the impact of 34 pollutants, including dioxins. The study said that the cancer risk from living near the plant would be slight, much lower than the cancer risk from eating charcoal-broiled steaks every week or drinking diet colas with saccharin every day.

Terry O’Brien, project manager for the Energy Commission, said the committee that is considering the Irwindale plant will hold a hearing within the next two weeks to discuss how to proceed with Pacific Waste’s revised application. He said the air quality district will probably need several weeks to analyze the offset package submitted by Pacific Waste.

Even if the offset package is sufficient, he said, proceedings will remain suspended until Pacific Waste lines up 75% of the trash supply needed to operate the plant. Pacific Waste on Sept. 17 lost an appeal to the commission to waive that requirement.

The company argued that it is premature to obtain trash commitments long before the plant is built. But the commission sided with its staff’s contention that it must know the source of the trash in order to evaluate the amount of truck traffic it will create and consider alternatives to burning the trash, such as hauling it to a dump.