Drive to Block Sander Plant Opens : Group Seeks Voter Rejection of Trash-to-Energy Facility

Seeking to block construction of a controversial trash-to-energy plant proposed for Kearny Mesa, a group calling itself San Diegans for Clean Air launched a petition drive Wednesday to place an initiative on the November, 1987, ballot that would ban all such plants through zoning regulations.

The Sander plant, a joint city-county project planned for an area next to the Miramar landfill, would burn 2,250 tons of trash daily, providing electrical power for about 60,000 homes in the process.

However, members of the citizens group say the plant each day would also emit 10 to 12 tons of toxic pollutants--including cancer-causing dioxins--and consume more than 2 million gallons of water.

“We’re opposed to it and we plan to stop it,” said group member Robert Simmons, a professor of law at the University of San Diego. “We think it’s a dumb idea . . . that will threaten the health of 500,000 residents each day.”

The initiative would amend the city’s General Plan to prohibit any trash incinerator that would increase the level of toxic air pollutants or make additional demands on the city’s water supply. The measure would also prohibit any such plants from being built within a three-mile radius of hospitals, child care centers, elementary schools and nursing homes.

To qualify the initiative for the ballot, the group will have to obtain 54,454 valid signatures by June 2, said Monica Krouch, elections secretary with the city clerk’s office. Simmons said his group is hoping to gather 75,000 signatures to ensure that the measure makes the ballot. The group is trying to raise $50,000 to fund its efforts, of which $5,000 has already been donated, Simmons said.

However, Simmons said the group would abandon its initiative campaign if the City Council votes to scuttle the Sander project.

“The City Council and the mayor need to understand that we’re going to stop Sander,” Simmons said. “They say, ‘Once it’s proven to be unsafe, we’ll oppose it.’ The point is they don’t oppose it, they’re supporting it. They’re not seriously looking at the non-burning technology.”

A spokesman for Signal Environmental Systems of San Diego, the firm supervising the plant’s design and construction, called the group’s efforts “unfortunate.”

“I think it’s unfortunate that the initiative fails to recognize that the City of San Diego is facing a trash crisis,” said company spokesman Bernie Rhinerson. “It also fails to recognize that the State of California, through the California Energy Commission has the strictest standards of environmental review. . . . Signal’s still very confident that the Sander plant will not be found unhealthful or harmful to the environment.”

Before construction of the plant can begin, the project must be approved by the state Energy Commission, which will base its decision in part on information from the state Department of Health Services, the state Air Resources Board and the county Air Pollution Control District.

However, state and county air quality officials have told Signal Environmental Systems that they cannot proceed with their review of the project until the firm provides more explicit information on the plant’s potential hazards.

“We’ve told them that the application they’ve filed is deficient and that the health risk assessment portion is significantly deficient,” said Richard Smith, deputy director of the county Air Pollution Control District. “We have told them that we are not going to invest any more of our time in it because the bottom line is that (the present application) is not acceptable.”

Signal officials have told the agencies that an amended application will be submitted by Feb. 24, Smith said. Barring any further delays, the state Energy Commission will make a final decision on the project by late December, 1987, he said.

On Tuesday, the American Lung Assn. of San Diego and Imperial Counties announced that it opposes construction of the plant because of concern over the effects of toxic pollutants such as mercury, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and dioxins. The San Diego Allergy Society has also expressed its opposition.

Among the initiative’s supporters is Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), who last year authored an unsuccessful bill that would have placed a statewide moratorium on all trash-to-energy plants.

“We still remain in a posture of ‘Hey folks, this is no good,’ ” said Walter Slater, a Stirling field representative. “There are some real serious health impacts if this thing is built.”

Much of the public opposition to the project has come from residents of the Tierrasanta area, who believe they would suffer the most from any pollutants emitted by the plant. However, Smith said the county’s research indicates pollutants from the plant would bypass those neighborhoods.

“The maximum impact zones are No. 1, the Patrick Henry (High School) area in San Carlos and, second, the Mt. Soledad area,” Smith said. “What the computer model suggests is that none of the pollution is going to touch down in Tierrasanta.”