Lack of Landfill Space Alarms Pasadena

A quickly disappearing supply of landfill space throughout the metropolitan Los Angeles area has prompted the City of Pasadena to explore building its own waste-to-energy plant and a 100-acre landfill in Glendale.

City officials concede that the two proposals recommended to the Board of Directors in a study presented in March could provoke a furious response from San Gabriel Valley residents, who have opposed similar proposals.

But Deputy City Manager Edward Aghjayan said the city’s waste disposal problems have reached the point where it must begin considering radical steps to solve them.

The importance of the study, done by the environmental engineering firm of Hekimian & Associates, has been underscored by two recent developments that threaten to further reduce the city’s options.

Glendale, which receives all of Pasadena’s garbage at its Scholl Canyon landfill, is considering barring other cities from its landfill as early as next year to ensure that it will have enough space for its own trash.

And, to make matters worse, the proposed 3,000-ton-a-day, waste-to-energy plant in Irwindale, which city officials say would be a cheap and easy solution, appears to be in trouble. A state Energy Commission committee recommended recently that the full commission terminate the developer’s application to build the plant.

There are now 11 landfills within 40 miles of Pasadena. But at the current rate of dumping, the only ones that will be open in 10 years are Scholl Canyon, and the Bradley West and Calabasas landfills in the San Fernando Valley, according to the study.

The study rejected the three landfills as long-term solutions by themselves because of their limited life expectancy.

At the current rate of dumping, Bradley West is expected to close in 2001, followed by Scholl Canyon in 2004 and Calabasas in 2014, according to the study.

But Aghjayan said those landfills might have to close sooner as more cities compete for their use, which would probably drive up dumping fees. He added that the city is also uncertain whether a long-term contract can be negotiated with any of landfills.

It now costs the city $13 a ton in transportation costs and dumping fees to use Scholl Canyon, according to the study. Bradley West would cost $19.60 a ton and Calabasas $17.06 a ton.

“We can’t afford to wait anymore for some grand regional solution,” Aghjayan said. “It’s our problem, and we have to solve it.”

The $45,000 study offered five major recommendations:

Negotiate a long-term dumping agreement with Glendale for the use of the Scholl Canyon landfill.

Conduct a feasibility study on building a waste-to-energy plant in Pasadena if the city is barred from the Scholl Canyon landfill.

Maintain the option of using the Irwindale plant if it is built.

Begin a “detailed and serious” study of a city-owned landfill in a neighboring city.

Begin a program of waste recycling.

Aghjayan said none of the alternatives provides an easy solution, and all of the most effective options have problems.

Homes and businesses in Pasadena now produce an estimated 118,000 tons of garbage a year. By 2010 that figure is expected to top 165,000 tons because of the city’s increasing population and commercial development.

Like most cities in the Los Angeles area, Pasadena buries the bulk of its garbage in sanitary landfills.

But, because of increasing environmental regulations and the public outcry against opening new landfills, there is a shortage of places to put the garbage, according to the study.

‘No One Wants It’

Even those cities that have their own landfills, like Glendale, are facing the same problem of where to dispose of their garbage because eventually all their space will be filled.

“Who’s going to take the stuff?” asked Glendale Mayor Larry Zarian. “No one wants it in their backyard.”

“Everyone else is scrambling to find a solution to their own problems,” Aghjayan said. “It’s not like there is a landfill out there waiting for Pasadena’s garbage.”

Aghjayan said the city must take a “holistic” approach to its waste disposal problem by combining several of the study’s recommendations.

The best alternative, on which the city could base other solutions, would be to negotiate a long-term contract with Glendale for the continued use of the Scholl Canyon landfill.

Because the landfill is now operated by the county Sanitation Districts, the county can determine who is allowed to dump garbage at the Scholl Canyon landfill. But, when that agreement ends, probably late next year, Glendale will determine who gets to use the dump.

Glendale is also aware of how precious its landfill space is and is seriously considering barring other cities from using Scholl Canyon when the Sanitation Districts’ contract runs out.

Zarian said that, if only Glendale dumped in Scholl Canyon, its useful life could be extended by as much as 80 years.

$7 Million in Income

Although Glendale is expected to reap about $7 million next year from allowing other cities to dump in the landfill, the city’s own garbage problem may outweigh those economic benefits.

“I personally would like to see the landfill become just a Glendale landfill,” Zarian said. “I don’t want our city to become the trash can of Southern California.”

The city is expected to make a decision on future landfill use in July, he said.

Aghjayan said the use of the proposed Irwindale waste-to-energy plant would be one of the least expensive alternatives because the site is close to Pasadena, cutting transportation costs. In addition, dump fees would be low, officials have said, because the plant would generate revenue by selling electricity.

But Aghjayan said the city cannot depend on the Irwindale plant ever being built.

“The Irwindale facility has significant economic benefits,” he said. “But we can’t put all of our eggs in that basket.”

Potential Areas Identified

At the top of the list of alternatives is the construction of a city-owned landfill, which would give the city the ability to control its own costs.

A few areas north of Altadena, Sierra Madre and Glendale have been identified as potential sites for a 100-acre landfill, which could cost as much as $5.8 million. It could take garbage from Pasadena and other nearby cities’ garbage until 2057.

But putting a landfill in any community is extremely controversial, and residents in the San Gabriel foothills would almost certainly turn out in force to keep one out of their communities.

“I sure wouldn’t want to be the guy proposing a landfill here,” said Sierra Madre Vice Mayor Andrew Roy Buchan. “There would be a lynch mob.”

Garbage in Backyard

“You don’t print four-letter words do you?” asked Altadena Town Council Chairman Frank Bridal. “Nobody wants garbage in their backyard and Altadena is no different.”

Building a trash-to-energy plant in Pasadena to burn garbage and produce steam or electricity would probably be an equally controversial alternative.

The study estimated that a facility that would burn 350 to 400 tons of trash a day would cost an estimated $23 million to build and could handle the city’s waste for 25 to 40 years.

A larger 1,300- to 1,400-ton-per-day plant that could also take garbage from Burbank and Glendale would cost an estimated $113 million.

The study has pinpointed the city’s water and power generator plant on Arroyo Parkway as a likely location for the smaller plant because the city owns the land and some of the necessary generating equipment is already in place.

But newly elected City Director Kathryn Nack, who would represent the area around the plant, said that “people would be up in arms” about building the facility in the heart of a densely populated residential and commercial area.

Nack said she would oppose a waste-to-energy plant not only in her district, but in any other part of Pasadena because of the city’s population density.

‘No Way to Confine Discharges’

“There is no way to confine the discharges from a plant like that to any one district,” she said, adding the entire region must work together to find a suitable site for a waste-to-energy plant that all cities could use.

Aghjayan conceded that the proposal would be “fraught with problems,” and he called it a “last-ditch option.”

But he added that the city cannot rule out the possibility of a waste-to-energy plant.

The only noncontroversial alternative is recycling, but the report states that recycling can only reduce the garbage the city produces by 25% at best.

Aghjayan said the city expects to unveil a voluntary recycling program in the next few months.