Trash-to-Energy Project Killed in Irwindale
The state Energy Commission on Thursday killed a plan to build one of the nation’s largest waste-to-energy plants in Irwindale.
The developer conceded defeat at the beginning of a commission hearing on a proposal to terminate an application to build a $395-million plant.
Before the commission ruled, John McGrain, who heads Conversion Industries Inc. of Pasadena, the parent company of Pacific Waste Management Corp., surprised the commission and an audience of 200 by announcing that Pacific Waste was withdrawing its application. He announced that he will try to build a smaller plant that will not require commission approval, but he gave no details.
The project had encountered strong opposition from 16 neighboring cities, two local congressmen, four local legislators and several citizens’ groups, all claiming that the plant’s pollutants would increase smog and could endanger public health.
McGrain accused the commission of inconsistent and arbitrary rulings, attacked opponents of the project and said he would try again.
“Let there be no misunderstanding of our commitment to successfully develop a waste-to-energy project in the City of Irwindale,” McGrain said.
But after making his statement, McGrain abruptly left the hearing, refusing to answer questions from commissioners or the press.
Pacific Waste had applied to build the plant in two stages, ultimately burning up to 3,000 tons of trash a day to generate 74 megawatts of power, enough electricity to serve 40,000 homes.
Pacific Waste could avoid the Energy Commission by proposing a plant under 50 megawatts, but it would have to obtain permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other agencies. Irwindale City Manager Charles Martin said the city would require a full environmental impact study before it could issue a permit.
Martin, whose city sold $395 million in bonds in 1984 to finance the plant, said he was “shocked and surprised” by the abandonment of the plan and will wait to see details of the new proposal before commenting on it.
But Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia) said, “People are not in an emotional state to accept any plant.”
Projects Pending
Charles Imbrecht, chairman of the commission, said the action does not mean that the commission is opposed to all waste-to-energy projects.
An 80-megawatt plant near Redwood City in the San Francisco Bay Area and a 62-megawatt plant near the Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego County are pending before the commission.
The commission voted 5 to 0 to accept a recommendation from its siting committee that the application be terminated for failing to obtain sufficient air emission credits to offset pollution from the plant and for “misuse” of the regulatory process by misrepresenting credits and concealing a report suggesting that sufficient credits might be unavailable.
In order to build a plant, Pacific Waste would have to find ways to offset five kinds of pollutants. The so-called offset credits can be obtained from other plants that have shut down polluting equipment or installed more pollution control devices than legally required.
Rejected Charge
McGrain said Pacific Waste could have obtained sufficient offsets if it had been given more time, and he rejected the charge of misrepresentation.
The commission acted one day after a scientific evaluation was announced of the proposed Lancer trash-to-energy plant in Los Angeles. Although the evaluation rated the health risk as minimal from emissions should the plant be built, critics were skeptical and controversy continues.
However, the decision of the energy panel in Irwindale was not directly related to health concerns, nor was it rejecting the principle of the trash-to-energy process.
State Energy Commission approval is not required for the Lancer project to proceed.
