‘Cautious Relief’ Greets Defeat of Trash Plant

A proposed 3,000-ton-a-day trash burner in Irwindale was rejected last week, but even the dozens of local officials who gathered to drink champagne afterward admitted that the party may not last forever.

“This,” said Duarte City Manager Jess Duff, “is only a cautious sigh of relief.”

The restrained celebration Thursday came after a dramatic three-hour public meeting of the state Energy Commission, during which developers of the waste-to-energy plant unexpectedly withdrew their proposal and pledged to build a smaller plant that would not require commission approval.

Even though the five-member commission took the additional step of unanimously killing the controversial project, city officials throughout the San Gabriel Valley said the fight was not over and vowed to battle even a scaled-down version of the incinerator.

“They’re going to face the same opposition and more,” said Azusa Mayor Eugene Moses, who attended the party hosted by the City of Duarte at the Rapscallion restaurant in Irwindale. “It’s a lot easier for them to leave than us.”

West Covina City Councilman Forest Tennant, who began mobilizing opposition to the project nearly two years ago, said he would fight any waste-to-energy plant proposed for this area.

“I’m still against it,” Tennant said. “No matter how small it gets.”

By reducing their proposed 74-megawatt incinerator to below 50 megawatts, Pacific Waste Management Corp. could sidestep the Energy Commission’s jurisdiction, thereby requiring the Pasadena-based firm to get approval only from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and other agencies.

“Although this would result in a smaller project, we would welcome a realistic permitting process,” John P. McGrain, head of Pacific Waste’s parent company, said at the hearing Thursday afternoon.

McGrain, who requested that members of the Energy Commission not interrupt his presentation as the hearing began, accused the commission of using “innuendo” and “misrepresentation” in its handling of the project.

“Much of the project’s opposition has been generated by false and misleading statements, by half-truths and innuendo,” he said. “With proper environmental controls, waste-to-energy plants have been proven safe and offer a solution to the waste disposal crisis.”

Then, as the 200 people filling the gymnasium next to Irwindale City Hall stared in disbelief, McGrain quickly walked out the door without answering questions from the commissioners or reporters. Charles Imbrecht, chairman of the commission, had to bang his gavel several times before the cheering crowd returned to order.

“Although the fox left the henhouse on his own, let’s lock the gate,” said Assemblyman Richard Mountjoy (R-Monrovia), urging the commission to vote on the matter even though the Pacific Waste representatives had withdrawn the permit application.

Irwindale City Manager Charles Martin, whose city helped finance the project by issuing $395 million in bonds in 1984, said he was “shocked and surprised” by Pacific Waste’s action and said he will wait to see details of the new proposal before commenting on it.

Originally hailed as one of the country’s largest trash incinerators, the project has been plagued by critics ever since Pacific Waste proposed building the 85-acre plant in an Irwindale gravel pit in October, 1984.

Led by the Miller Brewing Co., which runs a brewery across the Foothill (210) Freeway from the proposed site, opponents have claimed that the trash burner would increase smog and could endanger the public health.

In all, 16 neighboring cities, two local congressmen, four local legislators, several citizens groups and a host of chambers of commerce, school districts and realty boards have gone on record condemning either the Irwindale project specifically or all such plants generally in the San Gabriel Valley.

“Our question has been: ‘Where’s the fairness?’ ” said Tennant, noting that the San Gabriel Valley handles 50% to 75% of Los Angeles County’s trash, while accounting for only 20% of the population.

The first major blow to the project came in April, 1986, when the Energy Commission voted to suspend Pacific Waste’s permits until the firm could demonstrate that it had been able to meet all air pollution requirements.

Under state and federal law, large polluting plants can be constructed only if the developer can prove that pollution elsewhere has been reduced. To do this, the developer can purchase credits from plants that either have shut down or have installed more pollution control devices than legally required.

Known as offset credits, they demonstrate that pollution from a proposed plant is being offset by reductions from other polluters.

Unable to purchase all the offset credits necessary to get approval, Pacific Waste proposed in September, 1986, to build the plant in two stages. The first phase, which would have had the capacity to burn 2,250 tons of trash a day, was about three-fourths the size of the original plan, thus reducing the necessary number of credits.

In one of the rare boosts for the project, the commission’s Siting Committee approved the revision in November, 1986, on the condition that Pacific Waste line up 75% of its trash supply.

The next month, Pacific Waste signed an agreement with Western Waste Industries of Carson to deliver 2,000 tons of trash, six days a week, from the day the plant opened until Dec. 21, 2013.

By January, 1987, however, the troubled project began a rapid demise.

Instructed by the Energy Commission to analyze Pacific Waste’s offset credits, the South Coast Air Quality Management District determined that the firm did not have sufficient credits to open the plant even at its scaled-down capacity.

The district’s report, signed by Sanford M. Weiss, director of engineering, and Robert R. Pease, supervising engineer, concluded that the project did not have the credits to offset its projected emissions of oxides of nitrogen, carbon dioxide and particulate matter.

Although Pacific Waste disputed the district’s analysis, the Siting Committee came back in March with a strongly worded report urging that the entire proceeding be terminated.

In the 100-page order, the committee accused Pacific Waste of misusing the regulatory process and withholding information indicating that the necessary air pollution credits were unavailable.

Signed by Barbara Crowley, vice chairwoman of the Energy Commission, the report concluded that there is “no rational basis” to believe that Pacific Waste could obtain the necessary credits, given more time.

“Secondly and independently,” the report added, “the committee believes that it is contrary to the public interest and the integrity of the commission’s regulatory process to continue the proceeding. The commission cannot maintain the appearance of a fair and evenhanded process for the society it serves if conduct such as the applicant’s . . . is rewarded by giving it an undeserved extension of time.”

In rejecting the plant, the commission accepted those conclusions.

KEY DATES IN TRASH-TO-ENERGY DISPUTE

October, 1984: Pacific Waste Management Corp. applies to the state Energy Commission to build a plant in Irwindale to burn 3,000 tons of trash a day to create electricity to serve 40,000 homes.

November, 1984: Irwindale Resource Recovery Authority, an agency created by the city and its Redevelopment Agency, sells $395 million in bonds for the Pacific Waste plant.

March, 1985: State Energy Commission accepts Pacific Waste’s application to build the plant in an Irwindale quarry and starts the hearing process.

July, 1985: Experts hired by Miller Brewing Co., which owns a $300-million brewery across the 210 Freeway from the proposed trash incinerator, raise the first strong objections to the proposed plant, claiming it could release pollutants that would threaten ground water, air quality and public health.

August, 1985: City councils in seven San Gabriel Valley cities--Azusa, Bradbury, Claremont, Duarte, Glendora, La Verne and Monrovia--go on record against the Pacific Waste proposal as opposition to the project grows.

December, 1985: Energy Commission staff recommends suspending Pacific Waste’s application until the company obtains air pollution credits to offset pollutants that would be emitted by the plant and lines up contracts with cities or trash companies to supply the trash.

April, 1986: Energy Commission’s Siting Committee suspends proceedings and sets an Oct. 1, 1986, deadline for Pacific Waste to obtain pollution offset credits.

September, 1986: Pacific Waste revises plan, proposing to build the plant in two stages, with an initial capacity of 2,250 tons of trash a day, thereby reducing the pollution and the required offset credits by one-fourth.

November, 1986: Commission’s Siting Committee accepts Pacific Waste’s revised plan, reducing offset requirements.

December, 1986: Pacific Waste signs agreement with Western Waste Industries of Carson to deliver 2,000 tons of trash six days a week to the plant from the day it opens until Dec. 21, 2013.

January, 1987: South Coast Air Quality Management District analyzes offset credits submitted by Pacific Waste and concludes that the company has not provided sufficient credits to offset three kinds of pollutants: nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and particulate matter.

March, 1987: Siting Committee recommends that the commission terminate proceedings on grounds that Pacific Waste failed to submit sufficient offset credits, misrepresented the credits that were submitted and concealed the fact that a consultant had reported that sufficient offsets for nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide were unavailable.

April, 1987: Pacific Waste withdraws application; Energy Commission kills project.