Trash Plant Opponents Offer 6,000 Signatures

Eager to undercut a trash-to-energy plant proposed in San Marcos, foes from neighboring cities presented a petition Tuesday to county supervisors bearing more than 6,000 signatures.

Waving placards and chanting slogans, about 40 residents of Carlsbad, Vista and other North County communities picketed the County Administration Center for 45 minutes before addressing the supervisors.

Higher Bills Predicted

Carlsbad Councilwoman Ann Kulchin, spokeswoman for the loose-knit coalition, presented a list of demands to the supervisors, saying the plant would prompt an increase in electricity bills and trash fees paid by residents throughout the county. In addition, the group blasted the project as an environmental catastrophe, saying it would pump pollutants into the air daily.

The board reacted by calling on the county staff to address the arguments made by Kulchin and produce a progress report on negotiations with North County Resource Recovery Associates, developers of the trash plant.

“These are strong allegations, and I’d like to have some answers,” said Supervisor John MacDonald, who represents North County. “I’d like to have a response from the staff.”

The plant’s developers, meanwhile, said they feel confident the proposal will prove to be both financially feasible and environmentally safe.

“I think we can provide not only a viable plant but an economically attractive one,” said Gerald Toney, project manager for North County Resource Recovery Associates. “It’s very likely . . . that this facility ultimately will be cheaper than landfill options.”

Since first proposed in 1982, the project has been hit by a flurry of litigation. In recent months, nine suits have been filed a by surrounding cities, a developer and citizens’ groups.

Now comes the petition signed by residents living within a few miles of the plant, which would burn trash to produce electricity.

The opponents want the supervisors to reject any new amendments to a contract between the county and the plant’s developers. Under that agreement, now the subject of renewed negotiations, the private firm would build the $217-million plant in exchange for fees to handle the mountain of trash produced by North County residents.

End of Project Wanted

In addition, the petition asks that the board explore legal avenues to terminate the project and requests a “referendum vote” on the project encompassing residents living within a 5- to 7-mile radius of the site. In September, the plant garnered a tight, 229-vote victory at the polls in San Marcos, but many residents of outlying communities were angered because they had no say on the issue.

But Nancy Allen, MacDonald’s top aide, said a regional vote of residents surrounding the plant would not be feasible.

Kulchin, the opponents’ spokeswoman, said the trash plant would prove to be not only an environmental hazard for a wide swath of the North County, but also “the biggest publicly subsidized economic boondoggle that ever hit San Diego County.”

Though proponents of the plant have said it would process a ton of trash for about $17, the price at similar projects on the East Coast is a minimum of $40 to $50 a ton, Kulchin argued. Moreover, the chairman of the state Energy Commission has indicated the cost of disposal for a plant in California is estimated at between $60 and $70 a ton, she said.

If built, the trash plant would require residents from throughout San Diego County to pay “direct and indirect subsidies,” Kulchin said. That would be reflected, Kulchin said, in higher trash fees and increased bills from San Diego Gas & Electric, which has agreed to purchase electricity from the plant at 50% to 300% over the cost from other sources.

“When the citizens from the other parts of our county realize they, too, will have to subsidize the trash plant through higher trash fees and higher electrical rates, that house of cards known as the San Marcos trash-burning plant will come tumbling down,” Kulchin told the supervisors.

Called Competitive Plan

Toney insisted, however, that the trash-to-energy plant could be built and operated “at a price that’s competitive within the industry.”

“Certainly, if we start talking about a price of $70 a ton, we all understand that the project is not going to go forward,” Toney said, adding that his firm is waiting to begin negotiations with the county on specifics of the financial package.

Despite the delays caused by lawsuits and the negotiation process, the developers hope to begin work on the project at least by this fall, with construction taking about three years.

“There’s been a lot invested in the project, and I think it’s do-able,” Toney said. “I hope that as the county moves forward and reviews the proposal, it won’t take any action that will preclude that as a possibility.”

The supervisors gave few hints of which way they were leaning Tuesday. Supervisor Brian Bilbray, a staunch supporter of the plant, called for the county staff to provide figures comparing the economic impacts of a trash plant to the airborne pollutants spewed out by trash-hauling trucks.

Meanwhile, Allen, MacDonald’s chief of staff, said after the meeting that the supervisor is concerned about the financial ramifications of the trash plant on the county.

Important to Whole County

“We would very much like to know what is going on,” Allen said. “This is important to the whole county. The financial implications would have an impact on everybody.”

The San Marcos plant is designed to process 600,000 tons of North County trash annually by filtering out 2,000 tons of aluminum, 25,000 tons of paper and 20,000 tons of ferrous metals and plastics for recycling. About 400,000 tons of trash would be used as fuel to generate enough electricity to serve 40,000 homes. The ash from the burned rubbish would be buried at the adjacent county landfill along with materials that cannot be recycled or burned.

North County Resource Recovery Associates is a partnership between Thermo Electron Energy Systems of Massachusetts and Combustion Engineering, a Connecticut-based firm that came aboard in December.