Trash-to-Energy Plant Might Face Spot on Fall Ballot

Backers of a “clean air initiative” that would block construction of the Sander trash-burning power plant in Kearny Mesa submitted petitions with more than 80,000 signatures Tuesday in hopes of qualifying the measure for the November ballot.

At a press conference outside City Hall, a spokesman for San Diegans for Clean Air said the petitions presented to the city clerk for validation represent a “message” to supporters of the plant from “80,209 residents” who do not want “your pollution machine in San Diego.”

“The (project proponents) are waging a campaign of confusion, but it will fail,” said spokesman Bob Glaser, who also is a candidate for the City Council in the 6th District. “Because the fact is, (Sander) will not solve our landfill problem. It will strain our drinking water supply . . . and it will pollute our environment.”

The initiative, first unveiled in November, would prohibit Sander and similar trash-to-energy facilities from increasing in air pollution and using drinking water for cooling purposes. It also would require that all plastics, metals and industrial wastes be removed from the waste stream and recycled.

The Sander plant, also known as the San Diego Energy Recovery Project, is a joint city-county effort billed as a way to avert a local trash crisis caused by rapidly dwindling landfill space. It would burn 2,250 tons of trash a day--about 45% of the refuse dumped daily at the Miramar landfill--while generating electrical power for some 60,000 homes.

Sander would be one of the biggest individual polluters in San Diego County. Executives of Signal Environmental Systems, the firm hoping to build the plant, say the facility would emit nearly four tons of pollutants a day, including a range of suspected and known carcinogens like dioxins, cadmium, arsenic and aromatic hydrocarbons.

The question of the public health effects has become the central issue in the mushrooming debate over construction of the plant, which would sit on 43 acres north of the Interstate 805 interchange with California 163.

Project opponents, among them the local chapter of the American Lung Assn. and a local society of allergists, have said that because the health effects of such materials are little understood, the plant should not be built. Indeed, they note that many of the contaminants are so-called “non-criteria” pollutants for which there are no standards establishing safe or unsafe levels.

“There are many, many uncertainties about the public health and air quality risks, and it’s just absurd to go ahead with this in the absence of good information,” said Ruth Duemler of the Sierra Club’s local branch. “We feel there are much better, safer and more economical ways to go.”

Signal Report

Despite such skepticism, studies commissioned by Signal--which has built six similar plants around the country and has others in the works--have concluded that the massive incinerator poses “no significant health risk.” In March, the company released a voluminous report showing the risk of cancer posed by plant pollution at the maximum point of impact over 70 years is between .06 in a million and 9 in a million.

As a comparison, that study noted that the cancer risk posed by eating four tablespoons of peanut butter a day over a lifetime is 2,800 in a million and that posed by naturally occuring radiation is 1,400 in a million.

On Monday, company officials took their argument a step further, unveiling a new report they say demonstrates that pollutants from common landfills are a greater cause for concern than are contaminants from incinerators like Sander.

The report, prepared by Woodward-Clyde Consultants at Signal’s request, found that trash-to-energy facilities are a “dramatically preferable alternative” to landfills, which were said to pose as much as 50 times the health risk of the incineration technology.

The study evaluated the emission of 10 toxic compounds from a typical San Diego landfill, including benzene, methyl chloride and carbon tetrachloride. It then used a computer model to project the health risk to a person continually exposed to the highest ground level concentration of each of the chemicals from the site over 70 years.

The findings showed that the cancer risk from landfill emissions at maximum impact is 41.8 per million, as compared to 9 per million for Sander. In the year 2001, the study predicted the maximum cancer risk from landfills would rise to 430 in a million.

“We used the same computer modeling and ground rules that we did for the Sander study, and even we were surprised by the high numbers,” said Frank Mazanec, project director for Signal. “I think this is very important evidence and will help clarify the debate over the health issue, which is obviously the greatest concern.”

Critics of the Sander plant were immediately skeptical of the findings, although most had little to say about its scientific merit.

Some health and air quality officials also expressed concerns, in particular about how and where the emissions were measured and whether the study had compared apples with apples. They also noted that the quality of mechanisms used to screen out pollutants before they are discharged from incinerators is a key factor.

“There are a lot of variables here that can make all the difference in the world with these studies, so unless you know the precise methodology, it’s hard to comment,” said Bob Borzelleri of the Toxic Substances Division of the state Department of Health Services. “These findings are not inconceivable. But more important to me is their applicability. Whether you have a 9-in-a-million health risk or a 430-in-a-million health risk, they’re both unacceptable to us.”

Barney McEntire, a senior air pollution control engineer with the county Air Pollution Control District, noted that the study failed to consider pending controls on landfill emissions ushered in by state legislation last year.

“The landfills we have in San Diego that are emitting this stuff will eventually be brought under control to ensure they do not pose a health risk,” McEntire said. “So if you look at this study in terms of the comparative effects after those controls are in place, it’s a very doubtful argument.”

Recycling Advocated

Sander, which is viewed by city officials as a partial answer to the prediction that the Miramar landfill will be filled by 1995, is being evaluated by the California Energy Commission. The commission is expected to decide early next year whether to issue a permit for the plant. The City Council then must decide whether to declare final support for the project.

Meanwhile, members of San Diegans for Clean Air are doing everything they can to block the plant. Their effort was buoyed last week when Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley--after a five-year, $12-million investment--suddenly scrapped plans for a similar trash-to-energy plant in that city.

Along with the Sierra Club, San Diegans for Clean Air advocates recycling as a way to meet the landfill crunch, noting that Northern California communities such as Berkeley and Davis have reduced their waste stream by as much as 50% through such programs.

“San Diego is definitely in the Stone Age on recycling,” said Janet Brown, an anti-Sander activist from Tierrasanta. “Why hasn’t anything been done to reduce the waste stream? They’ve just put all their money and energy into mass burn instead of looking at alternatives. It’s senseless.”

Mazanec says recycling goes “hand-in-hand” with Sander and vows that Signal will participate in recycling programs if so requested. But he asserts it is “very, very unrealistic” to believe recycling is a viable alternative to trash incineration.

Backers of the clean air initiative need 55,000 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November ballot. The city clerk will send the petitions to the County Registrar’s Office for validation and, assuming the group has gathered a sufficient number, the City Council will then formally vote to place the initiative before voters.

That action must take place by Aug. 7; otherwise, the measure will not make the ballot until June, 1988--after the time Sander is expected to be granted a permit.

In a related matter Tuesday, the City Council delayed for a week a controversial vote on whether to amend a community plan to allow operation of the trash incinerator.