HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-12-11; City Council; 7985-1; North County Resourse Recovery FacilityCITY" 9F CARLSBAD - AGENDiI'IILL W
DEPT. HD.,!@&
CITY MGR.*
CITY AllY
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If the City Council wishes to hold an informatianal hearing cm the North caunty Resource Recovery Center staff muld recamend consideration of the alternative dates belw.
On Deceniber 6, 1984 staff contacted the City of San Marms regarding the
progress of the conditional use pedt for the North county Resource Recovery Center fich is being considered by the San Marcos Planning Catmission.
Darrell Gentry, Planning Director, indicated that the hearing had been extended
for at least one additional day.
approved or denied the item will be appealed to the City Council.
Council hearing muld probably take place in early January.
The City Council may wish to lmld their m informational hearing in Carlsbad.
The hearing muld be infomtional since the Council has rn legal discretion on
the project. If the Council chooses to conduct a hearing staff muld suggest
that the testimony be limited to me spokesperson frm each side and the experts
frun governmental agencies such as the Air Pollution Control District and the
City of San Marcos.
directly, a list of spokespersons might be as follows:
San Marcos staff still feels that hether
A City
Although staff has not yet contacted any individuals
(1) Prqnents - Richard Chase
(2) (3) APCD - Richard Sannerville
(4)
opponents - ~r. steven Issac
City of San Marms - Darrell Gentry (to answer questions concerning mnditional use permit)
Listed below are possible hearing dates and locations available to the Cwncil:
Council Chambers Levante Center
DW. 19, 1984 - 6:OO P.M. DeC. 17, 1984 - 8:OO P.M.
Jan. 2, 1985 - 6:OO P.M. Dec. 19, 1984 - 8:OO P.M. Jan. 3, 1985 - 6:OO P.M.
The City of San Marcos has prepared an environmental impact report m this
project.
mitigable, others mich muld have to be averriden.
The project was found to have significant impacts sane of mich were
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no major fiscal impact M the City frcm an informational hearing.
Sane staff time will be utilized for preparation.
EXHIBITS
None
December 6, 1984
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm St.
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
Dear City Council Members: Re: Trash to Energy Plant
We understand you are studying the trash to energy plant for
possible comment.
Therefore, as residents of La Costa and living only 73: miles
from the.proposed site in San Marcos, we wish to submit our comments.
We are against having the trash plant for county garbage
built in our beautiful North County area. For that matter, it should
not be built anywhere near homes where people's
property could be endangered.
health and
We do not want to be exposed to the long list of chemical
effluents including dioxins and acid rain which could be emitted
by this plant.
broken down in previously buElt plants of this type and no doubt
will break down in this one, too.
So called 'fsafeguards" against these emissions have
Consider, too, it is pretty obvious that our poor, two-lane roads
can hardly handle
of garbage trucks
We urge that
the existing suburban growth, let alone an army
from all over the county.
other alternatives and sites be explored.
William and Patricia Bleha
Carlsbad, Ca. 92008
3209 Fosca St. Car
Members :
North County Concerned Citizens
Park Lane Property Owners ASSOC., La Costa
Fosca St. Property Owners ASSOC., La Costa
. c. .-
North County Concerned Citizens, Inc.
A Non Profit, Public Benefit California Corporation
P.O. Box 2042 San Marcos, CA 92069
Garbage in, garbage out?
THE PROP9SED PL4NT !!OULD:
i'
Spew 6.3 tons of pollutants daily into North County skies.
Operate 365 days a year for 55 years.
EVEPI AFTER PLANT'S POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT HAS DONE ITS JOB, YOU CAW EXPECT EEISSIONS OF: .
0 Many tons annuallv of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrochloric acid and carbon monoxide
(see chart).
Have a 300 foot smokestack (same height as Encina power plant) visible fur miles around.
Make our clean air dirty.
0 18 toxic trace metals, ranging from arsenic to zirconium.
0 Toxic hydrocarbons.
0 Dioxin, 30,000 times deadlier than arsenic.
0 Super-carcinogenic PCBs.
0 Vast quantities of poisonous organic compounds resulting from the incineration process
(especially from the burning of plastics).
MAJOR HEALTH RISKS HITHIN 10 XILES OF THE PUYT INCLUDE:
An increase in heart ahd respiratory diseases.
An increased risk of cancer.
An increase in "environmental allergies."
HEALTH EFFECTS OF IIIDIVIDUAL POLLL'TARTS :
Poisoning by arsenic and heavy metals such as lead and mercury.
Carbon Monoxide: 1,048 Tons per year. Reduces ability to concentrate, causes visual impairment, headaches, diminishes physical stamina, decreases body's oxygen supply and- thus
strains heart.
Nitrogen Oxides: 786 Tons per year. Increases susceptibility to respiratory infections, strains heart and respiratory system.
Sulfur Dioxide: 180 Tons per year. Irritating to the lungs, results in higher incidence of respiratory di seases.
toxic substances ever studied. Dioxin: 1 lb. per year. Linked to skin lesions, cysts and cancer. Dioxin is one of the most
Mercury: 1/2
muding sk o PCBS: 3 lbs.
0- Lead: 2 Tons
Ton per year. Causes brain damage, mental retardation and blood poisoning.
per year. Found in plastics, paint and packaging, they cause many ailments, n rashes, eye discharges, digestive and nervous disorders and cancer.
!*IOI?TK COUNTY ' S
per year.Causes loss of sense of taste, lethargy, brain damage, death.
"P.C I D F?G" PROSLEXS 91 LL I !!CREASE :
0 Hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide (which becomes sulfuric acid) plus nitrogen oxide (which becomes nitric acid) cause the acid in acid fog/rain/dew.
Acidity is measured on a pH scale of 0 (very acid, like battery acid) to 14 (very alkaline, 0 like lye).
Corona del Mar in nearby Orange County holds Ca
of 1.69, more acid than lemon juice at pH 2.2.
ACID FOG/RAIY/DEW CAN:
Discolor and disintegrate laundry hanging outsi
Damage paint on houses and cars.
ifornia's all-time high acid fog read
e.
IF ACID FOG CAN TAKE THE PAINT OFF YOUR CAR, THINK WHAT IT CAN DO TO YOUR LUNGS!!!
Causes billions of dollars yearly damage to U.S. property and crops.
-
No, ,n County Concerned
A Non Profit, Public Benefit California Corporation 7l P.0, Box 2042 San Marcos, CA 92069
-* - - by SDUT
Because 01 increasing energy shortages and mounting solid Waste problems. many municipal- ities we investing in waste-10-
energy plants which convert solid waste into energy me methods
used fDr convenion include mass burning pmduung refusederived fuel pellets, andpyrolyris (heating organic compounds to very htgh temperatures to break them into simpler elements whlch un be used lor iuel) Some plants also recover glass and ferrous metals On thesurfaw waste-to-energy plants appear to be a good idea
but urider close scrutlny serious problems emerge To illustrate
these problem this article will examine a plant which IS being planned for the San D~ego area The proposed Sen Diego Energy
Recovwy Proled (SANDER) IS a joint undertaking 01 the County and City 01 San Diego At an est+ mated wit of 200 million dollm. SANDER would convert 1.2M)tonr
per day 01 solid waste into stmm Md elemcfly through mass burn- ing Ttm energy would be sold to SDGaE Md other buyers Aher wmbustion lmous metals would be recovered lrom the residue
remaining nudue (240 OM p.r day) rrwld be deporimd in a
SANDER will incur two typg ot
long h?rm hidden costa In the short tun. SANDER'S .conom vubillty would depend upon h *rill 1( rworka Unlortunatdy, large rule wutm-to-energy tuilities
All 01 lh. US plants in opwatm an eqmmang wrroaim. or- won or emmion problems'
Of pollrnng to the succ.y 01 European pram, but fall to men- tion that mon am much smaller than S&NDER and that they are two to four times more costly to maintain than landfills ucomw
datlng comparable amountr ol WUte' In pri.liminary economic repons
and Klld 10 l0C.l myCbm. The
Iandhll
colt. iihort tm dinct SOm Md
h.W mal h8d good track neord.
SANDER proponent$ are fond
TRASH BU
the economic reports fail to com- of waste pare SANDER toother alternatives In other words, once we have such as source-separation and cornmined ourselves to SANDER.
recycling it would be economically In their media blitz. SANDER deleating to encourage consumer proponents point out that the conservation and recycling Pro.
plant would generate enough ener- ponents ol waste-to-energy plants gyfor 30.000 homes They make it have actually opposed legislation sound asiISn Diepans will recetve which would encouraoe namr this energy free 01 cost However atter paying for SANDERS con- struction. consumers would also have to pay lor the energy rt produces Even I1 SANDER produced free energy and ran perfectly. a number
Of long term hidden cost. would make it a Iiablity SANDER would
not produce enough energy to pay lor itself unless its residues
un be 'umpod in a San Diego landfdl I neplai 'sresidueswould wntain lmd n rcury, amnu
mticidersudue* PCBsand other toxic rubstancar SANDER'S resi-
due I cI.uified as toxic waste and must be dumped into a Class I Iandlill (CIasa I sitn have ma
pOlOglul and hydr0logr.l re qUirEmen(l which allegedly pro- vent leaching 01 toxic wastes into ground water iuppllg 1
San Diego has no Class I sites
SANDER proponent$ we trying to
s -r recycling and ban non-returnable cans and bottles since such leg- isfatton would mean a reduction
in waste Ilow Although SANDER would recy-
cle aome metals. it would destroy othw valuable materials Such as organic waste Organic matter IS a valuable source of soil nutrients and humus A 1975 Senate Study
estimate$ that -ore than one- third 01 U S cro d is becoming iess productive caws 01 soil loss Other st s show that
annual topsoil IL .s cost 20 bib lion dollars MC year Organic matter u too r.luaMe as a soil replacement to be used as a low BTU energy source SANDER would emit air pollu- tants including hydrocarbons, ur- ban monoxide. particulates. nitro-
gen dioxide. sulfur dioxide. lead. mercury. arsenic. fwmaldeh,&,
dioxins. aldrin. chlordane. and get a pmrmn to dump the residues PCB. SANDER proponents claim Into a regular landfill. If thii permn that the plant would have a mink Is granted, ground water contam- mal impact on regional air qualky. ination could result. wording to However, the experiences 01 Other the SANDER Environmental Im- munieipaliti 1dI a dinerent atory. pac( Report. If a permit n not btunicipel incinerators are IUS-
receivad.SANDER'1 wuteswould pected u major sources of the have lo be trucked to the Class I PCL found in the atmosphere aite in Wat Covins. Lor Angela over me Great Lakes. G. J. Hollod County. which would be cost pro. and S. J. Eisenraoch oi the Univer- hibnive. sity of Minnesota haveshown tha SANDER'S most serious long nearly two tOnS Of PCBs enter term cost is that It would encour- Lake Supenor annually. age wasteful and environmentally Finally, SANDER would use
0
n>
Lit izens, I nc.
NOT COME -
So far, the trash to energy process has proved a costly, ineffective and rnsuccessful
experiment.
In 1979 the Environmental Protection Agency cited lack of adequate technology as the reason only 3 of 25 U.S. garbage burning plants were operating at full capacity.
5 of these plants in the EPA study had been shut down completely and the remaining 17 could only operate at half capacity or less.
In 1982 the San Diego Center for Appropriate Technology said that all U.S. trash burning plants still operating suffered from erosion, corrosion or emission problems.
All trash to energy plants built in the U.S. have experienced costly and repeated equipment failures, fires, explosions and excessive toxic emissions.
In El Cajon, the closed and inoperable trash burning plant is still costing San Diego County taxpayers $32,000 annually in land lease payments.
Many California comunities, including National City, Chula Vista, and Compton have rejected garbage burning plants.
If built, the San Marcos plant would use a technology that has never even been tested.
No equipment to monitor toxic emissions will be installed at the San Marcos plant.
Any enforcement by government agencies will occur only after pollution has already happened.
The plant would burn trash on a massive scale to produce some electricity and enormous quantities of toxic vapor and poisonous ash.
It is probably the most environmentally dangerous project ever proposed in the history of
San Diego County. .I
C" Trash burner: A good
idea turned ugly-
Mding energy out of garbage hai turned out to be, so far, one of those great ideas that cost
too much.
. that the propoed solid wn3tc recovery plant cannot bo
constructed and operated in or adjaccnt to the City of
National City wirhout doimj m.i]or, irreparable cnviron-
inontal. ,injury to tiru clLy acid ita alLiLbiIU; I ' 113;I. TIIEREFOIUZ, iJE IT R2SOLCD that tho City
Comcil of L!e City of :rational City opposos the location
of a solid wasto recovory plant in tha City of National
City, or adjacont to ita bouncbries, under any circum-
stancis, dum to the irrcvorsille' envkornental injury
which would flow to the city and its citizens. I
PASSED AHD ADOPTED this 27th day of January, 1981.
Clt? council
Waste-to-energy plant loses support
Supervisors vote not to back. proposed project
By De& Caff lo produce ekctrlclty ad consem on plidly tha pn]& and hi more pr tom d glfblp It impls nu- dJf rrltn rMm IindIIII su plica. agreed to ply another i h~florthaplr&bO~cO Bul Supnlsor &NW MePeik maoh for SIX mmtba for da@ Ul.
'won't fly Kwomkally." But Ute dlrlrkl has msde no py mly.ibout w to #.so i ton to The board probrbb dmn't have nmmltmenls lo bulld the plmnt or dump mntral county girbop it kgil power lo bkek the pmJ& llncd up Ira& emwanla to WPb Acme Fill In Mirtlm ind iht but Ils Dprnka my have consider- tbc garbage. $980 i Ion to dump rcfuw 11 lhe ibklnflmmover tk pmlrct's lu- Thc hue la mrnlnll to 1 head Rlebrnond dump, iceordlng 10 tun?, camty dllelala air. kiw unltrry dlrlriet offklah Dive Oklu. i county PUN Works Supn(ron rkdukd I apeirl uy they aacd thc eaumellon fI- ,engher. ):a a.m. Oet. Is meetlw to find ninelng and lirbap llned up by 0141 how sa much b.8 bcen spnl on tkc. I1 lo ivold new rertrletlons on the girba#e-b&ner p]& wllh 80 Industrial bondr (bit would Ilnsnce ~~~\y~&m&~~~~~~~
The weal county sanllary db- Sinltary dlstrlcl plinmn -11. Met b.8 spnt 110 mllka or mrc mile the plint must charge W or '
MARTINEZ - 'Ibc Board of SPJ-
impport I proposed 8100 mlllioa wiatelernergy plinl mar Rkh- mod beeawe Ute prom h.Lu uk t rculd brc my. The aupervlsor's 4-0 vote of
"na-nlpport" cam one dry after lhe S.n Pabk aty Cwnell called for i mmd Jury lnvcrtlgitbn into the pro)cel pmpmcd by the West Canlra Casu S.nlt.ry Dlstrtct.
tona d girbage per day - some pomlbly from the mlril county -
pmtson decw Twrdry .a to t' cmmd prtaraca Ibs ?rejet work Y* trash dWon cornpinks
Len B1ltilgll'
Tim plan caUs for burnlng 900 Utlk Rrulta. lh plant.
*-
BURFIING THE TRASH WIL . Trash collection costs will at least double if the San Marcos garbage burning plant is built. . Present dumping fees of $3.86 per ton will immediately jump to $8.42 as soon as the plant starts operating.
And that's just for openers, says the California State Waste Management Board, because
dumping fees must approach $20.00 per ton for trash burning plants to break even.
In other areas of the U.S. these fees have already reached $20.00 per ton or more.
Although the plant is supposed to generate enough electricity for 40,000 homes, that's actually less than 1% of the electricity used in San Diego County.
Your electric bill will not go down since the power generated at the plant will be sold to
SDG&E at the same price it takes SDG&E to generate it, and then resell it to the public.
WHAT ARE TEE !.LTERMAT I YES?
WHAT ELSE CAFl WE DO?
San Diego County does have a problem-many thousands of tons of trash must be disposed of every year.
Landfill space is getting harder to come by.
The County wants to make its landfills last as long as possible, and the only way to do that is
to put less trash in them.
Thus, County officials consider trash incineration a means of reducing the amount of trash going into its landfills.
But there's a better way-
RECYCLING:
0 A good recycling program is the best way to lengthen landfill life.
Most of the trash presently being dumped can be recycled, since:
COST YSU HORE
40% of the trash stream is paper 20% is organic matter which can be composted 6% is recoverable metal 6% is recoverable glass
Recycling will not pollute our land, air or water.
DON'T BE YISLE!):
North County Resource Recovery Associates, the plant's promoter, makes it sound like lots of trash will be recycled before the rest is burned.
Actually, NCRRA plans to remove only ferrous metals and some cardboard for recycling.
Everything else, including plastics, will be burned.
If NCRRA pursued an efficient recycling program there wouldn't be enough trash left to burn, and NCRRA would be out of business!!!
no
.
Land Use' Concerns 'uesthaven, Page 4
Ceography THE BIRDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY Geography
i
t C U E
6 2 .- c 3
Y
2 a
5
0
c
North County Concerned Citizens, Inc.
A Noo Protil Public Benefit Calltornla Corporation
P.O. Box 2042
cd v,
0.0
-- A
Put stamp here.
San Marcos, CA 92069
c( m 2 4
Y 3 0
m
W
L
Y .-
3
L 0
m U
W v1 m W
I -
E
.- 2
Y
L aJ W c 3 c > r: m U
..+ -
c(
0
U U
L W
0 -E u z-2 w3 L,-
-. 0 0 Y
5
‘2
N 7‘“’C
s v) Y G E E 0 U
Wb; v) 2& u
$-E
Ln Ln E
< a a
3 0 c
m
m E
n
W E 5 uid
m L 0
Y .r( -E
3 3 3
h aJ
0) c
o\ 9 0 PJ o\ m e c’ 6
s
3
7
c
Y (d s
0
E E . . 0. 0.
rn Lm 3 9
3 El
2 n
W bc
cn c m
3
0 k
Y
Y
d d
-E Y
5
m
7 bl
CI
E
4
Y c c‘ .- 2 .r.
t c
. .
IT -LC
Y
C 0 a
0 2z 3 Y 0, bc ?
Y CI .r(
7 a
Ln .A
u c m a
W
4
5
‘“u
0
Ln W .I
. . 0.. . 5
0
.
- Reply to:
Sdcr~menlo
Sacramento. CA 95814 (Ylbl 445--'?10
Drwtct
2510 Fifth .Avenue
Suite 1020
S3n Dieso. CA Y?IOY-M91 16141 ?3?-1016
.. . * .- State Caplrol
-
LUCY KILLEA
ASSEMBLYWOMAN, SEVENTY-EIGHTH DISTRICT December 28, 1984
The Honorable Lionel Burton City of San Marcos 105 West Richmar Avenue San Marcos, California 92069
Dear Mayor Burton :
I understand that on January 8, 1985 you will begin hearings for approval of the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center. While neither San Marcos or the N.R.E.R.C. are located
within my Assembly District, I nevertheless felt it important to extend to you my support for this worthwhile project.
COMMITTEES:
Vice Chairwoman, Trilnsporiation
Consumer Prorectirn ana
Toxic Materials
Economic Uevelqmmr and ?;cw Tr:.nnloiw;c\
Local Governmcn:
Select Commitrce on
Child .\bus
Select Commi:t?r ni:
Small Buclnc.9
Select Com,nit:;t. t;n
Vrterans ..\~r'~r\
Joint Committee uti
Reiudec Xcsetrleiaenr
and immigraiion
_-
As a two-year veteran of the Assembly Committee on Consumer
Protection and Toxic Materials and a former Director of the San
Diego Energy Recovery project (SANDER), I am keenly aware of the need for alternatives to landfills as a means of disposing of our
garbage. The North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center offers San Diego County residents a positive and forward-looking alternative with many advantages.
To highlight only a few, the Center will provide, for the first time, an effective source separation and household waste disposal program for the North County. Having worked with the
Environmental Health Coalition and the Sierra Club on toxic
disposal issues, both household and otherwise, I must tell you that their support of this project is significant. Both are extremely knowledgeable in the field and I respect their opinion.
The Center will also provide a reasonable long-term solution to the waste
disposal problems we face without incurring the same risks of air
and groundwater contamination that landfills inevitably do. As we haveonlybeguntotryto assess the damage that our polluting
of the earth has done, it behooves us all to expeditiously explore and implement alternative disposal methods.
As a member of the Assembly Local Government Committee which has spent the past two years attempting to secure permanent sources of financing for local governments, I can assure you that the
inure to the City of San Marcos and the County of San Diego will be significant and useful.
I am sympathetic to the political sensitivity of this issue and urge you to keep in mind the long term benefits of the project for both
the citizens of San Marcos and the north county. There will always be those, as there were on the SANDER project, who support the concept of
trash to energy as long as it doesn't occur in their "backyard". I am hopeful that you will resist the temptation to doat might appear to
be the politically expedient thing and instead, base your decision
upon the potential benefits to the total population. This project merits your support.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
LUCY KILLEA Assemblywoman
LK:lb
’ .-
e
December 4, 1984
San Marcos Planning Commission
San Marcos City Hall
105 Richmar
San Marcos, California 92069
Re: Proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center
Dear Commissioners:
Californians Against Waste (CAW) is a 35,000-member citizen group advocating natural resource conservation and recycling.
the third-largest conservation organization in California, and have
approximately 2,000 members in the San Diego region.
We are currently
A
We expect and hope to fully support the proposed North County Recy-
In cling and Energy Recovery Center.
the past, we have opposed most resource recovery plants, for reasons which
appear to be absent here:
This is quite a departure for us.
Advantages --- of the San Marcos Proposal
1. In many past projects, flow controls have been so binding that
source reduction and separation programs such as curbside recycling and
container deposits have been prohibited by contract.
substantial incentive for the enactment of such programs.
That is not the case - here. With some refinements, the San Marcos plan could provide aa
2. In the past, many projects have been designed to be economically
viable only with major increases in the waste flow. The San Marcos
facility would be viable at current levels of waste, but would be capable
of handling more if necessary.
In the past, many resource recovery plant operators have actively 3. opposed source reduction and separation programs out of self-interest or
the interests of their investors and promoters. Their opposition has
effectively blocked enactment of even the most cost-effective recycling
policies.
approach. efficient, economically viable, and environmentally sound than materials
recovery.
The San Marcos promoters appear to have a much mre enlightened They have shown an understanding that source separation is more
4. Past projects have frequently overlooked the enormous problems
which can be posed by the existence of toxic household materials in the
waste stream.
for removing these materials from the waste stream before they .,et to the
dump.
The San blarcos proponents are developing a realistic program
5. In the past, many plants have taken inadequate measures to insure
that air quality standards are consistently met. A program for regular
-..r . r. - )- -.. - __ ___. - _- .- - - - _-
monitoring of plant emissions by the Environmental Defense Fund or a
similar independent agency would set the San Marcos project apart from its
predecessors in taking seriously the need for dependable emissions
controls.
What Still Needs to Be Done ------
1. Given that source reduction is allotted top priority as a method
of reducing waste costs in the Environmental Impact Report on the project, a much greater degree of institutional support for such programs must be
made by the project proponents. Similarly:
2. Institutional support for source separation must be dramatically Such support must be carefully planned and directed so that enhanced.
programs enjoying broad public support are identified and instituted.
Based on the results of public opinion polls and the nature of individual
service areas, these may include optional or mandatory curbside recycling,
recycling credits, per-container trash collection fees, deposit measures,
or a combination of these and other programs.
3. Moreover, specific goals must be set now, to measure progress toward
achieving source reduction and separation.
4. At present, the six-point plan for source separation is
inadequate:
a. A single buy-back center is not enough. However, rather
than seeking to open a variety of such centers locally,
plant proponents should work to create marketplace
incentives for others to establish recycling depots.
They can achieve this through their active support for
curbside programs such as those in place in Ontario, Canada,
Groton, Connecticut, and Ocala, Florida, and through their
support for container deposit measures such as those in
effect in Alberta, Canada, New York, and Maine,
b. The Eco-Bag proposal is a conceptual start, but as yet inadequate as an alternative to full-scale curbside recycling
along the lines of the Ontario, Groton, and Ocala programs.
c. Recycling education, through $20,000-a-year programs
operated by San Diego Ecology Center or similar local
agencies, is to be encouraged. However, to insure that
such programs are cost-effective, they must be carefully
designed. Unsuccessful educational activities pursued
by other groups in the past must be avoided; effective strategies must be adopted and regularly evaluated.
funding should be provided beyond the first five years of
the project.
And
Once those concerns are met in a binding fashion by the proponents of
the North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center, we look forward to
offering our full and continuing support for the project.
have any clarifying questions or desire additional details about some of the
program additions we have suggested, please give me a call at (916) 443-5422.
If you should
..
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment on this matter.
Sincere&,
*-
aL ‘- . I . .‘
Bill Shireman
Executive Director
“.I_ . . .h.‘ --
c
,--
e
,-
e
c TRASH PLANT
There it is...the county dump in San Marcos.
North County Resource Recovery Associates wants to build a giant
furnace down there to burn trash, convert it to energy and sell that to San Diego Gas and Electric. They already have a contract worth more
than a billion dollars.
But there are a lot of questions.
Is there enough fuel? Trash is the only growing resource in the
world and North County generates a half million tons a year....and 80
percent of all that trash is re-cycable. What about pollution? All environmental reports indicate the
health risk is almost zero but the plant will be a prototype. The first
of its kind in the country, generating enough electricity to supply
io-thousand hones.
never be a taxpayer liability.
Cost? The company has a bond which guarantees the project will
So what's the problem? Simple. The attitude is build it...but
not in my back yard. Pardon the pun, but that's a lot of garbage.
This plant makes elementary good sense...econonically,
environmentally, emphatically.
--
THIS EDITORIAL WAS BROADCAST lJEWER17, 1984 BY KGTV VICE PRESIDEXT
AND GENERAL WNAGER CLAYTON H. BRACE FOLLONING THE NEWS AT XOOY AND
SIX P.X. AND DECENBER 22,1984 FOLLOWING THE NEWS AT FIVE AXD ELEVEN P.X.
Any requests for rebuttal time must be received by KGTVlO within ten (10) days of the broadcast date.
. KGNIO regularly presenrs Edircriots w 'coics of viral inreresf io our communtry Responsible spokespeople wtm cppostng viewcoinrs NII be given rime TO reply If you missed this Evoria 3n cdr air we hope you rake rime to read tr Your comrnenn are atways welcome Ed :crici producer
@KG'IV+O McGrow-Hill Droodcasrtng Company lnc
~ ~ - PO Box 85347 Son Diego California 921 38 (619) 237-3010
,
I.
c
San Diego, California, Monday. December 3,1984 Telephone 299-3151 Page B-6
Trash plant idea is best in the West
THE TRASH-TO-ENERGY plant destined for San
Marcos passed another hurdle Friday when the
county Air Pollution Control District issued a per-
mit for its construction.
Now a special-use permit from the San Marcos
City Planning Commission is needed. Then work
can begin on the Sl2O-million structure. We hope the
Planning Commission gives approval after it holds
three hearings on the project this week.
The plant will be the first of its kind in the West-
ern states. It will process 1,200 tons of trash per day,
lifting out metals, glass, paper and cardboard to be
recycled and burning other combustibles to power
steam generators. These generators will produce
enough electricity to provide for San Marcos and
several other North County communities.
Located on 15 acres of the 210-acre San Marcos
landfill, the plant will be known as the North County
Recycling and Recovery Center. Each year it will
recyle 2,000 tons of aluminum, 20,000 tons of iron
and steel and 20,000 tons of corrugated cardboard,
plus various amounts of glass, newspapers and plas-
tics.
When in operation, the plant will give off no visi-
ble emissions or odors. Trash will be burned at high
temperatures, which will eliminate any hazardous
material. Exhaust from the boilers will be led
through scrubbers and filters before release
through the center's 300-foot stack. It will meet all
the California and county air quality standards.
The center is clearly the best way to handle trash,
and if enough of them are buiIt, they will eliminate
the need for so many landfills.
When in operation, the San Marcos plant will pay
about $1 million a year in property taxes to the
county, San Marcos and special districts. It also will
pay the county each year about $1 million in energy
royalties and $3300,000 in recycled material royal-
ties. It will put about 70 people to work.
The center will be an important step toward solv-
ing the county's trash disposal problems. The sooner
it goes into operation the better.
THE KFMB STATIONS / AM / FM / N8 / .7677 ENGINEER ROAD, SAN DIEGO, CA 921 11-1582
TRASH-TO-ENERGY PLANT
A high tech trash-to-energy plant is being proposed for
construction near the Sari Marcos landfill in North County.
Backers say it will ease the burden of overflowing trash
dumps while creating a new source of steam and electrical
energy. Several City, County and Federal agencies endorse
the plan. But a group of nearby property owners claim the
plant will emit toxic smoke and cause significant traffic
problems due to tne many trucks that will use the facility
each day. Both charges were strongly denied during a series
of recent: hearings.
KFMB believes the idea has real merit. However, we suggest
San Marcos City Fathers protect their community by requiring
a sizeable bond which would be forfeit should the plant fail
to make good on its clean air claims.
This editorial was presented by Robert L. Myers, President
and General Manager of the KFMB stations. It was broadcast
on KFMB(TV) November 7, 1984 on the 5 p.m. Newscast and
November 8 , 1984 on the noon Newscast; by KFMB(AM) November
7, 1984 on the 6 p.m- and November 8, 1984 on the 6 a.m. and
noon Xewscasts.
Requests for rebuttal must be recerved by the KFMB Stations
within seven working days of the onglnal editonal broadcast,
W
3arrel Centq-, Plaraing Director City of San Xarcos 105 ?ichmar Ave.
San :.:arcos, Ca.
Dear Xr. Gentry: 4
RECEIVE
JUL 9 1984
At our June 30 meting, the San Dicquito Citizens' ?lar-.zlnT Croup considered the "trash to enem-" plant at the San Xarcos landfill. The San Diequito Citizens' Planr?hg 'rou? has heard this item in the past (when it was in the uninco-Torated area of the county) and still has an interest in tSe natter due to its potential impact on residents 05 our ;l~"inin~ area.
%uce Xdlton of ?!orth County Concerned CitizeRs, a citizens =,roc? in opposition to the grogose? plant, spoke cf his concern that the 2l;mt muld adversely &=feet air quzlity. %e Zelt the plant represented an unproven tecfinoloE, vias an inappropriate land use for an agricultural area turnir.7
residential, vould severely strair. existir.7 road beds anc traf'fic flow, an& would create siqniziczqt visual yollztior! due to the size of the plant and heicht of the groposed
smokestack.
?!r . Siamilton e s concerns
some cases well Eounaed, it was also Pelt tSae tile treser.dous
:
Xes seltzer or' '*=!A (the developer 1 atternzed to ansi-rer
:.mle the :roup Pelt :qx, Xad~ton~s armments vere in
proble.? or' ;,aste disposal and resource depleticr- eenazce
FnrAovat ive ansvers
San :!arcor the feeJ..i,nq of a majority of the San 3ie;uito Citizens'
Piamin9 froup tkat every e2Zor-t should be made to ericouzaqe the "trash .to energy" concept At tbe saae time, it is hoped that no compromise will be accepted in air quality standards, that roads and trafs'ic flow in the area vi11 be closeLy rnonitered and ?=oblems nitigated, as indicated 'q the aettelop2r, ami that siTnificant measures be taken to assure adjacect 1ando.rxlers that &hey will not be unduly k'fected by visual pollctior.. The developer ineicated they mu12 be attemptin; to zitiyate the visual iqae- 02 the proposed plant with dirt berms. az6 Zccalyptur
%e purgose of this letter is to convey to the Sit-,. os'
plarl%ncs
L
€4043
I 1
.- .. .C. --. . : -... .
'1
b '+
a-7 Aman Diego Taxpayers Association r
Xovember 30, 1984
f 15
'f RECEIVEL
DEC 3 1984
OF SAN MARCO~ CAI 1FCIRWfq f
Zoning and Planning Comission
City of San Wrcos
105 West Richmar
Sen Marcos, CA 92069
Dear Chairman and Commissioners :
Several years ago the County of San Diego contracted with a private
firm to manage the County's landfills. The Taxpayers Association sup-
ports contracting with private companies to provide more efficient ser-
vices. Not only did the County look to economize its operations, they
also sought innovative management approaches that would extend the life
of the existing sites. Extending the usefulness of established landfills
is crucial given the great expense of'developing new sites and the.de-
creasing availability of suitable 1ocatd;ons.
With San Marcos Gndfill's expected closure by 2993 and the options :or
refuse disposal in north county limited, cost effective and innovative
solutions must be considered. An option which combines refuse reduction
with energy production appears to best address the regions long term
needs.
For rnany years the Association has advocated contracting out governmen-
tal services where doing do would be more cost-effective and result in
more efficient Operations. We have also recommended that governments
look to maxirnize the use of their existing resources. We recommend that
your Commission consider these policy parameters as you deliberate on
this issue.
Respectfully submitted:
Mark ?Telson
Executive Direct or
1010 Second Avenue, Suite 1021, San Diego. California 92101. 234-6423
San Marcos Taxpayers Association PAC
November 30, 1984
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
the pr 1 andf i
We fee as the you to
This is to inform you that the San Marcos Taxpayer's Association by a unanimous vote of its membership attending the November 29 meeting endorses posed North County Resource Recovery Center for the San Marcos 1.
the proposed project will be of benefit to the environment as well economy of North County, especially San Marcos. approve this project. We strongly urge
Sincerely,
- ,. _-
Lei / "Ad --> . ,?,,'~JL Thomas A. Bacic C ha i rman
1104 McMahr San Marcog, California 92069
.-
c
EX \ ' f RON 31 EXTA L H EALTM COAEIT18X
P.O. Box 8426 @ Sari Diego. California 92102 0 (6191 335-C)281
:*a
December 4, 1984
P1 ann i ng Commission
City of. San Marcos
105 Richmar
San Marcos, CA 92069-1699
Dear Cmissioners:
I am writing and intend to be testifying orally in regards to your consideration to
grant a Special Use Permit to North County Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA) for
the construction and operation of the Trash-to-Energy Plant.
The Environmental Health Coal ition (EHC) is comprised of individuals and
organizations that are concerned about proper management of hazardous waste; air and
water quality; urban and agricultural use of pesticides; and occupational heaith and
safety. Our long-range goal is to prevent illness resulting from public exposure to
toxic substances.
EHC has taken a strong interest in the proposed development of the North County
Recycling and Energy Recovery Center for two primary reasons. The first is that EHC
recognizes the environmental problems inherent in continued use of landfills for
disposal of solid waste. Groundwater, air and soil contamination are all common
results of the utilization of landfills, in addition to the poor use of precious
1 and.
Examination of these results of continued landfilling clearly points to the need for
development of alternative approaches to solving the problem and thus leads me to the
second major reason we are concerned about this proposal. EHC recognizes the need
for advanced technology, however, we also understand the problems associated with
utilization of methods that are as yet untried and not stringently regulated. We are
therefore concerned that, should this facility be permitted, it be closely monitored
and regularly evaluated as to its efficiency and compliance with environmental
standards.
EHC, in conjunction with other environmental organizations, has spent a great deal of
time reseaFcning the air pollution, recycling, hazardous waste, and monitorin5 issues
associated with this facility. We have spoken with other municipalities that have
proposed or are operating similar plants and have discussed potential problems with
regulatory aqencies such as the Air Pollution Control District and the Enuironmentai
Protection Agency. After exhaustive work, we have proposed a series of conditions
which we feel should be included in the permits whicn will be granted by the City oi
San Marcos for plant operation. We feel strongly that the manner in which this plant
is permitted is critical to the future establishment of these facilities throughout
the country and the world. It is for this reason, as well as for concern regarding
our local environmental quality, that these "model' conditions have been proposed.
The io1 lowing are the reommendat ions we have made to you in earl ier correspondance
and that we now encourage YOU to support:
--establishment of a Recycling and Environmental Review Board composed of community
residents, representatives cf environmental organizations, technical experts, the
plant operator and others. The Review Board will evaluate the monitoring data taken
from the operation of the facility to make determinations regarding the plant‘s
efficiency and compliance with pollution standards and will administer funds
contributed for recycling and toxics programs;
--establishment of a fund for air, water and soil testing analysis by an independent
analyst;
4
--separation of sanitary wastewater from any other waste water streams at the plant
for testing and proper disposal;
--frequent monitoring of non-criteria pollutants;
--establishment of a baseline analysis of existing air, soil, and water reservoir
conditions in the surrounding area;
--conducting of independent sampling of pollutants should the Review Board determine
that it is necessary;
--separation of ash residue from refuse in the landfill;
--establishment of ongoing funding for a recycling education and curbside collection
program for north county cities serviced by the facility;
--establisment of ongoing funding for toxic substances education and household and
smal? business hazardous waste collect ion programs;
-monitoring by the Review Board of occupational health and safety hazards of worKers
in the plant; and
--development of an enforcement contract between NCRRA and an independent third party
which would stipulate the schedule of emissions that cannot be exceeded. If
emissions are exceeded, the contract would require immediate shutdown of the
frcil i tr.
-
We recognize that many of these conditions are highly stringent and will require
close scrutiny by the Review Board and by the City, however we feel that the City oi
San Marcos has an obligation to permit this plant only under the most stringent
reouirements in order that it truly be the model program the proponents profess that
it can be. Independent review will enhance the City’s confidence that the plant is
operating appropriately and will protect the local residents, as well as other
communities that are observing this plant‘s progress.
-
Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns.
Diane Takvorian
Execu t i ve Di rector
PLANNING COljNClL "
Post Office Box 91, Carlsbad, California 92008
GSLR RESOLUTION:
NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER
Page Two.
anti-pollution. guidelines established by the federal state and county governrnents;,NOW, THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Greater San Luis Rey Area
Planning Council does hereby declare on this 13th
day of June, 1984, its support of the North County
Resource Recovery Center and encourage those
agencies responsible for issuance of pertinent
permits to approve the project subject to all laws,
rules and regulations pertinent to the health,
safety and welfare of all citizens of Xorth jan
Diego County.
Signed this 13th day of June, 1984;
..-1
&lJ,J"
ALBERT T. SCOTT, President-Elect
&.-I6 ?he Reporter, Escondido, Cam., Wednesday, Dec. 21;1983
.-
Trash-to-energy -
plant-a good deal
By PAUL ECKERT
There aren’t many deals in
which everyone comes out
ahead.
But San Diego Gas & Electric
Co. and North County Resource
Recovery Associates made one when they signed a contract that is vital to a proposed trash-te energy plant in San Marcos. Under the agreement, NCRRA will sell to SDG%E the electricity
produced by a $120 million re-
cycling plant planned at the
county’s landfill in San Marcos.
Electricity will be generated
by steam-driven turbines fueled.
by the burning of an estimated
P8ul Eekat is the courlty all- pervisor for the Fifth District. which includes Escondido and s.aMsrror.
1,200 tons of trash a day. NCRRA
will sell that power - enough to
serve 40,000 homes - to SDG&E for an estimated $17 million dur- ing the first year of operation.
%.contract is expected to pay $5OO,OOO in royalties to the coun-
ty during the first ykr of opera-
tion. And over the 30-year term of rhr contract, the county expects
10 receive more than $120 mil- lion. The cities and smaller com-
munities of North County, which
produce 500,OOO tons of trash
annually, will be assured of
stable disposal costs during the next three decades. If it were not for this project, those costs surely would at least triple because of .the need to acquire new landfill sites, and the resulting increases in transportation costs.
It has been less than a year
since the board of supervisors
approved a contract with
NCRRA to develop the project.
That contract was based upon two principles: *That the technical and finan- cial risks and responsibilities of this major projeci could and
should be assumed by the private
business sector - not by the county, not by North County
communities, and certainly not
by the taxpayer.
That the county - even
though it does not share in the risks - should share in revenues generated by selling electricity and recycled materials.
So, everyonecomes out ahead: SJX&E and its ratepayers, the
county and its taxpayers, the
communities of North County and their citizens; and the pri-
vate businesses hng the in- vestment of time and resources.
Resources that otherwise
would be wasted will be con-
verted into useful material and energy under the most stringent environmental standards. Even the environment will come out ahead.
AG T!,MES-ADVOCATE, Escondido, Ca., Tuesday, Nov. 13, 1984
! I TIMES-ADVOCATE I
I
1 John M. Armstrong, Will Cwbin,
i prewdent and publisher ed1tor
i Founded 1886
Edward Moss. J8m- 0. Folmer,
advenising director editorial page editor
! John H. Fog-, Miko hnning,
general advertising manager circulalion director .. Joan lanner, classified advenising manager
Joe H. Maples,
I DrOduCtlon director
0- hk8h. controller
Juri S. Aguihr.
human resources director
207 E. Pennsylvania Ave.. Escondldo. CA. 92025 16191.745-661 1 I
1 FA Editorial
I 1 Don't pass the trash
he trash-to-energy plant in San Marcos, if there is to be one at all, should stay in San Marcos. The developer of the $120 million project, North County Resource Recovery Associates, has taken the first step toward moving the proposed plant 500 feet - into county land and out of the grasp of the city of San Xarcos. It can do so by exercising an option to pur- chase nearby land owned by San Diego Gas & Electric Co. Fittingly, the utility is storing compost on the prop- erty.
The action sets into motion a review with the county mnning parellel to the review by San Marcos, which is tinally getting near meaningful public hearings, which begin Dec. 3 before the Planning Commission. At its first opportunity, the county should give the proposed project a healthy shove back into the city. Given the background of this proposal and the con- siderable opposition by the neighbors, we can under- stand the developer's reasoning. We just don't condone it.
:.
'
ne original site of the project, the San Marcos land- ?I, was in county land but was annexed to San Marcos Jecause it was within the city's sphere of influence. 'Tie city should have a say in what is built within its sphere.
From the start, there has been a vocal minority of T!!b Forest residents fighting the proposal. They don't -vant a monstrous machine gobbling garbage and turn- ing it into energy in their own back yard.
??le opponents may have tipped their hand too soon
by announcing before the city hearings an initiative ik:-Je to put the trash-to-energy plant on the ballot. If :?:e petition drive is successful, it would require a two-
:q:rds approval of tfie plant by San Marcos voters.
Under those circumstances, NCRRA has great incen- tive to put itself in the county’s hands. To make the next regular-election ballot, an initiative requires 10 percent of a jurisdiction’s voters. To force a special election, 15 percent are required in San Marcos, 20 per- cent in the county. In San Marcos, that equates to LOO0 or 1,500 signatures. In the county, it means gathering Y0.000 or 120,000 names - a tall order for a vocal mi- 20rity.
Another problem came up with the San Marcos gen- eral plan. It’s not finished. And if the trash-to-energy plant is approved before it’s done, there could be legal problems. The city hopes it has resolved the problem by applying for a one-year extension on the deadline to finish the plan.
While that little 500-foot shuffle might be “good busi- ness,” as the developer contends - and as the political situation seems to dictate - it would make for poor government and worse public relations. The trash-to- energy plant in the county would impact the people of 8an Marcos just as much as it would 500 feet upwind, and they should play a large part in the decision - no matter how much it inconveniences the developer.
Nothing we have seen so far has given us a good rea- son to oppose the plant. Turning trash into energy in- stead of burying it is an idea that is long overdue. The pnvironmental review of the project has been thorough, blazing new trails in the scientific assessment of risks associated with such projects. The regional director of the state Air Pollution Control District says the plant will be the most stringently studied in the world.
The Rancho Santa Fe Association board of directors is scheduled to vote Thursday on the project. One di- rector expressed some rather snooty doubts about whether San Marcos was sophisticated enough to make the decision on the plant. It is true, of course, that the people of “The Ranch” are significantly more sophisti- zated than the unwashed masses out here in the real world, but we think we’ll be able to handle things all right. We have certainly had our occasional doubts %bout the leadership in San Marcos, but those folks have studied this plant thoroughly and are perfectly capable of making the right decision.
That decision belongs to San Marcos, and the county ought to make that clear to North County Resource Re- covery Associates before it starts wasting the taxpay- ers’ money on parallel hearings.
WILLIAM A. CRAVEN
SENATOR
38TH DfSTRICT
VICE CHAIRMAN
COMMllTEE ON ECfCllONS 4NO
REAPPORTIONMENT
November 15, 1984
P:ayor and City Council Nernbers City of San Marcos
105 Kest Richnar Avenue '*
San Yarcos CA 92069
Dear Kayor Furton and City Council Yecbers:.
I have been asked to corr.ment on the proposed icorth County Xecyclin?
and Resource Recovery Center planned for location in the south- western portion of the City.
- Although I am not fully familiar with all of the technical aspects
of the proposal, I an well aware of the need to both provide snd conserve landfill sites. I can recall Zuring my CoGnty service
the transfer of our former fill cite in Sap ?!arccs to the City cf San Earcos. \;hen the facility was cpened it was estinatcd to hsve a 10 year life. V:e transferred it to the City after a period of
5 years, its acceleration- tias the direct result of Frowth in the area.
I look at this proposal in a somewhat sirnilar vein feelinq that the extraction of certain metals and the reduction of vo1l;r.e of cther material tiill have a tendency to conserve valuable cubic space in the existing site.
reduce some of the material brought to the site inpresses ne as an excellent prospect.
In my judgment, one of the forenost considerations in an operatic3 of this type must be the cnvircnmental inpact. It would appear,
after reading the final EIR suzmary and generic respcnses, that
the fears that are obviously in the r.inds of rany have been allayed. The Froposed discharqe into the atmosphere of certain particulstc cr
caseous matter can be well regulated and the use of the most ncderr, technology should provide every safeguard to the public and the
surrounding countrysi?e.
The opportunity to Seth recover and
I.:ayor and City Council !!embers City of San Marcos
I?over?ber 15, 1384
Page Two -
I know that you will examine this proposal in the nost minute
detail, as you should, and I arn confident that you will make a
decision which is not only favorable but appropriate for your constituency.
laynanlike knowledge which leads r?.e to the conclusicn that the
proposal vould be beneficial.
- This letter is but a comment based on my own
Very truly yours,
t:ILLTAM A. CRAVEI.! Senator
38th Eistrict
COMMITTEES:
Elcctlonr, Rcapportlonment Constitutional Amendments (Vlce Chairman) Ed uca t ion Judiciary Labor and Employment
Subcommittee on Educational Reform
.- c
SELEn COMMITTEES:
Child Abuse Judiciary Efficiency k Improvement Mental Health Olympic Oversight
SUNNY MOJONNIER
ASSCMULWOMAN SEVENM.FIFTH DISTRICT
e
.. .
November 30, 1984 & kri. .La
Honorable Lionel Burton and Councilmembers
City of San hlarcos
105 West Richmar Avenue San Marcos, CA 92069
RE: North County Resource Recovery Project _-
Dear Mayor Burton and Councilmembers:
The North County vitally needs an alternative to standard landfilling of refuse. Within a matter of months,
the San hlarcos disposal site will be the only facility
serving all of North County; the useable life of that land-
fill is also extremely limited.
It is imperative that our efforts in government be directed toward modern technology capable of converting
trzsh to energy, extending the life of our existing land-
fills by reducing volume and enhancing potential for
recycling/conservation programs. We are, in fact, facing .
a local garbage crisis that requires long range planning
now, just as we'face future water shortages in San Diego
Count): unless we show some immediate cooperation and fore-
sight stat wide .
The project your council will soon review for a
recycling and resourcc recovery center is the kind of
solution to this trash problcm that has worked exceptionally
well iii other states and other countries. The project has
been rev'iewcd and approved by v;irious health and environ- mental :igencics. Thc local county Air Pollution Control
District bas rcquired state-of-the-art air quality control
measures.
k-.. ...
All major local media have endorsed the program. Plans
have been made available and the project discussed in several public forums. It is now scheduled for public hearings before your city's Planning Commission and Council.
It appears that every effort has been made to integrate
this resource recovery facility into a comprehensive plan for cost-effective collection of garbage, public education and promotion of recycling efforts, proper disposal of household hazardous waste and a litter control program to improve existing conditions around the landfill site.
Your local government hearings present ample opportunity to tie down conditions of approval that improve hazardous
traffic and street conditions and adequately protect neighbor-
hoods in the area.
This kind of project is needed in North County as soon
as possible. I know you will scrutinize this application and program very carefully in the public interest, and I hope that satisfactory acceptance of it in some form will be the result.
For A Brighter Future,
.-
Sunny hlojonnier / Assemblywoman 7'5th District f /'
Sal : ed
'W..,
November 28, 1984
Mr. Wes Peltzer
751 E. Rancheros Drive San Marcos, California 92069
RE: NORTH COUNTY TRASH TO ENERGY PLANT
Dear Mr. Peltzer:
--
-A-
,.
C. . .. ,
The proposed North County Trash to Energy Plant represents the technology of the future. Because of a shortage of land usuable for disposal sites and because of a growing concern for dangers from hazardous waste seepage from such sites, there is a growing concern to find alternate solutions to handle waste products. Incineration is being looked at seriously as such an alternative.
In many instances throughout the state, cut-and-fill operations are being phased out and legislation can certainly be expected to mandate incineration or other pratical alternatives. Pres- sure is being brought to bear from the Air Resources Board and the Water Quality Control Board to do so.
Although energy generated from a trash-to-energy plant is not expected to be extremely great, any generation using alter- nates to petroleum products will be a welcomed relief as well 2s cost effective.
Environmental Protection Agency regulations and subsequent re- enforcement will guarantee safe operation of trash-to-energy plants. The public hearing process further ensures that con- cerns will be mitigated.
I have full confidence in the safe, clean incineration method
of waste disposal.
Sincerely,
BILL BRADLEY
As s emb lyman
76th District
-
4 - San Marcos Courier November 8. 1984
F
LETTERS XY
1
1
Editor:
Beware of out-of-town
people spreading lies
about one of the most
important issues facing
i~s today. Unless we act
soon to control our
gro\\ino, solid waste
dibixhal problem, we
find ourselves with a vir-
tual mountain of trash
and no place to put it.
The North County
Recycling and Energy
Recovery Center offers a
solution well into the
next century. The center
xi11 annually recycle
mote than jO.(NO tons of
a1 ti rri i nu m , ferrous
rneisih. papers and
pla\i:cs, while using
160.00(3 ions of solid
wa>it‘\ as fuel to generate
ele::r I‘ .Lily equivalent to
that produced bv burn-
ing 500,000 barrels of
oil.-.
However recently,
people from Escondido,
Elfin Forest and
Questhaven Retreat have
descended upon San
Marcos shopping centers
bombarding local
residents with false in-
formation about the pro-
ject.
The truth is, they
don’t have the evidence
to back their claims. In-
dependent federal, state
and county environmen-
tal agencies agree the
center will operate safely - without jeopardizing
air quality or the health
of North County
residents. These visiting
opponents claim the
center will increase traf-
fic on roads ledin[. to the
San Marcos landfill.
Tha.t’s false. Trash
trucks will head to the
landfill whether or not
this project is built.
The out-of-towners
claim residential trash
collection rates will dou-
ble as a result of rhe
center - despite county
documents clearly
disputing the charge. In
fact, costs will be higher
if the project is not built.
Uon’t allow yourself
to Be fooled by the op-
ponents’ nonsense. By
the time it is built, this
project will be one of the
most studied and
discussed projects in
county history. And
that’s fine.
Fair and honest debate
is great, but let’s make
sure we’re all discussing
the facts, not distortions.
Please take the time to
study this project. Read
the studies that have
been completed. When
you’ve done so, I think
you will agree this center is good for San Marcos
and all North County.
If you would like
copies of -any project
study or other informa-
tion about the center,
call me at 47 1-043 1.
The time to take ac- tion on our trash pro-
blems is now, while we
still have time to act
prudently. Let’s not
allow scare tactics !o
keep us from making :!IC
proper decision.
Andy Fiamengo
Marc0 r
Thursday, November 29, 1984
LETTERS
Last week I went to
San Marcos Chamber of Commerce to find out about the proposed trash to energy plant. I receiv- ed a pamphlet and telephone number of Pamela Thornton
471-0431 and made an appointment. When I went in I saw a model of the proposed plant and the hills and homes around it. I was cold how the ferrous metals, aluminium,
glass, paper, etc. would be-taken out and the
I combustibles burned to make electricity. This sounds wonderful but the pamphlet says 180. tons a year of sulfur dioxide will be emitted. That sounds like a lot. She said this will be mix- ed with 170 billion tons of air, so the centers
sulfur dioxide emission will equal 0.0000001 per- cent of the Ocean of at- mosphere. We are talk-
ing of oderltss, colorless,
air pounds, not ash and
soot. 99.9 percent of this solid matter and much of the gases will be removed with scrubbers and a bag
I house, (like big vacuum cieancr bags). This is how I visualize
-
-
it: 180 tons diviaed by
365 days equals 0.493 ton. That is approx- imately a '/2 ton or 100 lbs. Since a living room
12~20x8 feet high has
160 pounds of air, let us visually see a little more than '/2 of the room as 24 hours. Start to chop this air space into parts.,In 12 hours the gas emitted would fill half of this space or 50 pounds. Now divide that by 12, equal- ing 1 hour or 4.166
pounds, 60 minutes equals 0.694 pounds per minute or 0.001 1 pounds per second. Now open the window.
So every second
0.0011 pounds of sulfur dioxide is emitted from the stack. As soon as the gas is outside it mixes with air and is diluted. At one foot away from the stack that mixture is dibed again. At 2 feet the diluted, diluted gas is diluted again, and so on. Your car tire has 35 lbs.
so 0.0011 is one little
squirt of air.
As a comparison the proposed center will emit over 30 percent less
Turn to Page 17
From Page 4 pollutants than the En- cina plant which was built before our clean air laws were enacted. No one has moved away, nor has building stopped near the Encina plant. Another comparison is your fireplace that heats only you, and doesn't have an kmission control on it. You will still use it even if the combined emission of all the fireplaces in North County make more pollution than the pro- posed center. This plant won't cost us anything to build. It will be-removed if it does not meet our very strict California clean air laws.
It will also pay the coun-
ty and San Marcos in taxes, revenues from profits, and improve cer-
tain streets and San *Mar- cos Park. It will provide
a money-making project for youth groups and produce jobs. You will also be able to go through the beautiful gardens with
fish pond, and look through windows to see how the trash is
separated. I am for the construc- tion of North County Resource Recovery Center and I hope your will be too.
Clara Stolpe
Sunday, November 18, 1984 By JILL STEWART, Times Stuff Writer
Waste Hazards Raise Doubts Over Landfills
Once Considered Best of Methods for Disposal,
Sites Now Seen as Possible Environmental Peril
11 ,htRWh, Ian- 4LkUmmaEd
Garbage was deposited, then covered with layers of soil. When
the dumps were filled, urban plan- ners and engineers were to trans-
form them into rolling parkland, e.wansive golf courses, even choice
ring problem the scope of which would boggle your mind.” said federal researcher Joel Hirschhorn, who is wrapping up a two-year congressional study on
the federal “superfund” program to clean up hazardous waste sites.
A case in point in Southern California is the recently closed Monterey Park landfill run by Operating Industries.
Just three years ago, the landfill was found to be so geologically
secure by state inspectors that the facility was granted a permit to accept low - level hazardous wastes. But this year, the landfill was ranked 16th among 93 sites target-
ed for cleanup money from the state’s own superfund. And Envi- ronmental Protection Agency au- thorities say it is “extremely like- ly” that Operating Industries will soon qualify as a federal superfund site.
An estimated 20,250 people live within a one-mile radius of the dump. “Operating Industries is’a fasci-
nating case study because it went from being a fully permitted
(low-level) hazardous waste site, fully sanctioned and supposedly
safe, to being slapped onto the
superfund list because it was so bad,” said Sacramento environ- mental consultant Kent Stoddard
“It really raised, and continues to raise, questions about how the hell
it WdS approved and sanctioned in the first place. The question you
haw to ask is. how many Operating lndustries are there out there?” Officials say the landfill. a malo- dorous mountain of dirt and trash bordenng the Pomona Freeway s1x
miles east of downtown Los Angel- es, issiagued w-dhpoblems: --Beneath the tidy lay that blankets the 10-s
landfill, mUing trash produces up$ to 36,OOO gallons a day of oily, black * “garbage juice” considered so ha- 1 ardous that it must be trucked to a? toxic disposal site near Bakersfid
aka w&d qM10,Q9Q.a4w9The operators have been given the go-ahead to build a pre-treatment system and begin releasing the
liquid into local sewer lines, a plan bitterly fought by residents. _I_
-In recent months, the lanG3 hGL-XdTg&Ze air carcino- genic vir@ ehloride gases that local health officials say it ShrmldJ mt-k-&w- -Moreover, although fill closed in October, it belches out
@tent€aily“&ph$ive methane gad like a busy factory-faster than) any other landfill in California-,? and experts say it will producer‘ methane -for another 50 year3 While most of the methane is extracted from the dump and sold to produce energy, much still es- capes into the surrounding commu- nity.
3
Signs of a Crisis
Barry Groveman, the assistant Los Angeles city attorney who has
led raids against illegal industrial dumpers, said that partly becduse of the lack of attention paid to landfills, “We are standing
G.;~h;a-&-gz-a
‘Peerating Indwtrie is literally
risk, but people didn’t do their jobs 7 said. “Landfills were a calculate
and now eveq.t&ing, is.. crashineg &a ?”
Despite Gov. George Deukmeji- an’s contention that California has stepped up its monitoring of dump
sites, officials of the California Waste Management Board and the
state Department of Health Servic- es say they are generally too busy to investigate landfills unless they
receive complaints-like they re- ceived from Monterey Park and
Montebello residents living near the Operating Industries site-or come across obvious “red flags” such as vegetation dying around a dump. Officials can point to only a few dumps known to be seriously con- taminating the environment, though they fear that hundreds er
even thousands exist. In fact, only 23 landfills in California out of more
than 3,000 active and inactive sites have been ordered to undertake major cleanup measures by either
the Department of Health Services or the California Waste Manage- ment Board.
Howard Hatayama, an engineer at the Department of Health Ser- vices’ Bay Area office, said that
because of the department’s press- ing workload, involving scores of suspected spills, industrial dump- ing and other more obvious envi- ronmental threats, a landfill “could ! operate for a long time without us/ or any other agency taking a look) at iL” j Likewise, the California Waste
Management Board, responsible for ensuring the safety of municipal
landfills, employs only five inspec- tors for the entire state and in-
spected less than 50 landfills this year, said executive director Doug- las Strauch.
“We kind of shudder and shake at what we found,” Strauch said. “We found a lot of methane gas leakage problems . . . and we ran
into a lot of poorly done monitor-
Continued
the .tip of the iceberg,” s Graveman,
Hope for Safe Waste Disposal
ing. Many landfills do not have a single well drilled for monitoring the ground water.” Similarly, federal researcher Hirschhorn said, the EPA has
“barely scratched the surface” of municipal landfill hazards, focusing most of its attention on hot spots such as New York’s Love Canal and California’s Stringfellow acid pits.
John Skinner, EPA’s national
director of solid waste, said there are about 18,500 active municipal landfills in the United States. But the EPA suspended its nationwide
investigation into potentially haz- ardous landfills after funds ran out in 1980. Amendments to the Re- source Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 that would provide money have languished in Con- gress, Skinner said, and since then the EPA has gone after only those landfills that make the superfund
list. Left to handle landfills on their
own, Skinner said, a few states like California and Minnesota have adopted “fairly good control pro- grams.” However, he said, even the states that have laws “are having
trouble enforcing them. We are seeing a lack of personnel, a lack of expertise and a lack of funding.”
Strauch, the state waste man-
agement board director, agreed with that assessment.
In the last five years, he said, the
board has identified 17 of the state’s 23 known problem landfills, but most of the dumps’ operators have ignored cleanup orders from the board and enforcement action has
been “painstakingly slow.”
Many Parts of State
Besides Operating Industries, problem landfills identified by the board are sprinkled across Califor- nia, in the counties of Calaveras, Fresno, Ventura. Riverside and San Diego, and in the cities of Los
Angeles, Carson, Huntington Beach, Monrovia, Irwindale, Up- land. Encinitas, Oceanside, Bakers- field and San Jose. “We are years behind where we
should be” in identifying and cleaning up sites, Strauch said,
partly because his board’s small staff relies heavily on the wdtch- dog activities of local agencies across California-mostly city and county health departments.
He said that of the 120 city and county agencies that are supposed to keep tabs on municipal landfills, “some are doing are really fine job and some simply are not. People:,3 who say the system is a mess, well,, they are right.”
In Los Angeles. Strauch said, city and county investigators were
so slow responding to leakage problems at the Lopez Canyon landfill in Lakeview Terrace that
waste management board officials
threatened to “de-designate” the
local agencies and take care of the problem themselves, Strauch said.
Since then, he said, the agencies have taken steps to curtail waste
runoff from the landfill into an adjacent neighborhood. “But we just can’t watch everybody all the time,” he added. The state Department of Health
Services’ superfund team, respon- sible for investigating all suspected hazardous sites, also looked at only a handful of landfills this year during its investigation of 360 SUS-
pected toxic locations, officials said. Dave Hartley, leader of the de- partment’s abandoned site assess- ment project, said. the staff is-:’
“basically too busy putting out the, obvious fires, you might say. It’s: really kind of ironic, but we don’t respond to landfills until after they, become aknown problem.”
State superfund investigators have placed six active and inactive landfills on their list of 93 super-
fund cleanup sites. Some of those sites were designated as Class 11-1 landfills, meaning that they were allowed to accept limited hazardous wastes. But cthers were classified.. as Class 11, meaning they were prohibited from taking toxins of
any kind. (Class I landfills, only a handful of which exist in California, are allowed to take high-level toxins. Class 111 landfills can accept only safe, dry refuse such as wpod and concrete.)
SixTargeted Sites
In addition to Operating Indus-
tries, said Richard Wilcoxon. toxic division chief, the targeted sites are: Ascon Landfill in Huntington
Beach, which is polluting a strew
with &.*variety of toxins; )Auburn Sanitary Landfill in Placer County, which has leaked cadmium, a toxic’ metallic chemical used in electro-’ pIating, and phenol, a corr€)siv$ poison, into the ground water2 Cal
Compact Landfill in Carson, which has contaminated the ground water with toxic pentachlorophenoL-d
herbicide aod,.fungicidec] Whi te
sonqus eentghnd Alviso Landfil! in Santa Clara--~o~nty,v which id
threatening the air wi& carcinad genic asbestos dust emissions. ,!
Joel Moskowitz, the state’s rank- ing toxm official, said it will take
the Department of Health Services
at least five years to investigate all of the Class I and Class 11-1 landfills
in California, but bringing them up to federal standards enacted in 1976 is the biggest problem.
“I can tell YOU that as soon as we started seriously pursuing those final permits (required under fed- eral standards), many people de- cided to shut up and leave,” Mos- kowitz said. “There were people who just slinked away instead of trying to comply, and who hadn’t been complying for years.” In the case of Operating Indus- tries, the company agreed in 1981 to monitor and contain seeping gases and liquids in order to get its permit as a Class 11-1 site.
Deadlines Overlooked
While some of that work was completed, the landfill’s majority shareholders-local rubbish indus- try multimillionaires Mike Harabe-
dian, Jack Arakelian and Tim Aga-
j an 1 an - f ai 1 e d to meet sever a1 deadlines Still, Operating Indus- tries was allowed to accept low-level toxic wastes such as paint sludge and oil until the
owners announced they would no
Turns Into Doubt.
longer take hazardous materials in January, 1983-a move seen as an attempt to avoid upgrading the landfill. “Most of these landfills have had eight years of a free ride-eight wars of dumping with a minimum bf restrictions and eight years of flying in the face of federal laws
enacted in 1976,” said Meghan
Taylor, environmental consultant with the Toxic Assessments Group
of Sacramento. “When you think about it, it’s shocking.” Most critics of California’s toxic control program claim that such failures of the system will never be overcome unless agencies are giv- en bigger budgets, bigger staffs and
better leadership from state offi- cials. But they also claim that compla- cent attitudes among government employees must be overcome if any
progress is to be made. Groveman, the Los Angeles as-
sistant city attorney, said “bureau- cratic sluggishness and ‘look-the- other-way’ attitudes” among em-
ployees in government agencies have taken the urgency out of environmental cleanup.
“People have said things to me like, ‘I’ve worked around toxic materials for years and I’m fine. It’s
no big deal,’ ” Groveman said.
Assemblyman Charles Calderon
(D-Montebello), an outspoken critic of Operating Industries who grew up within a few miles of the dump, said he “had to practically break arms” to drum up interest in the landfill among members of the California Waste Management
Board and other state agencies.
“This may be the first time these agencies have tackled a problem like this, and we can make allow- ances for that,” Calderon said. “But
what is striking is that they have handled it so very miserably. I am
not impressed.”
Robert Conheim. an attorney for the California Waste Management Board, said board members were
“always sure there were viola- tions” at the dump but didn’t act for
several years because they lacked
evidence to win a court case. The board is now suing the company on
behalf of Los Angeles County. The state Department of Health Servic-
es has also filed suit.
But residents of Monterey Park and Montebello, who fought to close the Operating Industries
landfill for seven years, contend that governmental agencies failed to use their resources to oppose the
dump. Edgar Grey, vice chairman of HELP, a Montebello anti-landfill
group, said members ran into con- stant resistance from regulatory agencies during their years of pro- tests.
*@?@!G%rey said. And a 1983 report by the Los
Angeles County League of Women Voters on solid-waste management said that controversies surrounding Operating Industries and the BKK hazardous waste dump in West
Covina “raised questions about the ability of the present regulatory system to protect the public’s health” in the county.
A Cause for Alarm
Ingrid Markul, chairwoman of
the league’s hazardous waste task force, said the study group was “struck by the ability of the land- fills to delay again and again what they had promised to do, to play one arm of government off anoth- er. , . . We were quite alarmed.” However, most state officials take issue with the portrayal of their staffs as inefficient or timid. “The entire management team that was here when I arrived has
been replaced,” said the depart- ment of health’s Moskowitz. “We
did a lot of housecleaning and conducted a nationwide search and I think things are starting to change pretty fast.” In addition, Moskowitz noted, a bond measure approved by the state’s voters this month will
sweeten the state’s toxlc cleanup purse by $100 million.
Environmentalists and regulato-
ry agency officials say those funds will be a start, but much more will be needed. Cleanup costs at the
Operating Industries landfill alone are estimated by state officials at
612 million to $25 millionl-., . _.. , . “A. solution to the problems ofi landfills is not on %e, immediate? horizon.” said Angelo Bellomo of the Los Angeles office of the state Department-- of Health .,.Services. ~
“But what we do know is we’ve got I.\ to stop it soon, or we may not have another chance.”:
Dozens of landfilis are scheduled for closure in California in the next five years, and any that are found to pose a hazard will ultimately be required to build costly control
systems and adopt cleanup plans to contain toxlns for 30 years, as
required by law.
But,. said. Moskowj$z,. “~e&= this stuff up is going ta be harder ! than unscrambling an egg. If I said( I knew how we were going to do it,.: I’d be stretching things pretty far.”:
And if Operating Industries is to be any example, officials said, many landfill owners will probably resist spending the thousands-or even millions-of dollars that may be
needed. Carole Stevens, who helped lead a successful citizens fight against a plan to open a second Mission Canyon landfill in the Santa Monica
Mountains, urged people who live near landfills slated for closure to “fight for the best control systems money can buy.”
Legacy of Two Decades
Today, she said, local agencies are still finding methane under the streets in her neighborhood, even though the Mission Canyon dump closed in 1965. “We are‘talking about-20 -year$ later, methane gas creeping into;
our water main boxes, corrodingj our pipes, and carrying who knows what junk along with it,”.’Stevens said.
“Give the people who live-by ~ (landfills) a tip from somebody who reaHy knows,” she said. “Tell them that their troubles have just,
begun.”
. II ., ~ . ... ..
*
Experts in state and federal agencies responsible for
overseeing the control of toxic wastes cite five factors that have increased the threat posed by landfills:
Household items contain ever greater amounts of plastics,
solvents, pesticides, dyes and acids that, when mixed with other
wastes, decompose and are released into the air or water. In some cases, the commingling process creates new, little-understood chemicals that scientists say may be worse than the original
compounds.
0 Many landfills "took in whatever they wanted" before 1980, when
federal laws enacted in 1976 began to take hold. Until then, few hazardous materials were regulated. John Skinner, national director of the EPA's office of solid waste, said many older municipal landfills "aren't substantially different from toxic waste sites."
0 Until the 1980s. sites were not sufficiently geologically tested. Thus many landfills were built over sand formations, leaky gravel, or on flood plains. Geological studies are still so inexact that even recently approved sites have subsequently been discovered to be leaking,
officials said.
0 Illegal dumping in landfills is difficult to detect or control. A 1981 survey by Orange County officials showed that 6.7 million gallons of
commercial waste that should have gone to toxic sites were
unaccounted for. Industrial dumpers sometimes "sneak" toxins into
regular trash, and some generators of toxins do not even know the materials are regulated. And, federal researcher Joel Hirschhorn said. gate monitoring for toxic items "is often lax or non-existent." City and county zoning deficiencies have allowed the construction
of homes, schools and businesses within 1,000 feet of active and inactive landfills where air and ground water contamination are most prevalent. Angelo 8ellomo. chief of the state's toxic substance control office in Los Angeles. said they "cannot guarantee the safety" of people who live near municipal landfills.
Copyright 1984, Los Angeles Times
Reprinted by permission
. . i,
TRASH:
NORTH COUNTY RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER
1635 South Rancho Santa Fe Road San Marcos, CA 92069 (619) 471-0431
--, i 'I-- I ,-',.'G'?.', .-' - - __ -- -
..
.I! , ,: ' ,. . . . II , - II 1. I -..
How THE CENTER WORKS
The purpose of the North County Resource Recovery Center is to
take our share of the world’s only growing resource-trash- and to
recover it as recyclable materials and energy. This will be done by
separating the trash which would otherwise be buried in the San
Marcos landfill, either at the source (your business or home) or at
the Center. Recyclable materials will be reprocessed by various
industries for reuse. Non-recyclable materials will be used as a fuel
to produce electricity.
Recycling Center
North County’s Resource Recovery Center will contain a recycling
center open to North County residents seven days a week to receive
and ship out source-separated ferrous metals, aluminum, various
colors of glass, plastics, newspapers and corrugated cartons.
Recycling groups will directly participate in the recycling activities of
the facility.
In addition, a special Eco-Bag program will be funded by the
Center. The colorcoded Eco-Bags will be distributed to residents by
youth clubs, filled with recyclable materials and collected as a part
of your regular trash collection service. Designed to supplement
other volunteer recycling efforts, the Eco-Bags will make home
recycling convenient and efficient.
Mechanical Trash Separation
Trash that is not separated at the source by the residents, businesses
or recycling groups will be mechanically separated at the Center.
The trucks that now deliver trash to be buried in the landfill will
instead enter a fully enclosed receiving building at the Center and
unload onto a tipping floor area.
will keep dust, odors, and noise from escaping into the environ-
ment. Waste will be separated into recyclable materials such as
ferrous metals, aluminum, corrugated cardboard and plastics, a
prepared fuel containing paper, wood and other organic materials,
and a residue which will be landfilled.
There are several stages to this mechanical separation process:
Rubber-tire loaders will separate some items from the waste and
push what remains onto conveyors. Inspectors will pull any non-
processable items off the conveyor belt, while the remaining waste
moves into a trommel-a long clothes dryer-like cylinder with
holes-which slowly tumbles the waste. Small heavy items such as
glass, metals and dirt fall through the holes. Lighter, longer
materials such as paper and wood continue through the trommel to
the other end.
Partial negative pressure maintained inside the receiving building
Heavy materials dropping out of the trommel run through
magnetic separators which remove ferrous metals. These metals are
conveyed to containers and sold. The remaining heavy materials are
sent to a disc screen which recovers combustibles that would other-
wise be lost.
Aluminum, corrugated cartons and plastics are recovered by
manual inspection and removal from slow spread conveyors at
various points in the overall process.
Combustibles separated by the trommel are conveyed to the final
stage of the fuel preparation process-the shredders. Shredders cut
the fuel into the proper consistency for burning. This fuel passes
once more through magnetic separators to remove any remaining
small metallic materials.
Once completed, this process produces a very high-grade, clean-
burning fuel which is then burned in a conventional boiler, similar
to those used to burn wood chips and bark. The steam produced
within the boiler drives a turbine that generates electricity. The elec-
tricity is sold to San Diego Gas and Electric and transmitted
through existing power lines immediately adjacent to the Center.
Design Principles
The design of the Center is based on three important design
principles:
using the most advanced scientific technology available, every piece
of equipment or system in the Center has been proven in actual
commercial operation. Similar facilities in Europe, Japan and the
United States have been in operation since the 1940’s.
capital investment in the Center. There are no governmental sub-
sidies. All investment is being made and all risk is being taken by
the private business sector, even to the extent that a bond is being
posted to pay for removal of the Center if it is unsuccessful.
From site selection to
architectural design, from air quality controls to funding for park
improvements, the Center is designed to be a good neighbor for the
San Marcos community.
I. Proven T’echnology. Although this is a state of the art facility
2. No Public Risk. There is no Federal, State, County or City
3. Compatibility with the Community.
Further Information
More detailed information on how the process works is contained in
the Environmental Impact Report on the Center.
NCRRA staff are also available to meet with you to discuss this
aspect of the Center and may be reached at 619-471-0431.
ENVIR0"TALBENEETIS
If someone took 20,000 automobiles, 120 million beer cans,
200,000 trees, 300 miles of plastic pipe and 15 million gallons of fuel
oil and buried them in a local canyon, we would be outraged. Yet,
that in effect is what we now do each year in North County by
burying rather than recovering our trash.
environmental benefit of the North County Resource Recovery
Center.
Recovery of these resources will be the greatest but not the only
Resource Conservation
The Center will initially recover and recycle over 40,000 tons a year
of materials, including:
2,000 tons of aluminum
20,000 tons of iron and steel
20,000 tons of corrugated cardboard
Various amounts of glass, newspapers, compost and plastics.
The amounts and types of materials recovered will all increase
over time as markets develop and separation technologies improve.
The Center will also reduce consumption of oil, gas and coal both
directly and indirectly.
First, the project's production of electricity will offset consump-
tion of oil and natural gas at SDG&E's generating stations such as
Encina. The energy production from the combustibles will average
216 million kWH of electricity each year-enough to serve approx-
imately 40,000 homes. This is equivalent to the electricity produced
by burning approximately 15 million gallons of oil each year.
Second, materials recovered by the Center will indirectly reduce
fossil fuel consumption by industries that process new aluminum,
ferrous metals, paper, and other products which will now be
recycled by the Center. It takes considerably less energy to make
these products from recycled materials than from virgin resources
(e.g. trees or mined ores). This recycling will save the equivalent of
approximately 14 million gallons of oil per year.
These two figures yield a combined potential reduction of fossil
fuel consumption equal to approximately 29 million gallons of oil
per year. This reduced fossil fuel consumption has the additional
benefit of decreased emission of air pollutants from fossil-fueled
power plants such as SDG&E's Encina power plant.
Control of Hazardous Wastes
Because all our trash is now directly buried in the County's
canyons, there is little that can be done to prevent illegal dumping
of hazardous wastes-toxic substances that can cause significant
damage to our environment and our health. Although vehicles with
easily visible containers of potentially hazardous materials can be
turned away, it is not now feasible at any landfill operation to open
every trash bag or container for inspection.
But now, because all trash will be traveling through the Center's
carefully monitored separating and recycling processes, potentially
hazardous wastes will be identified, screened out and properly
handled.
Litter and Traffic Control
Roads leading to the existing landfill are currently littered with trash
accidentally or intentionally discarded by those traveling to the land-
fill. This litter creates an eyesore for local residents and traffic
hazard for drivers. The Center will be open seven days a week, cut-
ting down on the illegal dumping that now occurs on Sunday when
the landfill is closed. In addition, the Center will fund an indepen-
dent, community-run litter and traffic control program to see that
existing laws are enforced and that any litter that is generated is
promptly cleaned up.
Reduced Landfiiling
The existing landfill is a noisy, dusty and smelly operation. The
Center will greatly reduce the volume of waste to be landfilled, re-
quiring less movement of bulldozers and other heavy equipment
which will mean lower noise levels and reduced emissions. Because
paper and organic household garbage will be consumed in the
Center's combustion process, the amount of blowing paper, fre-
quency of detectable odor from the landfill and the presence of
seagulls and other disease carriers will be significantly reduced. And
finally, the residue ash that will be landfilled will be dry and mostly
inorganic, so risk of groundwater pollution through leaching will be
substantially reduced.
Park Improvements
The Center has proposed to fund improvements to the under-
developed upper mesa area of San Marcos City Park (formerly
Linda Vista Park) located at Rancho Santa Fe Road and Linda
Vista Drive. Much needed improvements to this portion of the park
have been planned by city staff but funding for the improvements
has not previously been available.
Roadway Improvements
Trucks and other vehicle traffic on the two-lane roads leading to the
existing landfill have created hazardous conditions. The Center will
fund immediate improvements to Questhaven and Rancho Santa Fe
Roads, including selective restriping to provide passing lanes where
slower-moving trucks impede other traffic, and minor road-widening
.
on hills or at intersections to provide hill climbing or acceleration
lanes for trucks. The Center will also participate in additional future
improvements along Questhaven and Rancho Santa Fe Roads on a
fair-share basis.
The Eko-Bag
The Eco-Bag Program enables youth organizations to earn money
by assisting the recycling activities at the Center. The Center will
sponsor this program on a non-profit basis.
The Center will sell, at cost, special colorcoded plastic fiber bags
to local youth clubs. One color bag will be designated for
newspapers, another for glass. The club members will sell Eco-Bags
to residents in their community who are interested in recycling or in
supporting the clubs. Proceeds will go directly to the youth
organizations. Each participating household will put newspapers
into one bag and glass in the other. These bags will be collected
each week along with the regular trash without the need for special
collection trucks, separate compartments, or other special handling.
After delivery to the facility at the San Marcos landfill along with
the regular trash, the Eco-Bags will be hand-picked from the process
line conveyors and the glass and newspapers will be recovered for
resale. The youth organizations will receive the resale revenues with
a small percentage being retained by the Center to cover the cost of
administering the program.
Additional Information
More detailed information on the above topics is contained in the
draft Environmental Impact Report on the Center.
Please contact North County Resource Recovery Associates at
619-471-0431 if you would like to discuss these aspects of the
Center.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Government and Business Working Together
The process of developing, building and operating the North Coun-
ty Resource Recovery Center is an example of government and
business working together to solve a growing public problem-the
safe, environmentally sensitive and economic disposal of trash.
Government is providing the policy direction and controls to en-
sure the Center is in the public interest. Development, construc-
tion, operation and financing are the responsibility of the private
sector. There are no Federal, State, County, City or other govern-
ment funds or subsidies involved. There is no taxpayer liability.
Government is making no investment and taking no financial or
technical risk. The companies involved will even post a bond to
remove the Center and restore the site in the event the project is
unsuccessful.
Control of Trash Disposal Costs
The cost to businesses and residents for trash disposal has gone up
substantially in recent years as the costs of hauling and burying
trash in increasingly distant and expensive landfills has risen. The
Center gives us an opportunity to control those costs in the future.
By extending the life of the existing landfill and eliminating the need
for more distant disposal sites, development of the Resource
Recovery Center will have a stabilizing effect on our trash bills. In
fact, operators of the Center are required to limit processing fee in-
creases at the Center to the overall inflation rate in our
region-even if the operator’s actual costs are increasing at a more
rapid rate.
Alternatives to Construction of the Center
All three alternatives to the Center are considerably more expensive
for the public and involve significant adverse environmental im-
pacts. Those alternatives are:
1. Expand the San Marcos landfill. This would be the least
expensive of the three alternatives to the Center. But it would be
more expensive than the Center itself due to the need to import
cover soil to bury waste in the landfill and the need to acquire addi-
tional canyons adjacent to the existing landfill.
2. Develop A New North County Landfill. This would be more
expensive than the Center or expanding the San Marcos landfill due
to land acquisition costs and due to the fact that it would most like-
ly be far less conveniently located, thereby increasing transportation
costs.
3. Ship Waste to the Sycamore Canyon Landfill. The next nearest
County landfill is Sycamore Canyon near Santee. It would cost bet-
ween 5 and 10 million dollars per year more to use this alternative,
making it by far the most expensive.
Tax Revenues for the Community
The North County Resource Recovery Center will pay approximate-
ly $1 million per year in possessory interest (property) taxes. Of this,
approximately $250,000 per year will flow to the County, $80,000
to the City of San Marcos and the remainder to various special
districts (fire, water, schools). These amounts will increase over
time.
Energy Royalties to Local Government
Initially, energy created and sold to San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E) will constitute the main revenue source for the North
County Resource Recovery Center. Under an agreement between
the Center and the County of San Diego, substantial royalties from
these revenues will flow to the County beginning at a rate of
approximately $500,000 per year. This amount will rise to $1.1
million per year in the sixth year of operations, and steadily in-
crease thereafter. By the 16th year of operation the project will be
paying the County $3.2 million per year from energy royalties. This
will increase to $5.5 million in the 21st year and $9.1 million in the
26th year. Over the total 30-year contract period with SDG&E, the
County of San Diego will receive over $120 million in revenues
from energy royalties alone.
Recycled Materials Royalties
In addition to energy royalties, the County of San Diego will
receive royalties from revenue generated by the sale of recycled
materials such as aluminum, paper fibers and ferrous metals. These
payments to the County will begin at over $300,000 per year. Pro-
jections over a thirty-year period show a total of approximately
$20 million generated for local governments from this source.
Land Lease
A fourth source of new revenue that the Center will generate for
local government involves lease payments to be made to the
County. The Center will be located on County-owned property at
the landfill. Initial lease payments for use of the site will be over
$70,000 per year.
Reclaimed Water
The Center will provide new revenues to the San Marcos Water
District by purchasing reclaimed water from the District that would
otherwise be disposed of in the ocean.
Employment and the Local Economy
The North County Resource Recovery Center will provide other
significant economic benefits to the community. The project will
create approximately 300 construction jobs and over 60 full time
permanent operations positions.
Further Information
More detailed information on these aspects of the Center is
contained in the draft Environmental lmpact Report.
aspect of the Center and may be contacted at 619-471-0431.
NCRRA staff are also available to meet with you to discuss this
The tour bus wound its way through the streets of Kyoto, Japan’s
old Imperial Capital as well as its most beautiful modern city. On
board, a group of air quality engineers, investment bankers,
insurance executives and public officials from around the United
States were going to visit one of the most tecl-&ally advanced
facilities in Kyoto-its trash recovery plant.
Located across the street from luxury apartment buildings and
immediately next to an elementary school and playground, the
recovery plant contained a handsome recreation center with swim-
ming pools and spas heated with energy recovered at the plant. The
recreation center was being used by everyone from school children
to senior citizens.
The Americans filed off the tour bus, crossed a reflecting pond
filled with golden carp, and entered a vestibule where they removed
their shoes and put on slippers. After a tour of the facility, the
plant manager explained-through an interpreter-how the plant
worked. In the question and answer period that followed, one of
the Americans asked if there were many complaints from the
neighbors or the school about air pollution from the plant. The
question was translated but the plant manager seemed not to
understand and asked that the question be repeated. Even after the
second translation, he remained perplexed. Finally, after further
elaboration, he explained his confusion:
“Resource recovery technology has had many years to develop,”
he said. “Many years ago, there may have been pollution problems
from the incinerators. But now all our facilities must meet strict air
quality standards and use the latest air quality control devices, and
it is taken for granted that recovery centers produce nothing visible,
no odors and no harmful substances. It was therefore difficult for
me to comprehend this question expressed by a visitor from a coun-
try as technologically advanced as yours. It would be like going to a
modern dairy and asking the plant manager how many persons died
lasl year from drinking milk from that dairy.”
As the Americans walked through the nearby streets and talked to
neighborhood residents, they understood the manager’s surprise
about the question of air quality control. One could stand right out-
side the plant and not be able to tell if it was running or not. White
futon mattresses were even airing on the balconies of nearby luxury
apartments with no dust or soot on them. It was clear that when
properly designed and operated, recovery plants can be very clean
and very good neighbors, even in a culture as concerned about
cleanliness as the Japanese.
Many of us in North County have moved here from urban
centers like Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland or Los Angeles. Some of
us remember smokestacks belching black or brown smoke that foul-
ed the air. Many of us find it hard to imagine that any plant can be
as dean and safe as the resource recovery plant in Kyoto. Yet the
air quality equipment required for recovery plants in California is
similar to that used in Kyoto and the air quality standards that must
be met in California are by far the strictest of any state and are
among the strictest in the world.
When planning began for the North County Resource Recovery
Center in San Marcos, supporters of the project recognized that
their success would depend on their ability to guarantee that North
County’s air quality would be protected. Project planners agreed to
accept the recommendations of the California State Air Resources
Board concerning the pollution control equipment to be used in the
project-whatever the cost of such equipment.
“We view this project as a demonstration of how a resource
recovery center can be a good neighbor for the community in which
it’s built,” said project director Richard Chase. “As such, we were
willing to commit to spending more than might be required in other
locations to provide state-of-the-art air pollution control technology.
By doing this, we are setting a national standard for resource
recovery facilities.”
by state and local government agencies to make sure the strict
California clean air standards are met.
The operation of such equipment will be continuously monitored
No Visible Emissions and No Odors from the Center
There will be no odors and no visible emissions from the Center. A
person will be able to stand next to the Center on a clear day with a
pair of binoculars and a sensitive nose and not be able to determine
if the plant is in operation or not.
Odors are prevented by preparing the fuel into a homogenous
mixture that burns very completely and by maintaining high furnace
temperatures that destroy any odors that might be created.
Visible emissions, such as soot, are prevented by filtering all the
exhaust gases before they enter the emissions tower through a series
of very fine fabric filter bags (similar to vacuum cleaner bags) which
remove over 99.9 percent of the solid particles that might otherwise
be emitted.
Controlling Odorless and Colorless Gases
Just because one cannot see or smell a gas in the air does not mean
that it is harmless. The purpose of Federal and California
environmental laws and regulations is to ensure that no risk to the
public health or to aesthetic or cultural values is created by such
emissions.
To do this, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Air Resources Board have established specific “ambient”
standards which specify the allowable amounts of certain of the
various gases that make up the everyday atmosphere at all points
surrounding the Center.
Federal primary ambient standards are designed to protect the
most susceptible part of the population from any health risk with a
margin of safety. That is, they are designed to protect not only the
average citizen, but particularly those with severe respiratory or
other problems from any health risk.
are designed to protect aesthetic or cultural values even when no
health risk is involved.
And even more strict than Federal secondary standards are
California standards set by the State Air Resources Board to protect
California’s environmental quality.
Even more strict are Federal secondary ambient standards which
California Air Quality Standards: The Strictest in the World
United States ambient standards are stricter than those in most
other countries. California’s standards are much stricter than
Federal standards, much stricter than those of any other state, and
much stricter than most other countries.
To illustrate, let’s look at various ambient standards for sulfur
dioxide, an odorless, colorless gas that has caused concern because
of its contribution to acid rain. As shown by the following chart,
the California standard is approximately eight times more strict than
the Federal primary standard and twice as strict as the Federal
secondary standard.
24-Hour Ambient Sulfur Dioxide Standards
millionths
of
a gram per
cubic meter -1 500 ‘I
131
California U.S. U.S. Switzerland France
Sec . Prim. & W. Germany
Because of conditions that existed before such standards were
enacted, many areas of California such as Los Angeles do not meet
these strict standards. The standards are meant to protect the air
quality in areas that already have clean air and, over time, to
improve the air quality in areas such as Los Angeles that do not
meet the standards.
Measuring Air Quality Adjacent to the Center
Both the Federal and California standards must be met at every
point in the everyday (ambient) environment outside the boundaries
of the Center’s site. And they must be met at every such point
under all likely weather conditions taking the actual hills and valleys
of the immediate neighborhoods into account. This is accomplished
by the use of computer models specified by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the County Air Pollution Control District
which predict what will happen in the environment under various
weather and terrain conditions.
In the case of the North County Center, the most difficult point
at which to meet the standards is an unoccupied hillside next to the
landfill which is higher than the top of the Center’s emissions tower.
Once standards are met at that hillside, they are easily met with a
greater margin of safety at every other point in the environment,
even at the nearest home in Elfin Forest, which is a little more than
one-half mile from the Center.
As the chart below illustrates (for sulfur dioxide, a typical gas),
the maximum change produced by the Center under adverse weather
conditions at the nearest house is less than two percent of the very
strict California standard.
Changes in Ambient Levels of Sulfur Dioxide
Standard
or
impact as
percent of
California
standard
1.8%
Maximum impact California Federal
1 Federal
at nearest house Standard secondary primary
standard standard
Even this small change falls off rapidly as one gets further from the
Center. For example, the maximum change produced by the Center
at Lake San Marcos under the most adverse weather conditions
would be less than one-half of one percent of the strict California
standard.
5
Some might argue that even these extremely small changes are too , great since “Any pollution is too much.” This misunderstands the
nature of “pollution” which is, in fact, the concentration of natural
elements in the environment in a manner that degrades
environmental quality. Sulfur dioxide, for example, exists in very
small amounts in our air right now due to a variety of natural and
man-made activities. It is only when its concentration exceeds levels
which have been determined to cause harm that an air quality
problem exits.
The chart that follows shows that the existing level of a typical
gas, sulfur dioxide, will be very slightly affected by the Center. For
example, at the nearest residence the maximum change under the
most adverse weather conditions will be less than three percent of
what exists in the air right now. At Lake San Marcos, the maximum
change under the most adverse conditions will be less than one
percent of what exists in the air right now.
Predicted Dispersion of Sulfur Dioxide
Standard
and
impact as
percent
of
existing
background
concentration
100%
Maximum impact Maximum impact Existing
at Lake San Marcos at nearest residence Concentration
All of the above changes produced by the Center are calculated
without giving credit for the reductions the Center will produce at
other sources. For example, the operation of the Center will mean
that less oil or gas will be burned at SDG&E’s Encina power plant.
Since that plant is located upwind from the City of San Marcos and
the Lake San Marcos area (the Center is not so located), the City
and the Lake San Marcos area will benefit from the Encina
reductions. Furthermore, the Center will mean landfill activities and
emissions of dust from the landfill will be reduced.
In addition, the recycling of materials will produce additional
energy savings and reductions of emissions at other points in the
environment. This is because it takes much less energy and produces
much less pollution to make new materials from recycled waste
instead of virgin materials.
Protecting North County’s Air Quality: Our #1 Priority
If the Center is operated as planned, the quality of North County’s
air will be fully protected. There will be:
Nothing visible coming from the Center’s emission tower.
No odors from the Center.
Nothing harmful to health or to aesthetic values.
Maximum changes produced by the Center even at the nearest
house under the worst weather conditions will be a very small
fraction of both strict California standards and existing
concentrations in the air.
Reductions in emissions from Encina and other power plants
will actually improve the air quality in the San Marcos area.
Monitoring and Enforcement: The Final Safeguard
As the best plans are worthless if we do not adhere to them, and
promises are worthless if they are not kept, so even the strictest
standards are meaningless if they are not enforced.
c .
Before the Center can be constructed, it must be demonstrated to
the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and the County Air
Pollution Board that standards will be met. More importantly,
before the Center can go into operation it must be demonstrated
that the Center in actual performance does in fact meet the
standards. And even more importantly, the operations of the Center
will be monitored and measured every minute of every hour of
every day all year by APCD computers.
The risk if these standards are not met lies not with the State,
County or City, but with the private companies and investors
responsible for the Center. If it does not work as planned, these
private companies and investors will have the most to lose since,
under their contract with the County, the Center will be closed and
removed from the site and their investment will be lost. Not
surprisingly, these companies have gone to great lengths to make
absolutely sure that all standards will be fully met and that there
will be no environmental problems.
Additional Information
The above discussion and the following questions and answers are
provided to give you a better understanding of the air quality
control measures that will be taken at the North County Resource
Recovery Center. More research data is available in the
Environmental Impact (EIR) prepared for the City of San Marcos.
NCRRA staff are also available to meet with you to discuss this
aspect of the Center and may be contacted at (619) 4714431.
Commonly Asked Questions
The following are some commonly asked questions regarding the
Center and its impact on air quality together with our answers to
those questions. If your questions are not included, please contact
NCRRA at the phone number listed above.
Question: Will the Center cause harm by emitting dioxins or other
harmful substances?
No, the Center will not cause any such harm for the following
reasons:
Dioxin emissions are a health risk that is only now beginning to
be understood but appear to be created by incomplete combustion
of fuels containing chlorine.
By using a carefully prepared fuel from which metals, glass and
hazardous wastes have been removed, the Center will achieve a
cleaner, more complete combustion than “mass burn” plants which
burn unprocessed trash.
As an additional safety step, auxilliary burners are included in the
Center’s furnace to maintain consistent high temperatures. Over 99
percent of any dioxins that may be created in the combustion
process will be thermally destroyed by exposure to the temperatures
designed to be maintained in the furnace. Thermal destruction is the
most advanced way to handle any potentially hazardous substance.
Finally, if any dioxins are created and escape thermal destruction,
removal of such dioxins will occur in the dry scrubber and fabric
filter through which all exhaust gases must pass.
A risk assessment, prepared for the State Air Resources Board,
the State Department of Health Services and the Air Pollution
Control District concludes that the risk from dioxin or other trace
element emissions even without giving full benefit to the above
features of the Center would be well below all guidelines on such
risks that exist anywhere in the United States.
proposed by North County Resource Recovery Associates will
greatly reduce many existing risks. The danger of toxic materials
entering the landfill will be almost totally eliminated.
Moreover, the Center and the project mitigations that have been
Landfill operations as a whole will be substantially reduced due to
the volume reductions the Center will achieve. Road improvements
and traffic enforcement programs will reduce the very real and
present dangers associated with truck and other traffic in the area.
Question: Property owners who live near the landfill have said that
the Center will put tons of various gases in the air each year. Why
will this not result in polluting our air?
dirt or soot. The Center will actually result in a reduction in the
amount of soot or dirt in the air due to reduced landfill operations
and burning less oil at SDG&E’s power plants. Second, these
odorless, colorless gases exist in our air in very small concentrations
right now due to a variety of natural and man-made activities.
As shown above, the Center will not significantly increase such
concentrations, even at the nearest house in Elfin Forest. This is
because of the vast ocean of air even within one-half mile of the
Center into which these gases are mixed over the course of the year.
For example, the Center will emit 180 tons a year of sulfur dioxide.
This sounds like a lot before you consider that this will be mixed
with about 170 billion tons of air. Thus the Center’s sulfur dioxide
emissions will be equal to 0.0000001 percent of the ocean of
atmosphere into which they will be mixed.
Question: If emissions from the Center are so few and so clean why
does it have a 300 foot emissions tower?
The tower is necessary only because the Center is sited at the very
lowest point of a small canyon in which it and the landfill are
located. This site was selected so that the Center will be screened
from view by the hills of the canyon. The hill slightly to the south-
east of the Center is actually more than I00 feet higher than the top
of the tower. The strict Federal and California standards discussed
above must be met even on the side of that hill. If the Center were
built on level terrain or at the top of the landfill canyon instead of
at the bottom, the tower could be much shorter, but the Center
would then be more visible.
First, we are dealing with odorless and colorless gases, not tons of
Question: What type of equipment will be used to protect air
quality? How does the equipment work?
All the exhaust gases will pass through two types of gas cleaning
equipment. These are a dry scrubber and a fabric filter or baghouse.
The dry scrubber accomplishes two objectives. First, it removes
85-95 percent of the acid gases (SO,, HC,, HF,) by causing such
gases to react with and be neutralized by a limestone absorbant.
Second, by cooling the gases it does not remove, it will cause some
of such gases to sublimate to a solid or condense into a liquid which
then can be collected in the fabric filter.
The fabric filter is a series of fabric bags (similar to vacuum
cleaner bags) through which all exhaust gases must pass after they
have gone through the scrubber. There will be a total filter area of
145,000 square feet or enough to cover three football fields. These
filters remove over 99.9 percent of the dust or soot matter in the
exhaust gases.
Question: Who decided on the type of eqoipment?
from the State Air Resources Board, decided that a dry scrubber and
fabric filter is the best available control technology for this type of
plant. California is the only state that requires such advanced
equipment. Such equipment is proven technology and is in use on
similar solid waste plants in Europe and Japan.
The County Air Pollution Control District, based on advice
Question: What about the impact of the Center on acid rain or
fog?
fogwater or rainwater acidity for the following reasons:
The Center will not have a significant impact on local or regional
4
.
1. The dry scrubber and fabric filter will effectively limit the
2. Any increase in NO2 due to the Center should not have a
3. The Center’s annual emissions of SO, and NOX are only 0.9
emissions of the acid gases (HC,, HF,, and SO,).
significant local impact due to the low solubility of NO,.
percent and 1.5 percent of total SO, and NOX emissions in San
Diego.
reducing fossil-fueled power plant emissions.
4. There will be a decrease in SO, emissions due to the Center
Question: Who is reviewing the proposed Center to ensure that air
quality will be protected?
Before the Center can be built, permits must be obtained from
two government agencies concerned exclusively with how the Center
will protect air quality-the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(APCD). A permit must also be obtained from the City of San
Marcos which will be concerned with air quality along with all other
environmental issues. EPA and APCD have their own air quality
experts on staff. They also have available the technical resources of
the California Air Resources Board which has just completed a
major review of the air quality aspects of resource recovery
facilities. The City of San Marcos has retained Radian Associates, a
national firm specializing in air quality issues, to assist it in
evaluating the Center.
The purpose of these government reviews is to ensure before it is
built that the Center will fully meet all air quality standards and
regulations. Before the Center can operate, after it is built, it must
demonstrate to these agencies that it does in fact meet such
standards and regulations. After it operates, the Center will be
continuously monitored by these agencies to ensure that it will
continue to meet these standards.