Loading...
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.