Brewer Stumbles in Effort to Block Trash Burner

Miller Brewing Co. suffered several legislative setbacks last week in its drive to derail a $395-million waste-to-energy plant proposed near its Irwindale brewery. Miller and other opponents of the high-tech incinerator contend that it will emit potentially dangerous pollutants.

The most severe blow came when the Senate Local Government Committee, during an unusual night session Wednesday, rejected a Miller-sponsored bill by Sen. Edward R. Royce (R-Anaheim).

Royce’s measure would have prohibited air quality districts from issuing operating permits for any of the 34 plants planned in the state until Jan. 1, 1988. The bill failed on a 1-2 vote with only Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights) in support. Four committee members did not vote on the measure, including Sens. Newton R. Russell (R-Glendale), whose district includes part of the San Gabriel Valley, and Ruben S. Ayala (D-Chino), whose district includes Pomona.

Rival Bill Approved

Instead, the committee approved a rival, industry-supported bill by Sen. Joseph Montoya (D-Whittier), that would not affect construction timetables but would force operators to update pollution controls as the state develops standards for such toxic pollutants as dioxins. It was approved 6-0 and sent to the Appropriations Committee.

The wrangling over the bills highlighted the lobbying clout of the firms and public agencies that plan to build waste-to-energy plants.

These groups were mobilized to support Montoya’s bill in part by the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, a pro-business umbrella group started in 1973 to reconcile the interests of business, labor and environmentalists.

Montoya, whose district encompasses much of the San Gabriel Valley, including Irwindale, said, “I don’t think Miller or anyone else related to any other project has thus far demonstrated that waste-to-energy technology is unsafe enough to warrant moratoriums.”

One legislative staff member, who asked not to be identified, joked that Montoya and his allies had put the brewery on notice that “it wasn’t Miller time.”

Mark White, senior vice president of Pacific Waste Management Corp., which is planning the Irwindale facility, said the Montoya bill offers a “reasonable approach.”

Hopes to Scuttle Project

Dennis Carpenter, a former Republican state senator from Orange County who is Miller’s lobbyist, said he still hopes to tailor a bill to scuttle the Irwindale project.

“We just haven’t come up with the right language,” he said.

Montoya’s measure is similar to one approved earlier this month by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. That committee also rejected attempts to slow or halt construction of the high-tech incinerators.

The 80-megawatt Irwindale incinerator would burn 3,000 tons of trash a day. Because it is the first plant being reviewed by the Energy Commission, the Irwindale project is at the center of the legislative debate. The commission reviews projects larger than 50 megawatts. Permits for smaller projects--such as one under construction in Commerce--are reviewed by local authorities.

The Commerce plant and one proposed for the Puente Hills landfill are planned by the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts, which testified in favor of Montoya’s bill. They and other supporters of waste-to-energy plants say the high-tech incinerators are needed as an alternative to landfills for the 36.5 million tons of garbage Californians produce annually.

The impact of the plants on air quality is at the heart of the legislative controversy.

The Senate Local Government Committee spent nearly two hours listening to conflicting testimony Wednesday morning before adjourning until the evening. At that point, Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach), the Local Government Committee chairwoman, acknowledged that because of the technical disputes “we’re not in a position to evaluate who’s right.”

‘Uncertain Territory’

When the hearing resumed Wednesday night a spokeswoman for the state Air Resources Board said the agency is still a year or more away from developing standards for potentially toxic pollutants that the plants may emit. “It’s uncertain territory,” Catherine E. Witherspoon, an air pollution specialist with the board, told the committee.

Stephen Forsberg, legislative coordinator for the state Department of Health Services, said his department is confident “that there is state-of-the-art technology” that would “virtually” remove all hazardous products from the incinerators.

Alvin Greenberg of Mill Valley, a toxicological consultant to Combustion Engineering, which plans to build a plant in Redwood City, said that the amounts of such dangerous pollutants as dioxins emitted by the plants “are so small . . . the risks to public health are so negligible.” Dioxin, a carcinogen, is present in Agent Orange, the defoliant used during the Vietnam War and the subject of controversy over its effect on veterans.

In contrast, Milton R. Beychok of Irvine, a consulting engineer retained by Miller, warned the committee that dioxins and other toxic pollutants emitted by the plants pose a serious health hazard. He said it has only been in the past five years that emissions from large waste-to-energy plants have been sampled and tested. He said that the tests have shown “increasing emissions of carcinogens and toxic metals.”

Terry Kelly, Miller’s lawyer, told the committee that to allow plants to be built before the scientific community and the Air Resources Board develop standards for the pollutants would be a “tremendous mistake” because of the potential for harming the air quality in the already polluted San Gabriel Valley.

The bills debated Wednesday had undergone considerable revision as their authors searched for an approach that might win committee approval.

Royce first proposed a measure to prohibit the operation of any large waste-to-energy plant within three miles of a school, hospital, nursing home, day-care center or food-processing plant.

Measure’s Focus Narrowed

He narrowed the measure’s focus to prohibit granting of final air permits until Jan. 1, 1988, in order to give the Air Resources Board time to establish standards for the toxic pollutants.

Meantime, Montoya who had introduced four bills, focused his attention on two of them. Both were approved by the committee.

Montoya’s key bill is the measure to require plants to update their technology. It also, would apply the same air quality standards to large plants currently reviewed by the Energy Commission and to small plants reviewed by local agencies.

The other Montoya bill initially sought to require that waste incinerators be built in each of the five supervisorial districts in Los Angeles County. But on Wednesday he amended it to merely clarify existing law to allow the county to plan for the disposal of waste in local areas, not just countywide. It was approved 6 to 0 and sent to the Appropriations Committee.

The committee declined to act on a bill by Sen. Herschel Rosenthal (D-Los Angeles), that would direct the South Coast Air Quality Management District to study the availability of air quality offset credits required by the incinerators. Rosenthal asserted that there are not enough offsets available for all the plants planned in the Los Angeles area.

Miller’s problems in the Senate began last Tuesday when the Senate Governmental Organization Committee approved an industry-supported bill by Sen. Ralph Dills (D-Gardena).

State law presently requires waste-to-energy projects to have guaranteed contracts for trash before they are given the green light. The Dills bill, which cleared the committee on a 6-1 vote and was sent to the Appropriations Committee, merely requires that the rubbish for the plant “be reasonably assured.”

Miller officials said they opposed the Dills bill because they regard it as a boost for the Irwindale plant. But Pacific Waste’s White said he is uncertain of its impact on the Irwindale project.

Times staff writer Kenneth F. Bunting contributed to this story.