Trashing a Proposal

From a business point of view, the decision by Signal Environmental Systems Inc. to pull out of the SANDER project probably was a reasonable one. With an initiative on the November ballot that could kill the proposed trash-to-energy plant and the lack of firm commitment by the San Diego City Council, Signal believed it could see the handwriting on the wall.

The company’s decision would appear to kill a project that began as a city-county partnership more than a decade ago. It was envisioned as a way to dispose of almost half the city’s garbage, extend the life of the Miramar landfill by 10 years and generate enough electricity for 60,000 homes.

Instead, it generated controversy over the proposed plant’s safety that spread beyond the usual activists’ groups, attracting, for example, the president of Scripps Clinic in support and the American Lung Assn. in opposition.

We thought it was a mistake to put the plant before the voters while the California Energy Commission was conducting an evaluation, due next spring, of the environmental effects of the plant. It would have been better to have had that objective assessment before deciding whether to reject SANDER.

Additionally, this is the kind of issue that the public is least capable of deciding. While the facts are highly technical, it is easy to inspire emotion on either side. The one indisputable result of Signal’s decision is to send a loud message to the City Council that it has a major problem. The city must dispose of 5,000 tons of trash a day, and the Miramar landfill is expected to be exhausted by 1995. The garbage has to go somewhere, and it’s up to the council to figure out where.