Bill Pushes Use of Co-Compost : Recycled Trash Promoted as Alternative to Concrete

Playa del Rey entrepreneur Joaquin Acosta Jr. envisions a day when California motorists will be whizzing past their household rubbish, recycled along the state’s freeways in the form of sound walls and safety barriers.

Acosta champions a concoction called co-compost--a grayish mixture of household wastes and sewage sludge--as the way to relieve the pressure on crowded landfill dumps and at the same time produce a potentially profitable product.

In 1984, he shepherded a bill by Sen. William Campbell (R-Hacienda Heights) that became law and encourages state agencies to substitute co-compost for such things as concrete sound walls along freeways, provided it would not cost taxpayers anything extra.

Now, the one-time Los Angeles City Hall lobbyist is going a step further to stimulate a market for the fledgling co-compost industry. Campbell is carrying a bill on Acosta’s behalf that could require the state Department of Transportation to purchase each year as much as $15.2 million worth of co-compost to use as sound walls and safety barriers.

Campbell, a Republican contender for state controller, labeled his bill as a way “to promote the industry--to promote the concept of reclaiming our waste products.” The bill has cleared two committees and has reached the Senate floor.

Co-compost is the blending of 80% household wastes and 20% sewage sludge into a fine-grained, soil-like substance. In Europe and several Eastern states, it is primarily used to nourish soil or help grow vegetation. Acosta contends that it could also be poured and packed into wire forms and planted with shrubs to form a natural-appearing highway barrier.

Under the Campbell bill, co-compost products must match state construction standards, cost no more than existing products and be produced at plants affiliated with local governments.

Critics argue that Acosta has yet to show there would be a demand for co-compost products, and state officials question whether it would match concrete for strength and durability.

Business critics include Stuart Beavers, executive director of the Masonry Assn. of California and Nevada, whose members manufacture concrete sound walls. He called the Campbell bill “a scheme to get $15 million . . . (from) the public’s pocket.”

Acosta minimized the criticism and said, “We’re trying to establish a new alternative (to landfill dumps).”

Plants Proposed

He has proposed plants for Los Angeles and Sacramento and last year persuaded the Los Angeles City Council to negotiate a construction contract with him. City officials say the negotiations remain stalled until Acosta provides a more complete description of the project and its chances for success.

Even so, Acosta has won provisional approval from the state Pollution Control Authority to issue $75 million worth of revenue bonds for the project. Acosta still must win final approval before any bonds are issued.

Acosta’s aim is to build the state’s first co-compost plant in a generally industrial area around Alameda and 15th streets. It would process about 700 tons of trash and 150 tons of sewage sludge a day from the city and, in turn, produce 75,000 tons of co-compost a year.

Acosta said a private study that he commissioned shows 22 state agencies annually purchase $47 million worth of material such as fertilizer and concrete that could be replaced by co-compost. He refused to make the study available to a reporter.

Lack of Demand Cited

In contrast, critics say that development of co-compost plants has been hampered by a lack of demand for the products. Acosta “has to prove there’s a market, and that’s his No. 1 stumbling block,” said Bernie Evans, an aide to Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, who in 1984 opposed Acosta’s plans to build his plant in her San Pedro district.

Department of Transportation officials have complained that co-compost is too weak to substitute for concrete now used for roadway barriers. Even so, the officials are neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

Officials of the Transportation and Forestry departments said they are not aware of any agency that heeded the encouragement of the 1984 law to buy co-compost.

Indeed, in the Transportation Department’s most recent policy declaration in March of 1985, Director Leo J. Trombatore said in a letter to Campbell:

”. . . It appears unlikely the use of co-compost materials for such barriers will be as effective as the safety barriers currently being installed (with concrete blocks).”