Trash Separation Site Divides a City : Waste: Residents are fighting Industry’s plan, but municipal officials might be looking for a compromise.

Greg Arakelian works in the trash business, so he knows the value of a “murf.”

Arakelian, an architect whose family owns several waste disposal companies, agrees with most experts who believe that trash separating centers called MRFs, or “murfs” in the trade jargon, will become a key component in Los Angeles County’s struggle to manage the region’s growing mountains of waste.

But Arakelian also lives in Walnut, along with his wife and two children. And like many of his neighbors, he doesn’t want what could be the biggest MRF in America right next door in the City of Industry.

“ ‘Murfs’ are a good deal,” Arakelian said. “But I don’t think it should be there.”

Arakelian’s personal dilemma reflects the debate that is now taking shape over a plan by Industry to use a vacant field less than half a mile from an upscale neighborhood in Walnut to build an MRF that would dwarf any trash handling facility now operating in the San Gabriel Valley.

MRFs (the acronym stands for Material Recovery Facility) take in curbside-sorted recyclables and separate glass, plastic, metals and paper for reprocessing. Industry is proposing to build a larger, more elaborate facility--usually called a “dirty murf”--that would receive raw refuse, separate recyclables and ship the unusable remains by truck or rail to landfills.

The facility being planned by Industry would process up to 5,000 tons of waste a day, requiring 400 to 500 commercial truck visits. The proposed site would be south of Valley Boulevard and east of Grand Avenue between the Union and Southern Pacific railroads. The area is part of the 600-acre “buffer preserve” owned by Industry and is mostly pasture. One Walnut official said the site might be within 1,500 feet of the nearest home.

Many residents in Walnut fear that the MRF would bring dramatic increases in traffic along with added noise, pollution and odor problems. Some homeowners believe that the MRF would also adversely affect property values.

Countering local concerns, regional officials cite an impending waste disposal crisis in Los Angeles County. An MRF such as the one proposed would bring much needed relief to area landfills that are quickly reaching capacity. The Industry facility could become a major connection in a countywide rail-hauling system that would transfer trash to landfills in the California desert.

A recent survey by the Rose Institute in Claremont revealed widespread support among San Gabriel Valley residents for new disposal practices that would shift refuse away from existing landfills. Eighty percent of those surveyed said they would be willing to have a facility for separating recyclables in or near their own city.

The conflict between such waste disposal benefits and the potential negative impact on their city has left Walnut officials without a consensus. While opposition is mounting, with some homeowners vowing to pursue a vigorous campaign against the site, there are those looking for a compromise.

“It’s possible that I could live with the (MRF) being within a half-mile (of Walnut) under certain circumstances,” said Walnut Councilman Drexel L. Smith.

Walnut Mayor H. Thomas Sykes is emphasizing a cooperative effort between Walnut and Industry to mitigate traffic, noise and pollution problems. But others are less flexible, including council members Ray T. Watson and Bertha (Bert) Ashley, who flatly oppose the proposed site.

The prospect of having any waste facility next door to Walnut, with its rural flavor and homes ranging in price from $300,000 to $2 million, has historically been met with resistance from the city.

In 1989, in response to a regional study that identified Industry as one of several potential waste-by-rail sites, the Walnut City Council declared its opposition to any large waste facility--including an MRF--being placed within half a mile of residential areas in the city without design considerations that would greatly mitigate any impact on surrounding communities.

But the council now appears to be split on the question of official opposition to the site, revealing how hard some members may be willing to fight.

“The council is on record as opposed to that particular site in the City of Industry,” Watson said. But Smith and Sykes believe the city’s position is one of concern, but not outright opposition.

“I can’t remember what we did,” Ashley said. “I think we’re going in opposition.”

According to City Manager Linda Holmes, the city did not officially oppose the site, but the council’s position from 1989 regarding the placement of any waste facility within half a mile of Walnut homes is still in effect.

Industry’s plans to build an MRF were not publicly revealed until February, when the Industry City Council voted unanimously to hire a Santa Rosa waste-consulting firm to prepare plans for the project and secure required state and local permits. That process is expected to take 12 to 18 months.

Walnut officials quickly responded by preparing packets that included information on the proposal and petitions to oppose the site. The packets were mailed to the leaders of more than 20 community groups in Walnut. The council also pledged to closely monitor the project.

The unusual move by the city to provide petitions for the residents drew more conflicting responses from council members. When asked if offering pre-printed petitions was meant to encourage the residents to oppose the MRF site, Watson said: “Certainly it was.”

Sykes disagreed.

“We’re not leading the charge as far as petitions go,” Sykes said. “We’re just making them available.”

But Walnut officials were united in their call for Industry to prepare an environmental impact report on the project, and Industry officials have agreed to begin a lengthy review next month.

No master plan exists to specify how many MRFs are needed and where they should be located, according to Don Nellor, solid-waste planning chief for the Los Angeles County Sanitation District. However, a document is in the works, he added.

Other MRFs have been proposed in Pomona, West Covina, Azusa and Irwindale. The county is moving forward with a planned MRF at the Puente Hills landfill, but that project, which would handle up to 4,000 tons of refuse daily, is encountering resistance from residents in nearby Hacienda Heights. Homeowner opposition to the proposed West Covina MRF is growing as well.

However, the Industry site would be the largest, not only in the San Gabriel Valley, but also in the nation, Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman Robin Woods said.

“This comes under the heading of ‘mega-murf,’ ” said Daniel Waldman, publisher of Municipal Solid Waste Management, a nationwide publication devoted to waste disposal issues. Waldman said he was unaware of a larger facility in operation or being planned, adding that the average MRF processes 400 to 500 tons of waste a day.

Nellor said a 5,000 ton-a-day MRF would have a significant impact on the county’s waste situation. Current figures put countywide waste generation at 45,000 tons a day, he said. In addition, Spadra landfill in Pomona could stay open several years longer if the Industry MRF were built, Nellor said. Spadra is expected to close by the year 2000.

A facility that handles 5,000 tons a day would generate between 400 and 500 trips each day by trucks traveling along Grand Avenue and Valley Boulevard, said Jack Yoshino, senior management assistant for Walnut.

That prospect does not sit well with Walnut resident Ray Russi, whose two-story home is perched on a slope directly overlooking Grand Avenue. Since a stretch of that road from Valley Boulevard to the Pomona Freeway opened last year, traffic has jumped, Russi said.

Grand Avenue is only the second road to cut directly through Walnut and has become for local residents a major access route to the Pomona and San Bernardino freeways. It is also heavily traveled by students from Mt. San Antonio College.

“I’m not against MRFs. I’m not against recycling. I’m just saying, ‘Hey, we’re tired of having it in our back yard,’ ” Russi said, referring to four nearby landfills, including Spadra and BKK in West Covina.

Delmar Walters, president of the 300-member Collegewood Homeowners Assn., said: “There’s a lot of objection to (the MRF) all over.” Walters, a 22-year resident of Walnut, will go door to door throughout his neighborhood to rally other homeowners against the MRF site, he said.

Such grass-roots activism was the key element in a 1989 campaign launched by Walnut residents against a chemical distributor that attempted to use the same Industry location. Local anger swelled when Van Waters & Rogers Inc. announced its plan to build a $20-million plant on 30.7 acres near the present MRF site. More than 5,000 signatures were gathered and within a month the chemical firm abandoned the site, ostensibly for unrelated business reasons.

Russi, co-chairman of the Walnut Valley Environmental Action Committee, which fought the chemical distributor in 1989, said he and other members will try to gear up a similar effort against the MRF site.

“Maybe people won’t back me this time,” he said. “But as it stands, everybody I talk to--they’re up in arms about it.”

Industry officials, while maintaining contact with Walnut city officials, are avoiding public comment on the MRF proposal. Industry officials, including City Manager Chris Rope and City Engineer John Ballas, did not respond to interview requests.

Last month, the Industry council voted unanimously to hire Covina City Councilman Chris Lancaster as a spokesman and consultant on projects that involve Industry and other San Gabriel communities. With a background in waste issues, Lancaster’s selection seems aimed at the predicted battle over the MRF.

Lancaster has worked with the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts and has counted waste companies as clients for his three-year-old consulting firm. Lancaster was an administrative aide to former state Sen. William Campbell, working in the senator’s Industry office from 1986 to 1989. Moreover, Lancaster has worked for the city of Walnut as an administrative assistant.

As yet, the final picture on the MRF is unclear and Lancaster said the city is still considering fundamental questions about the nature of the facility. No cost figures have been proposed.

“The City of Industry will be a good neighbor,” Lancaster promised. “There is no way they are going to do anything to be negative.” Industry officials will meet with concerned residents once the environmental impact report is completed, he said.

Councilman Smith, who has been in contact with Industry officials since the MRF became public, said they have been responsive to Walnut’s concern regarding the MRF. “I consider their attitude quite positive.”

But others remain skeptical.

“I don’t think they care that much about their neighbors here,” said Councilman Watson, citing Industry’s decision not to consult with Walnut officials before selecting the MRF site.

Arakelian, who has designed several MRFs for his family businesses, said Industry would not pursue the MRF “if they weren’t going to make a ton of money.”

Based on his work with smaller MRFs, Arakelian estimated that a facility receiving 5,000 tons a day would generate $14 million to $18 million a year in revenue for the city. “The City of Industry has no reason not to pull out all the stops to get this.”

Lancaster said the figure would be closer to $1 million.

For regional waste officials, the primary issue is the need for facilities to handle the county’s fast-growing trash output as nearby landfills continue to fill up and close.

“The problem is going to become huge in the years to come,” said Harvey Holden, executive director of the San Gabriel Valley Assn. of Cities. “But it’s like preparing for an earthquake. Nobody does it because they can’t see it.”