Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Seeking New Alternatives to Lopez Landfill

Northeast San Fernando Valley residents scored a minor victory in their five-year fight to close the Lopez Canyon Landfill last week when the Los Angeles Board of Public Works recommended against extending the life of the dump another five years.

Rejecting the city Bureau of Sanitation’s request for a new five-year operating permit after its current permit expires in February, the board voted to recommend that the city extend the landfill’s life by one year only. This would give Bureau of Sanitation officials until 1997 to investigate alternative methods to dispose of the city’s trash.

Currently, city trucks haul about 85% of the nearly 5,000 tons of debris collected daily in Los Angeles to Lopez Canyon near Lake View Terrace. Sanitation officials said the 400-acre site will have room for another 3 million tons of trash once its permit expires next year.

In a recent report, the sanitation bureau estimated that $56 million could be saved by allowing Lopez Canyon to remain open through 2001. But that figure was contested by Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon and other landfill opponents, who said the figure was reached through out-of-date cost estimates of waste disposal alternatives and incomplete analyses.

With the one-year extension, the Board of Public Works recommended that further research be conducted. However, it did not rule out seeking an additional extension if the city can’t find a cost-effective alternative.

*

What waste disposal methods should the city be considering as alternatives to the Lopez Canyon Landfill?

Assemblyman Richard Katz (D-Sylmar)

“Closing it. Five years ago, the city made a commitment that it would work out the alternatives and close Lopez Canyon. That was a tough commitment to make, but whether or not the city has done its job is not the fault of the neighbors around Lopez Canyon. The city ought to keep its promise.”

Barbara Fine, vice chairwoman, Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee

“There are a lot of answers out there, but most are not economically viable or politically viable enough for the city to consider . . . Recycling is going forward in Los Angeles, but it isn’t as efficient as most people would like it. . . .

“Besides, recycling isn’t the panacea people are led to believe it is. It may be good for the environment, but there are huge financial costs still involved.”

Woody Hastings, spokesman for Los Angeles City Councilman Richard Alarcon

“First, we need to reduce the amount of waste put out. There’s a long way to go in coordinating government at all levels to take a strong look at how things are packaged. We also need to look at how we can reuse more items. An example is the grocery store. A clerk will ask you if you want a paper or plastic bag to carry your groceries in. The right answer is a canvas bag you can reuse for years. As for recycling, we are only recycling about 2% of bulk items such as furniture, sofas, refrigerators, etc. We can set up facilities in every city, where they can be repaired by new employees so they can be put on the secondary market.”

Rob Zapple, president, Kagel Canyon Civic Assn.

“The most economic alternative for the future of Los Angeles trash beyond 1996 is a clear choice--to split the requirements [for trash hauling] between two of the [seven] companies [who submitted proposals]: Waste Management (owned by WMX Technologies of Oak Brook, Ill.) and BKK Corp. Los Angeles is split up into four different waste districts. The east and west districts should be served by Waste Management at the Bradley Landfill, because their facilities are closer to Lopez. The north and south areas would be served by BKK Corp. (based in Torrance) because of their facilities in West Covina. Using this two-pronged attack, the city does not put all of its eggs in one basket. It would also allow Lopez to proceed with final closure and allow mitigation of problems, such as contaminated water run-off.”