New Landfill Could Cost Millions More

Los Angeles can stop dumping its waste in a San Fernando Valley landfill, but it could cost up to $20 million more a year to truck it outside the city, a long-awaited report concluded.

The report from the city Bureau of Sanitation dismayed some Granada Hills activists who want the city to find an alternative to dumping in the Sunshine Canyon Landfill.

Wayde Hunter, president of the North Valley Coalition, said he was skeptical that the Los Angeles City Council would accept an alternative that costs many millions of dollars more.

“Sometimes when it comes to the bottom line, cost is all people care about,” he said.

The Sanitation Bureau concluded that Los Angeles has two viable alternatives for disposing of waste outside the city but that the annual cost would be $10 million to $20 million more than it is now.

City officials solicited bids and received five proposals from disposal companies. The Sanitation Bureau judged that a plan by Western Management Inc. to send the waste to its landfill in the Antelope Valley would be the cheaper alternative, but another proposal from the same firm to split the waste between the Antelope Valley and the El Sobrante Landfill in Riverside County also would work.

“They are both viable because they are outside the city, and they propose a workable solution,” said Rita Robinson, director of the Bureau of Sanitation. “The cost is within some reason.”

Some elected officials at City Hall questioned whether it was worth the cost to truck the waste out of the city when there was a less expensive, easily accessed landfill on the city’s doorstep.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, chairman of the council’s budget committee, said it made no sense to spend $20 million more to haul waste out of the city when other cities would still be using Sunshine Canyon.

“The bottom line is that the landfills are outdated and should be eliminated, but we need a cost-effective alternative that uses new technologies,” said Parks, a candidate for mayor.

The Sanitation Bureau issued a request for proposals from waste-disposal firms after Mayor James K. Hahn called for the city to consider alternatives to the Sunshine Canyon Landfill as part of his goal of making Los Angeles a landfill-free city by 2006.

The city dumps almost all of its 990,000 tons of waste each year in the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, which is expanding into the city limits.

The cost of continuing to use that landfill under current terms would average $35 million a year over the next 15 years, the bureau concluded.

One alternative, at $45 million annually, involves taking waste to a transfer station at the Bradley Landfill in Sun Valley before trucking it to Waste Management’s landfills in Lancaster and El Sobrante, the report said. For Waste Management to truck waste to its landfills without a transfer station in Los Angeles would cost $55.5 million annually.

Hunter said the North Valley Coalition would not back a solution that uses the Bradley Landfill as a transfer station.

Councilman Greig Smith, who has fought expansion of Sunshine Canyon, said landfill operator Browning-Ferris Industries recently threatened price increases, if the contract was not extended, that could raise the annual cost there to $52.6 million. “It’s encouraging that the best alternative is cheaper,” Smith said.

A BFI spokesman disputed the $52.6-million figure, saying a new contract at Sunshine would be cheaper than the alternatives.

Greg Loughnane, district manager for BFI, said the report argues for continued use of Sunshine Canyon. “The scenarios show we are $10 [million] to $20 million cheaper,” he said.

He questioned whether Waste Management’s proposals are realistic if it needs to get permits to expand capacity at its landfills. Loughnane also said it could take years to get a permit to build a transfer station in Sun Valley.

Kim Thompson, a San Fernando Valley activist and former member of the city Environmental Affairs Commission, said she is reluctant to support any proposal that would bring more waste to the neighborhoods surrounding the Bradley Landfill.

Thompson and Hunter said they were frustrated that the Sanitation Bureau did not seriously look at more aggressive recycling to bring costs down.

“It’s ridiculous,” said Mary Edwards, another leader of the coalition. “It doesn’t really consider the recycling element.”

The Sanitation Bureau report goes to the Public Works Board on Wednesday before it is sent to the City Council for consideration.