A publication of Work On Waste USA, Inc., 82 Judson, Canton, NY 13617 315-379-9200 November 1992
The City of Halifax is opposed to incineration and has refused to sign on to a county contract for a 500 tpd Ogden Martin MSW incinerator. The Citys right to refuse incineration will be decided by Nova Scotias Supreme Court.
Pollution Controls: Activated Charcoal Injection, Other Bidders: Foster Wheeler, Stinnes & Enerco
Baghouse, deNOX, Dry Scrubbers. OMs Attny: Hawkins, Dellafield & Wood (NYC)
Owner: Metropolitan Authority (trash agency) Metros Attny: Hawkins, Dellafield & Wood (NYC)
Operator: Ogden Martin Consultant: Camp, Dresser & McKee
Cost of Incinertor: $119.8 million (Canadian $) Population: 300,000
Ogdens annual operating fees are estimated at $4,960,000, to be escalated each year for a 25 year period.
These fees are to be paid whether the incinerator is used or not.
Ash Landfill Site:
The site is under a land claims fight by the local black community. The community is charging environmental racism regarding the siting of the ash landfill. This area, over 120 years ago, was a terminal of the Underground Railroad for people fleeing from slavery in the U.S. The black community will be downstream in terms of water flow from the ash landfill and downwind in terms of air flow from the incinerator. A Provincial task force on racism had previously mandated that no new waste management facilities should be sited in black communities. The criteria for siting the landfill was changed after it was decided to site the incinerator at the Burnside Industrial Park in Dartmouth. The landfill will be close by to the Industrial Park.
Background: The Metropolitan Authority, Halifax Countys trash authority representing the County, the Cities of Halifax and Dartmouth and the town of Bedford, is run by a aggressively pro-incinerator staff. The Metro Authority staff selected Ogden Martin to build an incinerator in a bid process this summer. But the City of Halifax, which generates 42% of the waste stream, and liable for 52% of the incinerators $119.8 million (Canadian $) costs, has consistently opposed and unanimously voted against incineration because of the economic and environmental burdens coupled with the inflexibility of a 25 year commitment to a technology that will limit its options in the future. The City of Halifax has refused to take part in any vote on the incinerator with the Metro Authority. This summer, representatives of the City of Halifax walked out of a Metro trash authority meeting when they were asked to sign on to the Ogden Martin contract prior to even seeing the full contract, while the town of Bedford abstained from the vote. The City of Halifaxs refusal to become involved with incineration has led to a request from the Metro Authority to the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, in October 1992, for a ruling on whether or not the City of Halifax can withdraw from the Authority because they have refused to pay for incineration. (Ogden Martin, in a desperate attempt to salvage their project, has offered to take over the equity share of the City of Halifax!) The City of Halifax has 3 votes out of 11 on the Metro Authority: Halifax County has 3 votes, the City of Dartmouth has 3 votes and the town of Bedford has 2 votes. The proposed incinerator would be located in the Burnside Industrial Park in Dartmouth, with Dartmouth receiving substantial compensation that would benefit the Industrial Park. Ogden Martins frontman in Nova Scotia is Larry Oliver. (Oliver was also the lead man for Ogdens unsuccessful attempt to build a 3,000 tpd incinerator in the small town of Orillia, Ontario, Canada.- see Waste Not # 115.) Halifax is the capital of Nova Scotia and the major city in all of the Maritimes. Active citizen groups have been intensely involved in this issue and their participation has been magnificent. In the summer of 1992 the City of Halifax commissioned Sound Resources Management Group (SRMG) of Seattle, Washington, to analyze the Citys waste options. The SRMG report, peer reviewed by academics and economists from the Halifax area, received rave reviews for its clarity and excellent analysis, and was formally adopted by the city of Halifax this summer. SRMG was asked to compare the costs and benefits of waste disposal options. SRMGs report concluded that the recycling/composting option would have the least detrimental effects on the environment, would cost less, and in the long run would have a positive effect on the local community and local economy. The politicians of the City of Halifax have received strong and growing support from their constituents. For more information contact: David Wimberly at 902-826-7846 or at Its Not Garbage Coalition, c/o Ecology Action Center, 3115 Veith Street, Halifax B3K 3G9, Nova Scotia, or Don and Carol Grady at 902-434-8815.
SALISBURY, MASSACHUSETTS. On October 26, Salisbury residents voted NO to zoning change that would have allowed OGDEN MARTIN to pursue plans for a 1600-1800 tpd MSW incinerator. When residents are asked to vote on a town issue in Salisbury (pop: 6,800), the residents give a voice vote, standing-up, at the Town Hall meeting. On October 26 when it came time for residents to vote on a re-zoning article that would lay the foundation for Ogdens plans to build a 1600-1800 tpd MSW incinerator in Salisbury, 356 residents said NO and 165 said yes. (Ogden needed a 2/3rds majority vote to get the zoning changed.) 521 votes might not seem like many voters, but in Salisbury this was considered an exceptional turn-out. Normally, town meetings in Salisbury attract approx. 200 people. That record was broken in May 1992 when the first re-zoning article to allow Ogden Martin to build an incinerator attracted 400 voters. Residents defeated the first proposed zone change by a narrow 14 votes. According to residents, the narrow vote was directly related to the secrecy surrounding Ogden Martins plans: residents first learned of the proposal through a Sunday newspaper report in May 1992 - the same month the re-zoning vote was held. In a highly unusual move, an illegal manipulation of the Town Hall voting rules allegedly took place because, by law, one cannot reintroduce the same vote into the town for two years. The defeated May 1992 zoning change was reissued by changing the number of acres in the rezoning (from 135 to 90). The rezoning was to change the use of 90 acres of land to light industrial use, with a definition in that change that allowed the use of the land for alternative energy resources, and the change also eliminated height limits for chimneys or smokestacks on the property. (Ogden said it wanted to build the smokestack to look like a lighthouse!) The residents were prepared to challenge the 2nd vote to the States Attorney General but were told they could only challenge it after the vote. A representative from the Physicians for Social Responsibility came to Salisbury and spoke out forcefully against the incinerator proposal. Ogden used two PR firms: Yianakopolus and BMC Strategies. Ogden paid for a $15,000 study jointly prepared by Metcalf & Eddy (real estate and economic impacts) and Mass.-based Weston & Sampson Engineers (water and trucking impacts). This preliminary study was released on Oct. 22nd, four days prior to the town vote. Ogden Martin bankrolled a pro-incinerator citizens group called CREDITS (Citizens for Responsible Economic Development in the Town of Salisbury). CREDITS was headed up by Ogden Martins major promoter: Salisbury Selectwoman Hattie Stoltzfus. (Salisbury government is run by 5 selectman. At the Town Meeting the selectman voted: 1 against, 2 for, and 2 declined to stand up and vote.) Citizens dont know exactly when Ogden Martin first came into their town. Rumor has it that it was as long as 2 years ago. Ogden approached the landowners 18 months ago. Ogden Martins stated purpose in wanting to build in Salisbury was that Ogden wanted to shut down its problem-plagued 900 tpd incinerator in Lawrence, Massachusetts. (Ogden bought this incinerator from the bankrupt owner Refuse Fuels Inc. in Dec. 1986- see Waste Not # 23.) The logic: shut down a 900 tpd incinerator and be allowed to build an 1800 tpd incinerator. Ogden Martin took the towns officials and residents on a tour of its Bristol, CT plant. Within 20 miles of Salisbury there are four operating MSW incinerators. They are: Ogden's 1650 tpd in Haverhill; Ogdens 900 tpd in Lawrence; Wheelabrators 1500 tpd in North Andover; and Wheelabrators 1500 tpd in Saugus. SALISBURY ALSO HAS BECHTEL IN TOWN PROPOSING TO BUILD AN 1,800 TPD MSW INCINERATOR. The host package Ogden offered Salisbury was: that in lieu of $2 1/2 million in property taxes Ogden would pay up to $1 1/2 million in pilot fees on a yearly basis; offer a 50% discount on tipping fees, offer reduced trash disposal costs, and $100,000 a year to introduce a curbside recycling program. Ogdens lead people in Salisbury: John Shortsleave and Barbara Badino. For more info. contact: Betsy McNamara, 508-462-0443 or Clive Lee, 508-462-5644.
CALIFORNIA: SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY. LITIGIOUS OGDEN MARTIN IN 5-YEAR LAWSUIT WITH COUNTY THAT SAID NO TO THEIR 1,800 TPD INCINERATOR. OGDEN MARTIN IS SEEKING $6 MILLION. Ogdens incinerator proposed for San Bernardino County (and close to Riverside County) was known as the Milliken incinerator. There was massive and united opposition from nearly every sector in both counties against Ogden Martins proposed incinerator. No one wanted the incinerator and thousands campaigned against it. According to Mary Burns, Ogden Martin entered into an agreement with San Bernardino County in the 80s. According to Mary, the agreement had a clause that stated that the County could only deny Ogdens incinerator on environmental grounds. The residents, at the time the agreement was under consideration, warned and pleaded with the County not to sign. But the County signed the agreement, and in the end they said no to the incinerator on November 30, 1987 for environmental reasons. [Radian Corp. did the Health Risk Assessment.] Ogden Martin claims they were denied for political reasons. Ogden went to court to get its money ($6 million). But the courts first decision was in favor of the County. Ogden Martin appealed that decision, and Ogden won the appeal. The County appealed the decision and the case is now in the Central District Court of California. It is expected to be heard in early 1993. Incinerator opponent Mary Burns was active in the fight against Ogden Martins incinerator proposal and during that battle Mary documented the public hearings by videoing them! Mary said thousands of people in the county opposed the Ogden Martin proposal. The attorneys representing Ogden Martin are the Washington, DC-based Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin (also Ogdens attorneys in the Montgomery County, Maryland battle.) The law firm representing the County against Ogden Martin is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe located in Sacramento, CA. For more infomation contact: Mary Burns, 10909 Julia St, Mira Loma, CA 91752. Tel-714-685-6026