State Board Denies Using Siting Report : Study Identifies Least Likely Incinerator Foes

Those who want to build waste-to-energy plants would be well advised to pick an area populated by people who are old, poor, conservative or Catholic.

That is the conclusion of a study commissioned by the state Waste Management Board, which found that those most likely to oppose such facilities are young or middle-aged, college-educated and liberal.

Even though the state board, which paid $33,000 for the study three years ago, says it is no longer using the study, opponents of trash burners, who recently obtained a copy, are furious.

They say the study represents a misuse of public funds, a formula for deceiving the public and a misunderstanding of the role of government.

‘Product They Don’t Want’

Instead of serving the public, protested Wil Baca, one of the leaders of the California Alliance in Defense of Residential Environments, which opposes trash incineration plants in populated areas, the state Waste Management Board sought in commissioning the study to find out how “to deceive them, to sell them a product they don’t want.”

West Covina Councilman Forest Tennant, who has fought the proposed construction of several trash-to-energy plants in the San Gabriel Valley, said he is outraged that the state “paid taxpayer dollars to find out how to stick garbage burners in our backyard.”

George T. Eowan, chief executive officer of the Waste Management Board, said the study has not been used since he joined the agency at the end of 1984, adding that he had been unaware of its existence until a reporter brought it to his attention.

“The waste management board is not referring to it or using it to site facilities,” he said. “It hasn’t been used since I’ve been here.”

John Hagerty, who was executive officer when the report was made and is now a section chief with the toxic substances control division of the state Department of Health Services, said he has little recollection of the report, which was prepared by Cerrell Associates Inc., a Los Angeles public relations and political consulting firm.

But, he said, the board “spent a lot of money to foster the technology of waste-to-energy” and it was proper to figure out how such plants could be sited.

Can’t Recall Report

Terry Trumbull, a Palo Alto attorney who was chairman of the Waste Management Board when the study was made, said: “I don’t even remember seeing the Cerrell report.”

The study advises builders of waste incineration plants that they will face less opposition if they seek to put the plants near poor neighborhoods instead of wealthy ones.

People least likely to oppose waste-to-energy plants are old, poor, politically conservative, Roman Catholic and live in a city with a population under 25,000, the study says. The most likely opponents are described as young or middle-aged, college-educated and liberal.

The study recommends that builders consider demographic data, not just technical requirements, in selecting sites for plants that burn trash to create electricity.

“All socioeconomic groupings tend to resent the nearby siting of major (waste disposal) facilities, but the middle and upper socioeconomic strata possess better resources to effectuate their opposition,” the report says. “Middle and higher socioeconomic strata neighborhoods should not fall at least within (five miles) of the proposed site.”

Personality Profiles

The 87-page report includes personality profiles of the most likely and least likely opponents of waste-to-energy plants, suggests that trash incineration can be made more palatable by presenting it as part of a recycling program and outlines ways of defusing opposition.

The report says waste-to-energy plant sites “can be suggested partly on the basis of neighborhoods least likely to express opposition--older, conservative and lower socioeconomic neighborhoods. Meanwhile the most likely opponents of a waste-to-energy project--residents in the vicinity, liberal, and higher-educated persons--can be targeted in a public participation program and public relations campaign.”

The study was based on a survey of city officials and private planners involved in waste-to-energy projects, interviews with sales representatives, public relations officers and engineers in the field and a review of literature on public attitudes toward facilities perceived as noxious.

The study cited a 1974 article on public opinion and the environment in the Coastal Zone Management Journal as a basis for asserting that Catholics might be less resistant to a trash-to-energy plant than members of other religions.

The Ideal Site

The report says the ideal site for a waste-to-energy plant would be in an industrial section far from homes and commercial activity but within the trash collection area that would be served. It says: “Commercial office spaces and residential lands that are at least within visual, hearing or smelling distance of the waste project will likely experience a decline in property values.”

Chris Peck, public information officer for the Waste Management Board, said the report, entitled “Political Difficulties Facing Waste-to-Energy Conversion Plant Siting,” was part of a comprehensive analysis of waste-to-energy projects, exploring such problems as financing, air emissions and ash disposal.

He said the board asked for the examination of political difficulties to find out why some communities were rejecting waste-to-energy plants but others weren’t.

The entire study cost $183,000, he said, and copies were mailed to 400 private and government organizations, including proponents of waste-to-energy plants.

Baca said his group was unaware of the study until it obtained a copy from an Ontario group fighting a proposed trash-to-energy plant there. He said he sent copies to a number of local officials and environmental groups.

Trumbull, the former board chairman, said that to suggest that waste-to-energy plants would be better received in poor neighborhoods is “a completely bogus conclusion.” He said the strong opposition that has apparently defeated the Lancer trash incineration project in low-income South-Central Los Angeles “is a pretty good indication that it’s incorrect.”

The Lancer site was chosen by the city of Los Angeles before the report was written. The state Waste Management Board does not build waste-to-energy plants or propose sites itself, but a plant cannot be built unless the board approves the site.

Site Picked Previously

John McGrain, who heads a company that has tried without success to win permission to build a waste incineration plant in Irwindale, said the site was selected in 1983, before the state report was written.

Hal Dash, executive vice president of Cerrell Associates, said he was unaware of any waste-to-energy plant builder who has used his company’s report in its site selection process. In fact, he said, the report elicited little reaction when it was submitted to the board, and “I’m not sure it has a lot of relevance today.”

Dash said that the study “wasn’t designed to pick on groups” and that, in any event, opposition to waste-to-energy plants today cuts across demographic divisions.

He said that gaining a site for a waste-to-energy plant “is not like putting in a park or a bike path” and that plant builders must consider the political realities.

Dash compared selling waste-to-energy plants to the public to efforts made by water agencies to promote water conservation. In both cases, he said, the public must be convinced that there is a crisis that can be met by the solution being offered.

“You’ve got to sell the public on it,” he said, “or what are you going to do when the garbage spills over into the streets?”

Baca said that the Cerrell study was well-done and that the description of people most resistant to trash incinerators seems accurate. But, he said, government has no business paying for this kind of study.

Techniques that are appropriate for private industry are not necessarily acceptable in government, Baca said. It may be useful for a soup manufacturer to compile a personality profile of soup customers, he said, but government agencies have no business compiling a profile of the activists who oppose them.

He noted that the report recommends linking waste incineration plants with recycling programs to increase acceptance. Baca said trash incineration proponents have used that strategy and also have sugar-coated their projects by calling them “resource recovery” or “resource conservation” centers.

“They want to call them nice names, and we call them incinerators, which they absolutely detest,” he said.

Councilman Tennant said the county Sanitation Districts, which have proposed waste-to-energy plants at the Spadra and Puente Hills landfills in the San Gabriel Valley, employ the techniques suggested by the state study.

“They’ve used it right along,” he said. “It’s their bible.”

But Steve Maguin, who heads the Sanitation Districts’ solid waste management department, said the charge that the districts have been influenced by the report is just another example of misinformation circulated by waste-to-energy opponents.

“It’s not our bible,” he said. “I’ve never even read it.”