E veryone’s Backyard

ackyackyackyackyackyararararardddddBEvvvvverererereryyyyyone’one’one’one’one’sssss

The Journal of the Grassroots Environmental MovementCenter for Health, Environment and Justice

Vol. 20, No. 2 ◆ Summer 2002

Better PuebloIncineration Repackaged

Shouldn’t the Polluters Pay for Superfund?

Center for Health, Environment and Justice

2 Everyone's Backyard

CHEJ STAFF

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Lois Marie GibbsSCIENCE DIRECTOR

Stephen LesterFINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR

Sharon FranklinORGANIZING DIRECTOR

James TramelORGANIZER/TRAINER

Larry YatesORGANIZER/SPANISH RESOURCES COORDINATOR

Adrián BoutureiraDIOXIN CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR

Monica RohdeDIOXIN CAMPAIGN OUTREACH COORDINATOR

Heather Gormly-RackCHILD PROOFING OUR COMMUNITIES

CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR

Paul RutherCHILD PROOFING OUR COMMUNITIES

CAMPAIGN ASSISTANT

Shannon NallyLIBRARIAN

Barbara SullivanEDITOR/RESEARCHER

Ron NicosiaGRANTS MANAGER

Maryll KleibrinkMAJOR GIFTS MANAGER

Anita UyeharaMEMBERSHIP COORDINATOR

Sarah RamageBOOKKEEPER

Hae-Young KangADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT

Dorothea Gross

CHEJ BOARD MEMBERS

MURRAY LEVINE, NYChairman

CLYDE FOSTER, ALConcerned Citizens Of Triana

VILMA HUNT, MA

LUELLA KENNY, NYLove Canal Medical Fund

PAME KINGFISHER, NMShining Waters

ESPERANZA MAYA, CAPeople For Clean Air And Water

SUZI RUHL, FLLegal Environmental Assistance Fund

ALONZO SPENCER, OHSave Our County

ABOUT CHEJ

The Center for Health, Environment, and Justice is a nonprofit, tax-exemptorganization that provides organizing and technical assistance to grassrootscommunity organizations nationwide. The center was founded in 1981 by

Lois Gibbs, who together with her neighbors won the relocation of more than 900families from their neighborhood after it was contaminated by chemicals leakingfrom the Love Canal landfill in Niagara Falls, NY. Hundreds of people living nearcontaminated sites around the country contacted Lois as her efforts and those ofher neighbors captured national attention and proved, for the first time, that toxicwaste is not an abstract issue but one that’s in everyone’s backyard.

The center’s mission is to help people build democratic, community-basedorganizations to address public health and environmental threats. We believestrongly that the best way to solve local problems is from the bottom up, whenthe people directly affected speak for themselves and have a meaningful role, asequals, in any and all decisions that affect their lives, homes and family. Our fo-cus and resources are devoted to helping local community based organizationsform, grow, and become effective in achieving their goals. We do this by provid-ing information, advice, training, and support. We also refer callers to othergrassroots groups who are working on the same issues or fighting the same pol-luter.

CHEJ can help your newly formed group:◆ learn how to conduct successful meetings◆ raise funds◆ define a strategic plan to accomplish goals,◆ network with others◆ hold news briefings and press conferences◆ identify experts to assist with technical or scientific issues and questions

For more established groups, CHEJ can provide guidance and assistance onissues such as keeping people involved over the long haul, organizational struc-ture and board development, one- to five-year strategic planning, building work-ing coalitions, developing campaign and issue strategies, media training andassistance, and expanding beyond your existing geographical area.

CHEJ has staff scientists who can answer many of your questions and whocan review technical documents and tests results you need help with. The centeralso has a unique library of books, reports, government documents, subject andcorporate files, and videos that may have just the information you need.

Currently, CHEJ is coordinating three national campaigns:◆ Stop Dioxin Exposure Campaign, which is working to educate the public about

the health threat posed by dioxin and to move all levels of government totake steps to eliminate the sources of dioxin

◆ Child Proofing Our Communities, devoted to protecting children from pesti-cides and toxic chemicals in schools and day care facilitiesWe invite local groups to become part of these campaigns. Don’t hesitate to

contact us.


Summer 2002 3

Center for Health, Environmentand Justice, Inc.

150 S. Washington StreetSuite 300 (P.O. Box 6806)Falls Church, VA 22040

(703) [email protected] ◆ www.chej.org

Everyone’s Backyard is published quarterly by the Center for Health, Environ-ment and Justice, Inc. The editor is Ron Nicosia. Design and Production is doneby Page Artistry, Rochester, NY. Printed by Ecoprint of Silver Spring, Maryland.The cover and text are 100% recycled, 100% post-consumer waste paper, notrebleached with chlorine. Printed using low-VOC soybean inks.

Library of Congress #ISSN 0749-3940. Copyright by CHEJ. Reproduction by per-mission only. Unsolicited manuscripts, news items, artwork, photographs andother submissions are welcome. All submissions become the property of CHEJand will not be returned unless special arrangements are made in advance.

ackyackyackyackyackyararararardddddBEvvvvverererereryyyyyone’one’one’one’one’sssssVol. 20, No. 2 ◆ Summer 2002

BETTER PUEBLOIn Pueblo, Colorado, a new coalition deserves a lot of the credit for theArmy’s decision to drop plans to incinerate chemical weapons there. .................. 4

SHOULDN’T THE POLLUTERS PAY?The Bush administration is shifting the burden of paying forSuperfund cleanups away from polluting corporations and ontothe general public. .......................................................................................................... 6

INCINERATION REPACKAGEDNew technologies being promoted are not much better than theincinerators they’re intended to replace. .................................................................... 8

ACTION LINE .................................................................................................... 11

CAMPAIGNS:CHILD PROOFING OUR COMMUNITIES .................................................. 20STOP DIOXIN EXPOSURE ......................................................................... 21

RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... 22

THANK YOU!We want to say, “Thank you very much”

to all of you who took the time to fill out thereader survey we included in our last issue.Your feedback will help us produce a bettermagazine. We’ll be getting back to you soonon the results of the survey.

WELCOME!CHEJ would like to welcome our new-

est staff member, Paul Ruther, who will becoordinating the Child Proofing Our Com-munities campaign. Paul has been agrassroots political organizer and activistfor fifteen years, primarily on CentralAmerican issues. He has also worked pro-fessionally in the co-op movement. Wel-come, Paul!



In Pueblo, Colorado, an exciting coalition of environmen-talists, labor organizers, people from faith-based organi-zations, farmers, and just plain civic-minded people came

together in the late 1990s, and has already begun to changethe way the community thinks about environmental, labor,and other public policy issues. The coalition—BetterPueblo—emerged when activists opposing the military’splans to incinerate chemical weapons and a union fightingfor better pay and working conditions at a local steel millfound common ground and decided to work together toaccomplish what they were having hard time getting doneon their own.

TAKING ON THE MILITARY

Pueblo is the site of the U.S. Army’s Pueblo ChemicalDepot—a storage site for 2,600 tons of aging, World War IIchemical weapons. When in 1985, the Army announced thatit would dispose of those weapons by incinerating them on-site, there were few dissenting voices and no formal opposi-tion.

This changed only slowly. In 1988, Ross Vincent, an ac-tivist who had worked on environmental issues in Louisi-ana and elsewhere, moved to Pueblo. Keenly aware of therisks of incineration, he reached out through the Sierra Clubnetwork to find support. In 1991, he attended the first “Citi-zens’ Summit” on chemical weapons disposal in Richmond,Kentucky, at which concerned citizens from all eight U.S.chemical weapons stockpile sites, as well as from other sitesaround the world, founded the Chemical Weapons WorkingGroup (CWWG). Since then, the CWWG has helped com-munities like Pueblo push the Pentagon to replace incinera-tion of chemical weapons with safer alternative technologies.

During the 1990s, the CWWG—through local activistslike Vincent—fought a seesaw struggle to get the Pentagonto seriously study non-incineration disposal. When neces-sary, the CWWG network went “over the Army’s head” toCongress so the Pentagon would take alternative technolo-gies seriously. The result, the Assembled Chemical WeaponsAssessment adopted in 1997, known as ACWA, is widelyconsidered to be a model process for genuinely involvingcitizens in a technically complex environmental decision. TheACWA dialogue process enabled affected citizens, state regu-lators and Department of Defense officials to work togetherto develop criteria for selecting technology to destroy chemi-cal weapons. That process has moved forward several non-

BY LARRY YATES

BETTER PUEBLO

incineration technologies appropriate not just for destroy-ing chemical weapons but for remediating other hazardouswastes—without the risks of incineration.

By 1999, thanks to the CWWG and the ACWA process,a national network had formed to make the case that thereare safer ways to destroy chemical weapons than incinera-tion. In Pueblo, however, local officials and civic leaders werestill in step with the Army’s plans. Vincent knew that some-thing had to change in Pueblo. But he needed allies to makeit happen—and not just from environmental groups.

PROBLEMS AT THE STEEL MILL

Rocky Mountain Steel Mills, now owned by OregonSteel, has operated in Pueblo for more than a century and isone of Pueblo’s larger employers. But the United Steelwork-ers working there saw some serious flaws with the plant.Oregon Steel, after buying the mill in 1993, cut back onworker safety and environmental protection and pushed formore overtime. In 1997, Colorado’s Air Pollution ControlDivision found numerous air emissions violations at OregonSteel, and the mill’s owners agreed to pay a penalty, replaceworn equipment, and take other anti-pollution steps. Thestate, however, did not enforce the agreement. Later that year,the Steelworkers went out on strike to protest the company’sunfair labor practices and a substandard contract offer. Whenthey ended their strike three months later, Oregon Steel saidtheir jobs had been filled. Besides taking legal action to gettheir jobs back under safer conditions, the Steelworkers alsotook on the mill’s environmental practices, in line with theirnational union’s policy that “protecting our children’s futureand our own jobs from the threat of environmental destruc-tion is a job for all levels of the union.”

In 1997, the Steelworkers hired Charlie Skidmore, theAssistant State Legislative Director for the United Transpor-tation Union and one of the 30 railroad workers fired duringthe strike, to reach out to environmentalists. Fortuitously,Skidmore turned to Ross Vincent. Over green chili and beer,

BETTER PUEBLO’S AGENDA INCLUDES

“ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, WORKER RIGHTS AND

SAFETY, CLEAN AIR AND WATER, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND

HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.”


Summer 2002 5

they agreed to work together, envisioning what Charlie calls“a coalition I’ve always dreamed of”—consisting of environ-mentalists and labor and other key groups in the commu-nity.

Skidmore and Vincent then brought together a smallgroup of labor activists, Sierra Club members, and membersof CCAP (Citizens for Clean Air and Water in Pueblo andSouthern Colorado, a local community group fighting pol-luting projects). At one early key meeting, they were joinedby telephone by a key Steelworkers official who emphasizedthe union’s commitment to the environment. Soon about adozen activists were meeting regularly, usually at 6 a.m.breakfast meetings. A key addition to the group at this pointwas Larry Howe-Kerr, a staffer for the Catholic Diocese ofPueblo. This was the group that became Better Pueblo,though the group evolved so gradually that no one can evenremember who came up with the name.

Better Pueblo’s original target was Oregon Steel, and thegroup played an active role in pushing state and federal regu-lators to ensure Oregon Steel met its Clean Air Act responsi-bilities. But chemical weapons incineration became the is-sue that really forged the group into an effective force in thecommunity.

GETTING THE ARMY TO CHANGE ITS MIND

In 1999, most decision-makers and media in the Puebloarea accepted the Army’s message that incineration of chemi-cal weapons was safe. Incineration seemed inevitable to thoselocally “in the know.” When Better Pueblo’s members beganto speak up on the issue,they were asked why theywere even bothering to doso. Better Pueblo took theposition that, no matterwhat the outcome, thecommunity deserved tohave public hearings and acareful and openly-dis-cussed consideration ofpossible environmentalimpacts. This message wasespecially powerful whenit came from unexpectedsources—like the Catholicbishop of Pueblo.

As the Army’s decisionbegan to loom over Pueblo,15 or 20 people—the coreof Better Pueblo—spenthours preparing their jointresponse to the plans for in-cineration. Representativesfrom a neighborhood group near the Depot, as well as farm-ers and ranchers concerned about incineration’s impact ontheir livelihoods, joined in the effort. Better Pueblo activistsspoke up at hearings and organized public events. Their hardwork changed the debate: incineration was no longer seenas inevitable. In May of 2001, the Commissioners of Pueblo

County voted to favor non-incineration technologies. In early2002, as the Pentagon moved closer to a decision, Colorado’sgovernor backed that local position. So did the state legisla-ture, which changed state law so that local governments hadincentives to support non-incineration disposal methods.

In March 2002, Under Secretary of Defense Aldridgeannounced that the chemical weapons at the Pueblo ArmyDepot would be destroyed by a water-based neutralizationprocess—hydrolysis—rather than by incineration. In aCWWG press release, Vincent stated that the people ofPueblo and the Depot staff could now “move ahead quicklyand in harmony to destroy the 780,000 mustard-agent-con-taining rounds stored here.” Looking beyond Pueblo, henoted that the decision also meant “that incinerator salesmencan no longer argue persuasively that incineration is ‘state-of-the-art.’” Craig Williams, Director of the CWWG, calledfor the same decision in other communities, like Anniston,Alabama, where the army has built a chemical weaponsincinerator and where plans are underway to distribute gas-mask like hoods to the general population. “There is abso-lutely no justification to further poison this or the other com-munities that store these weapons,” said Williams.

CLEANING UP THE MILL

The activists in Better Pueblo hadn’t forgotten OregonSteel. As the new century began, they continued to applypressure on the state of Colorado to do a better job of enforc-ing environmental regulations. Community involvement inthe struggle refuted the “sour grapes” charges leveled against

the union, while laborinvolvement silencedthe “anti-jobs” accusa-tion against environ-mentalists. And the in-volvement of theCatholic Church, withno institutional ax togrind, made the efforteven more credible.Prodded by this activ-ism, state and federalenvironmental agenciestook a stronger stand onthe steel mill’s viola-tions.

The result was aconsent decree which, asEBY goes to press, hasreceived court approvaland has been largely in-corporated by the stateinto an enforceable Title

V permit. The consent decree requires Oregon Steel to replacethe mill’s furnaces with cleaner and more efficient new ones,install full-time monitoring for particulate emissions, pay foran independent full-time inspector located in Pueblo, andput $1.5 million into local environmental projects. Vincent

Community representatives at an April hearing to discuss the destructionof Pueblo’s chemical weapons through water-based technology. RossVincent is in the middle. Photo by Chris McLean for the Pueblo Chieftain

continued on page 10



I have often been called the “mother of Superfund”—thefederal law passed in 1980 as a result of the Love Canaldumpsite disaster. When Superfund first passed, I was

proud to be associated with the new program. The programwas the result of efforts by a blue-collar community—demonstrating how organized local efforts can make a sig-nificant difference nationally. Love Canal residents felt goodabout the fact that they had made it easier for families livingnear toxic waste sites to be relocated or have their commu-nities cleaned up.

When President Carter visited Niagara Falls in Octoberof 1980, he explained to me the rationale behind the law. TheSuperfund program would be funded from a tax on oil andchemical companies. When the EPA determined that a sitewas a danger to humanhealth and/or the envi-ronment, the agencywould undertake testingand cleanup of the site.When there was a respon-sible party that had the re-sources to pay the costs ofcleanup, the agencywould ask the polluter topay. If the corporation re-fused, the EPA could usethe fund to do thecleanup, then take the cor-poration to court and suefor three times the cleanupcosts. If there was no vi-able corporation thatcould reimburse theagency for the cleanup,the EPA would use thefund to cover the costs.

A SLOW BEGINNING

Soon after PresidentReagan took office in1981,Love Canal families andactivists across the coun-try watched in horror asthe Superfund law was re-interpreted and misused.

BY LOIS GIBBS

SHOULDN’T THE POLLUTERS PAY?

Rita Levelle, the first Superfund Program Administrator, re-fused to release the list of thousands of potential toxic sitessubmitted for inclusion in the program. It was only after Con-gress became frustrated and demanded that Levelle providethe names of 400 sites that the first list was established.Levelle took the list of sites, which were rated according toa hazard rating system and ranked from the most to the leastthreatening, and gave Congress the names of the first 400.By this action, it was established that to qualify for Superfundcleanup, a site would need a hazard rating of 28.5. If Con-gress had asked for 600 or 700 sites, the rating needed toreceive Superfund status could have been much lower.

After sites were identified, Levelle and Ann GorsuchBurford, EPA’s administrator, were pressured again by Con-

gress to move forward onthe site assessments andcleanups. What happenednext ended both wo-men’s careers at the EPA.The Superfund programmoved forward in dozensof sites across the coun-try—but the sites that re-ceived action were locatedalmost exclusively in Re-publican-controlled dis-tricts. Democratic districtsreceived little or no assis-tance. At first, the EPA’sexplanation was “coinci-dence.” Congress investi-gated both Levelle andBurford; both resignedand Levelle served a fed-eral prison sentence forlying to Congress.

ENHANCINGSUPERFUND

With Burford andLevelle gone, Superfundbegan to move forward.There was renewed hopethat the program wouldbe run effectively. In 1986,

President Jimmy Carter with Lois Gibbs at Niagara Falls in 1980announcing that the federal government would pay for the relocation of900 families from Love Canal.


Summer 2002 7

the Community Right-To-Know Act was added to the law,giving everyone the right to have information about whatchemicals were stored, used, and transported through theircommunities. The right-to-know provisions, like Superfunditself, were the result of community organizing—this timein cities and states across the country. Technical assistancegrants were also added to the program, allowing $50,000 persite for community organizations to hire the scientists andother technical advisors they needed to participate in deci-sions on testing, cleanup options, and human health impacts.The public participation part of the program grew, as did theemphasis on permanent cleanup technologies in place ofmoving the wastes from one site to another. The push forthese new policies came from labor and grassroots organi-zations across the country—not Washington. As a result ofgrassroots efforts, several states also established their ownsuperfund programs.

CORPORATIONS STONEWALL

Despite these victories, corporate efforts to avoid pay-ing cleanup costs and to dismantle the program have seri-ously limited the effectiveness of Superfund. The originalintent of the program was to make the polluter pay in accor-dance with the common principle of civil law: If a citizendamages someone else’s property or causes physical harmto another person, the offender must compensate the victimfor their loss.

Not surprisingly, corporations fought this principle fromits inception. During the Reagan administration, the programwas manipulated by corporate lobbyists, who persuaded theEPA to negotiate with the polluters before testing or cleanup.Corporate lawyers and consultants gained considerable con-trol over the program, delaying action on most superfundsites. Corporations facing huge cleanup costs began suinglocal governments and small businesses contending thatunder Superfund’s liability clause everyone who disposedof anything on the site could be held responsible for thecleanup. The big corporations also sued their insurance com-panies, which refused to cover the costs of Superfund clean-ups. Corporate firms then launched a public relations cam-paign to discredit the program, claiming that only lawyersand consultants were benefiting from it. The campaign in-cluded TV commercials portraying the local pizza restaurantas a victim of the liability clause.

In 1995, the corporations were successful in convincingthe Republican-controlled congress to let the taxes on oil andchemical companies expire, gutting the trust fund. Since thebeginning of the program, this fund has been used to payfor about 30 percent of the cleanup of about 1500 sites. Dur-ing the early 1990s, the tax was bringing about two billiondollars a year into the fund. Thus, since 1995, industry hassaved at least 14 billion dollars that could have been used toclean up toxic sites and protect the health of communities.

The end of the trust fund means both that the costs ofthe program must be shifted to taxpayers and that fewer siteswill be cleaned up. In 1999, the taxpayers paid $350 millionto fund cleanups, and the Bush administration is proposing

that taxpayers pay $700 million in 2003. The Bush adminis-tration has also announced that only 40 sites will be cleanedup in 2002—half of the number of sites completed in each ofthe last four years of the Clinton administration. Without thereauthorization of corporate taxes to pay for Superfund’strust fund, the program will almost certainly continue toshrink.

SO WHAT DO WE DO?The Superfund program offers a clear example of how

corporations have acquired too much control in this coun-try, abused the democratic system, and cost taxpayers criti-cal dollars that should be used for other social needs, suchas schools, health care, and affordable housing.

The key lesson from the history of this program, how-ever, is that grassroots groups can effectively challenge cor-porate power. This is evident in both the establishment ofthe program in 1980 and the provisions added over the years,such as the right-to-know, technical assistance grants, per-manent cleanup alternatives, and broader public participa-tion.

Our immediate goal should be to ensure that Congressreauthorizes the tax on corporate polluters. Groups shouldbe talking with their legislators about re-establishing the taxon oil and chemicals. We should be asking our representa-tives where they stand on the issue of taxpayers’ dollars be-ing used for cleanups that polluters should be paying forwhile our schools are in need of repairs and social programsare being cut back. Then, we need to go back to our commu-nities and let voters know who is willing to stand up to thecorporations and who isn’t.

Finally, it is clear that we need to pass state and local lawsinstead of just looking at federal legislation. At the state andlocal level, people have more power and control. As we’veseen with the right-to-know laws, if enough cities and statesestablish laws, the federal government will follow. And ifcorporate lobbyists succeed in further weakening the federalprogram, we’ll still have state programs to fall back on. ■

CAMPAIGN TO CLEAN UPTOXICS

U.S. PIRG has been leading the fight to get the ad-ministration and Congress to reauthorize corporate taxesto pay for Superfund. In April, the campaign released CanSuperfund Continue To Protect Public Health? How the BushAdministration Has Slowed the Pace of Cleanup at the Nation’sWorst Toxic Waste Sites, which documents theadministration’s efforts to shift the cost of Superfund totaxpayers and reduce the number of cleanups. U.S. PIRGis calling on the EPA to release the list of Superfund sitesthat will be affected by underfunding the program. Formore information on what you can do and to view thereport, visit the U.S. PIRG web site at www.pirg.org/enviro/superfund.



Grassroots groups have been very successful in defeat-ing incinerator proposals. Since 1997, only two trashincinerators have been built in the U.S. (Dearborn,

Michigan in 2000 and Anahuac, Texas in 2002). Groups havebeen successful because they organized and got the word outabout what incineration really means for communities: toxicemissions and residual ash, high construction costs, and thedestruction of valuable resources. And they have successfullypromoted the alternatives to burning waste: recycling,composting, and recovering waste components.

The incinerator industry has, in fact, learned somethingfrom the successes of grassroots community groups: If theywant to build incinerators, they’re going to have to come upwith new ways to spin them. So what we’re seeing are allsorts of “new” ideas and proposals.

The hottest area of activity is in plants designed to pro-duce energy. In the aftermath of the California energy crisisand the 9-11 terrorists attacks, strong sentiments to reduceour dependence on foreign oil have resulted in a rash of pro-posals to build energy-generatingplants that don’t rely on oil. Manyof these plants are referred to as“green energy” or “eco-energy”projects. Some are called “renew-able energy” projects. To a lesserextent, we are seeing an old favor-ite—waste-to-energy plants.

Waste-to-energy projects areespecially devious because thereare legislative efforts in Massa-chusetts and at the national levelto define garbage incinerators asa source of “renewable” energy. Ifthese efforts are successful, themost common incinerator used toburn household garbage—themass burn incinerator—will beincluded with solar and windprojects as renewable energysources!

These new proposals haveseveral common characteristics:

INCINERATION REPACKAGED

they are being put forward to solve the solid waste “crisis”;they are being sold as an alternative to incineration; andmany recover energy. While these plants are not technicallyincinerators, they cause many of the same pollution prob-lems. The old rule still applies: If it looks like a duck, walkslike a duck, and sounds like a duck, there’s a good chanceit’s a duck.

BIOMASS CONVERSION

One of the most popular renewable energy projects is the“energy from biomass” proposal. Biomass traditionally re-fers to fuels derived from wood, agriculture and food-processing waste or from crops grown specifically to produceelectricity. However, in this new wave of non-incinerationproposals, we’re seeing a variation that involves convertinghousehold trash into a biomass–like fuel. These projects gen-erally entail collecting household garbage at the curb, with-out source separation or recycling, and then removing met-als, glass, plastic and other waste items that are not conducive

to biomass processing. The re-maining waste, consisting largelyof mixed paper, food, wood andyard waste, is then run through a“biomass” conversion processthat generates a fuel product .

Some proposals are designedto generate ethanol for sale. Theconcern here is purity of the etha-nol product. Historically, biocon-version processes have been usedmostly with agricultural wastestreams that are more uniform incomposition, have higher cellu-lose content and fewer materialhandling problems than munici-pal solid waste streams. It is notat all clear that this new applica-tion can produce a high qualityethanol product that can be mar-keted, especially given the rangeof contaminants present in house-hold garbage.

BY STEPHEN LESTER

Photo by CHEJ’s Barbara Sullivan


Summer 2002 9

The more common fuel product proposed with most bio-mass plants is called “refuse derived fuel” or RDF. In thisinstance, the biomass waste is converted into pellets that aresold as fuel to be burned in incinerators or boilers to recoverenergy. In these cases, you still have toxic emissions and re-sidual ash contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins,though at slightly lower levels than in a mass burn incin-erator.

This process has not been used with municipal solidwaste on other than a small pilot scale and it is likely that thecosts have been underestimated, perhaps substantially. Butthe major problem with this process is that it would destroyvast quantities of materials that could be either recycled orcomposted.

PYROLYSIS AND GASIFICATION

Two other technologies being promoted as clean alter-natives to typical trash incinerators are pyrolysis and gasifi-cation. Pyrolysis is a thermal destruction process that burnswaste in the absence of oxygen. A plasma arc is often used togenerate the heat at high temperatures. This process pro-duces a mixture of gases, liquids and solids, some of whichwill include toxic chemicals depending on the make-up ofthe original waste mixtures. With household trash, the emis-sions and solid residuals can be expected to include heavymetals, dioxins, and other contaminants typically foundwhen household trash is burned.

Gasification is a similar thermal destruction process, onlyin this case small amounts of oxygen are present during theheating process, which also occurs at high temperatures. Inthis process, often called “starved-air gasification,” a gaseousmixture is produced that will again include toxic chemicalsdepending on the make-up of the original waste mixture. Ifhousehold trash is gasified, emissions will again includeheavy metals, dioxins, and other contaminants.

Both of these technologies are considered to be in thedevelopmental stage with regard to their application to

household trash. As a practical matter, the health and envi-ronmental concerns that these processes raise seem no dif-ferent than if the waste were burned in a traditional incin-erator. With both of these systems, toxic gases are formedduring the treatment process that are similar to those foundduring the combustion of household trash in a traditionalincinerator and are released out a stack. Some—but not all—of these emissions may be captured by pollution controlequipment. With pyrolysis, solid residue remaining after thetreatment may contain toxic chemicals similar to those foundin ash from traditional incineration.

CO-GENERATION PLANTS

Co-generation is the production of heat and electricityby the same energy plant. In a conventional power plant, coal,oil, or natural gas are burned at high temperatures to gener-ate steam. The pressure from the steam turns a turbine thatproduces electricity. Only about 30 percent of the energy ofthe original fuel is converted to steam pressure in this pro-cess. The rest is wasted. In a co-generation plant, the excessheat is captured as low temperature steam is given off by theturbines. This steam can be used to generate heat but cannotbe transmitted very far. It is used mostly for nearby factoriessuch as pulp and paper mills that require low temperatureheat for their production lines or for space heating in build-ings.

The new wave of proposals include co-generation plantsthat burn fuels other than coal, oil, or natural gas. Some pro-posals are for burning “biomass” such as wood waste, agri-cultural waste, peat moss and a variety of other wastes, in-cluding household garbage that has been converted into“biomass” as described above. While these plants may gen-erate less sulfur oxides or greenhouse gases such as carbondioxide, depending on the fuel burned, they are still incin-erators that generate emissions, some of which will includetoxic chemicals, depending on the makeup of the fuel that isburned. With household trash, the emissions and solid re-

RESOURCES1. Waste Gasification, Impacts on the Environment and Public Health, Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, April, 2002. Avail-

able from BREDL, PO Box 88, Glendale Springs, NC 28629, (336) 982-26921 or on the web at www.bredl.org.

2. Learning Not to Burn, A Primer for Citizens on Alternatives to Burning Hazardous Waste, Chemical Weapons Working Group andCitizens’ Environmental Coalition, June, 2002. Available from CEC at 425 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 200, Buffalo, NY 14222,(716) 885-6848 or on the web at www.kodakstoxiccolors.org.

3. Non-Incineration Medical Waste Technologies, A Resource for Hospital Administrators, Facility Managers, Health Care Professionals,Environmental Advocates, and Community Members, Health Care Without Harm, August 2001. Available from HCWH, 1755 SStreet, NW, Suite 6B, Washington, DC 20009, (202) 234-0091.

4. How to Shut Down an Incinerator – A Toolkit, Health Care Without Harm, 2000. Available from HCWH, 1755 S Street, NW, Suite6B, Washington, DC 20009, (202) 234-0091 or on the web at www.noharm.org.

5. “Municipal Waste Incineration, A Poor Solution for the Twenty-First Century,” presentation by Dr. Paul Connett, Professorof Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY at the 4th Annual International Waste-to-Energy Management Confer-ence, November 24-25, 1998, Amsterdam. Available on the web at members.netscapeonline.co.uk/colemanjac1/connett1.html.

6. Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives/ Global Anti-Incinerator Alliance (GAIA), 782 5th Street, Berkeley, CA. 94710,[email protected], FAX: (510) 883-0928.



siduals can be expected to include heavy metals, dioxins, andother contaminants.

LIMITATIONS OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS

Most, but not all, incinerators and waste burners haveair pollution control equipment that is designed to removedifferent pollutants generated during the combustion pro-cess. Electrostatic precipitators remove large particulates,scrubbers remove acid gases, baghouse or fabric filters re-move small particles, and activated charcoal beds removevolatile gases. None of these or any other air pollution con-trol equipment is capable of removing 100 percent of thepollutants present in the emissions of an incinerator or wasteburner. In fact, no matter what air pollution controls are used,some toxic chemicals will be released into the community.This is very important since many pollutants generated byincinerators and waste burners are carcinogenic and producehealth effects even at very low levels.

RECYCLING VS INCINERATION

One of the most serious problems with these new tech-nologies is that they compete with waste reduction, recycling,and composting programs for materials. As much as 80 per-cent of solid waste can either be recycled and composted, orincinerated—but not both. It’s an either/or proposition. If

1. How does the process work?

2. What waste products, air emissions, or residues are pro-duced during the process? Have these emissions/resi-dues been tested? If so, can you provide a copy of theresults? How are these waste products/emissions man-aged?

3. What new waste products, if any, are produced dur-ing the process? If new products are formed, has theirtoxicity been tested? Can you provide a copy of anytesting that has been done?

4. What wastes can or cannot be treated by this process?On what type of waste does this system work best?

5. How much waste can be processed at any one time bythe system?

6. What is the backup plan for managing the buildup ofgarbage when the system is not working either becauseof mechanical breakdowns or routine maintenance?

7. Has the process been used in communities before?Where? If so, what was the result? Has a plant ever beenbuilt and operated at the proposed size? If so, where?

8. What will be done with the end-product materials?What’s the nature of the market for the end-product(s)?What is the plan to address the buildup of end-prod-uct if the market should collapse or slump?

9. Will this process interfere with recycling efforts?

you build an incinerator, you foreclose your recycling andcomposting options for the lifetime of the incinerator (usu-ally 20 years or more). Conversely, if you develop a success-ful recycling and composting program, you’ll likely starvethe incinerator by diverting trash. This is why many incin-erator companies require guarantees on the amount of wastea community must send to an incinerator

Recycling not only reduces waste; it conserves energy,preserves natural resources, and reduces pollution. Rawmaterials processing, such as wood pulping, is extremelyenergy-intensive, and both the generation of energy and theproduction process itself produce toxic pollution. Reprocess-ing materials uses only a fraction of the energy needed inprimary production and creates much less pollution.

CONCLUSION

Biomass conversion, pyrolysis, and gasification—like allincineration—are doomed technologies. These processesgenerate hazardous emissions and toxic ash or residue, arevery expensive, compete with recycling programs, and de-stroy valuable resources. They will not succeed as long as anorganized citizenry refuses to accept these impacts on theircommunities.

Trust your instincts. Take a close look at any proposedtechnology and ask hard questions, such as the ones pro-vided in the box. If the vendors can’t—or won’t—provideyou with written answers to these and other questions, thenstep back and ask yourself why. It’s usually either becausethey don’t have the information or because they know youwon’t like the answers. ■

QUESTIONS TO ASK

describes the permit as “the first real enforcement tool localcitizens have ever had in efforts to deal with pollution fromthe mill.”

BETTER PUEBLO IS HERE TO STAY

In just four years, Better Pueblo has emerged as a formi-dable force, playing a crucial role in two important victories.Better Pueblo’s contribution to getting the state to enforceenvironmental standards at Oregon Steel means that one ofthe biggest employers in Pueblo will be providing safer jobsand operating a lot more cleanly in the years to come. Andgetting the Army to abandon incineration to destroy Pueblo’schemical weapons not only protects Pueblo residents butincreases the chances that other communities around thenation fighting chemical weapons incinerators can win too.

While members of Better Pueblo take tremendous satis-faction at this year’s victories, they are also looking forwardto further changes. With a “breather” from the day-in andday-out pressure of the chemical weapons issue, the groupis beginning to think about ways to build on the consider-able trust that the group has earned in the community andto develop a structure that encourages more people to be-come involved. ■

BETTER PUEBLOcontinued from page 5


Summer 2002 11

Action Line

Action Line

WHAT IS ACTIONLINE?

At CHEJ, we see Action Line asthe heart of Everyone’s Backyard. Thisis the place where we tell the storiesof the grassroots groups we’re work-ing with. We strive to call attention tothe movement’s creative energy andaccomplishments. We also see ActionLine as a way to share strategies andactions that work and to stay up-to-date on industry trends and tactics.

Although we rarely mention ourrole, CHEJ is providing organizingsupport or technical assistance tomost of the community groups wereport on. For other Action Line sto-ries, we draw on a large network offriends and supporters, developedduring twenty years of working withgrassroots groups. We encouragecontributions from organizationsthat, like CHEJ, support grassrootsorganizing and from communitygroups themselves.

ARKANSAS◆ Last year, Citizens Advocating SafeEnvironment (CASE) succeeded in get-ting both local and regional governmentto reject the expansion of a Waste Man-agement-run landfill near Fayetteville.This spring the Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ) over-turned those decisions on a technicality,giving Waste Management the go-ahead.The community, however, continues tokeep the pressure on. A whistleblowerrecently notified the ADEQ that therewas a “big hole in the bottom” of onesection of the landfill, that another sec-tion had caved in, and that in one week15,000 gallons of fluid had leaked. ADEQmoved quickly, shutting down the landfilland imposing a $558,000 fine. CASE,which has been critical of the landfill’soperations for some time, welcomedADEQ’s action and was joined by theSierra Club in calling for prosecution ofWaste Management. CHEJ has beenproviding organizing and technical sup-port to the group, including reviewing theviolation notice prepared by ADEQ anddata from groundwater monitoringsamples taken from around the landfill.

CALIFORNIA◆ With the support of the Environmen-tal Health Coalition, Barrio Logan resi-dents have organized to demand theclosing or relocation of two metal platingcompanies in the neighborhood. InMarch, San Diego County finally movedagainst one of the plants, Master Plating,which has a long history of violations,including illegal dumping of hazardouswaste and improper storage of toxicchemicals. The county filed a lawsuit toclose the plant and a county judge or-dered the chrome plating operations shutdown while officials determine the levelof chromium being emitted. (Nickel andcopper plating operations, however, willcontinue.) Land-use zoning laws in Bar-rio Logan allow polluting industries to belocated in residential areas. Residentsare working with city officials on chang-ing the zoning laws and on developing aplan for cleaning up polluted properties.

CONNECTICUT◆ A huge coalition of 150 organizationsacross the state has campaigned for

nearly five years to clean up the state’sdirtiest, coal-fired power plants, known asthe “Sooty Six.” Last year, legislation toclean up the plants came within one voteof passing in the state senate. This spring,both the house and senate voted over-whelmingly to pass a bill that will force theplants to comply with current standards.Governor Rowland signed the bill into law.According to the U.S. EPA, 97 percent ofConnecticut residents breathe unhealthyair. The Sooty Six, located in Bridgeport,Norwalk, New Haven, Montville,Middletown, and Milford, have historicallyemitted more than 80 percent of the sulfurdioxide pollution emitted by all major in-dustrial polluters in the state. Due to aloophole in the 1977 Clean Air Act, theSooty Six had not been required to meetthe same standards as modern plants.The new law forces the older, coal and oil-burning power plants to meet modern airpollution standards for sulfur dioxide pollu-tion, ensuring that an additional 8,900tons will be removed from the air eachyear. The standards must be met on-sitebeginning January 1, 2005, without the

use of pollution credit trading, whichallows the dirtiest power plants to lookcleaner on paper by purchasing emis-sions credits from less-polluting plants.This on-site cleanup stipulation sets anational precedent. “The Sooty Sixcleanup is not only a tremendous vic-tory for clean air, it is a victory for thethousands of citizens who participatedin this five-year-long battle,” said AlyssaSchuren, co-coordinator of the Con-necticut Coalition for Clean Air.Contributed by Toxics Action Center

◆ For over 40 years, residents of theNorth End of Manchester have sufferednoxious smells, burning eyes andthroats, and sleepless nights due to theBalf/Tilcon asphalt plant operating inthe middle of their neighborhood. It wasso bad that parents would cover theirchildren’s heads with jackets as theyran from the car to the house to avoidvomiting from the odors. Parentsstarted Manchester Area ResidentsConcerned about Health (MARCH)and uncovered information that provedthat the plant was releasing cancer-causing fumes and violating severalstate laws. MARCH rallied neighbors,met with elected officials, and held pub-lic meetings and press conferences tokeep the pressure on the plant andstate officials. In a huge victory, thestate responded to MARCH’s work byordering the asphalt plant shut down.The state says the plant will be unableto reopen due to a current moratoriumon the construction of any new asphaltplants in the state, which citizens’groups throughout Connecticut workedto pass in 1997.Contributed by Toxics Action Center

FLORIDA◆ In Polk County, Citizens of PolkSupporters (COPS) are mobilizingagainst a proposal for a power plant bythe notorious energy firm Reliant. Afterconsulting with Public Citizen and withCHEJ organizing staff, COPS madeReliant’s bad behavior a major localmedia issue. The press has coveredboth Reliant’s involvement inCalifornia’s bogus energy crisis(Reliant’s profits there exceededEnron’s) and Reliant’s donations to PolkCounty officials and mainstream organi-



Action Line

Action Line

zations. This spring, one hundred con-cerned residents packed the OrangeManor Mobile Home Park to raisethese issues with the mayor and a Re-liant representative. Residents went onto collect almost 1,000 signaturesthroughout the county to give to stateofficials who must review a local plan-ning amendment that would allow Reli-ant to build on its preferred site.

GEORGIA◆ Congratulations to the Environ-ment, Children, Health Organization(ECHO) in Jones County for stopping arezoning proposal that would have al-lowed Kinetic Resources to build twomedical waste incinerators! The groupworked hard handing out educationalbrochures, holding meetings, and or-ganizing a letter-writing campaign tothe local paper. After the Stop DioxinExposure campaign provided thegroup with materials prepared byHealth Care Without Harm, ECHOsent copies to the county commission-

ers, while continuing to generate pressurewithin the community. At the end of April,county commissioners voted unanimouslyagainst the rezoning proposal, killing theplan to build the incinerators. Under theproposal, the incinerators would haveburned 75,000 pounds of medical waste aday.

IDAHO◆ Barbara Miller, founder of the SilverValley People’s Action Coalition inKellogg, has received national recognitionfor her work on behalf of local communitiescoping with lead poisoning, including aprestigious Ford Foundation leadershipaward last year. An aggressive advocatefor a thorough cleanup of lead-contami-nated areas in northern Idaho, Barbarahas antagonized mining interests and localgovernment—both vehemently opposed tothe U.S. EPA’s plan to expand its Super-fund cleanup of Kellogg to the entire Coeurd’Alene Basin. Two local newspapers,owned by an industrialist with mining inter-ests, have waged a ruthless campaign to

discredit Barbara and anyone else whoattempts to call attention to lead con-tamination in the area. Last year, theShoshone News-Press called on thepublic to prevent Barbara from beingawarded the Ford Foundation prizeand printed a letter urging that she betarred and feathered. In March, a localjudge sent Barbara to jail for fivedays—ostensibly for charges related toan ongoing child custody dispute. Thesame judge sent her to jail three yearsago for voting in the wrong precinctand, in the custody case, has strippedBarbara of her house and other finan-cial assets.

Waste from a century of mining haspolluted a vast area in northern Idahoand is contaminating waters all the wayto the Columbia River in Washington. AU.S. EPA Human Health Risk Assess-ment done in 2000 showed that asmany as 30 percent of the children inthe Cour d’Alene Basin suffer fromlead poisoning. The EPA cleanup planwould remove close to 60 percent ofthe metals along dozens of miles of

Demonstrators greet Stericycle executives and shareholders at their annual meeting.Photo courtesy of Health Care Without Harm.

STERICYCLE: STOP BURNING MEDICAL WASTE!Stericycle shareholders and corporate executives were greeted at their annual meeting in Rosemont, IL on May 15 by com-

munity leaders from across the country demanding an end to the burning of medical waste and by demonstrators wearingpapier mache bellies to show that incineration is a threat to future generations. The community leaders were abruptly kickedout of a press conference as hotel staff unplugged the phone on reporters and peaceful demonstrators were threatened andintimidated outside. The intimidation did not stop the activists from delivering the message to Stericycle’s shareholders thatincineration is bad for business and bad for the health of communities across the nation. Several community leaders carryingproxies entered the shareholder meeting to give first-hand testimony about the health threats their communities face as a resultof being home to a Stericycle incinerator.

Stericycle, the nation’s largest medical waste management company, burns millions of pounds of medical waste a year in11 communities. Medical waste incineration is a leading source of dioxin, mercury and other air pollutants that have beenlinked to cancer, diabetes and learningdisabilities, among other illnesses.While Stericycle promotes itself as be-ing a strong environmentally respon-sible company, it continues to operatemedical waste incinerators and to ac-quire new ones.

In April, Health Care WithoutHarm launched its campaign to getStericycle to clean up its operations andphase out incineration by releasingStericycle: Living Up To Its Mission? areport that assesses the environmentalperformance of the company andmakes recommendations for improve-ment. For more information on the cam-paign and for the text of the report, seewww.noharm.org/stericycle.


Summer 2002 13

Action Line

Action Line

streams and rivers in the basin and re-move contaminated soil from at least1,000 homes. Businesses and localgovernment in Idaho, however, opposethe cleanup plan as a threat to tourism.Several town councils in northern Idahohave joined a lawsuit to block thecleanup, and Idaho’s congressional del-egation is demanding that more studiesbe done before the EPA can proceed.

Refusing to be intimidated, Barbaracontinues to make the case that thecleanup is necessary both becausethere are “real health problems” andbecause it’s “the greatest economic op-portunity this county has ever seen.” Notone to waste time, Barbara used hertwo weekends in jail to write a grant pro-posal asking the EPA to fund an internto help her continue her work for theSilver Valley People’s Action Coalition.

LOUISIANA◆ A dozen grassroots groups acrossthe state are calling for the U.S. EPA toaudit the Louisiana Department of Envi-ronmental Quality (DEQ). The groupsare focusing on DEQ’s operation of theair pollution credits “bank.” Problemswith the bank were acknowledged bythe U.S. EPA and DEQ more than ayear ago. The groups are Alliance forAffordable Energy, Alliance againstWaste and Action to Restore the En-vironment, Caring Parents of

Geismar, Concerned Citizens ofLivingston Parish, Concerned Citizensof Iberville Parish, Louisiana BucketBrigade, Louisiana CommunitiesUnited, Louisiana Democracy Project,Louisiana Environmental Action Net-work, Louisiana Labor Neighbor,Myrtle Grove Community, and NorthBaton Rouge Environmental Associa-tion.

MASSACHUSETTS◆ The standing-room-only crowd at theUpton town meeting in March had reasonto cheer. Thanks to the hard work of thecommunity group Citizens for the Pres-ervation of Upton (CPU), voters over-whelmingly approved a by-law prohibitingdangerous medical waste facilities frombeing built in their town. CPU began theircampaign when they found out that devel-opers had proposed to build a medicalwaste incinerator in Upton last spring.CPU researched the effects the proposedplant would have in their community anddiscovered that it would have releaseddioxin and mercury, among other toxins,into the town’s air. The group educatedtheir neighbors about the dangers of theplan and called for a special town meetingto prohibit incinerators from being built onresidential, commercial, agricultural, orbusiness-zoned land. The prohibitionpassed unanimously.Contributed by Toxics Action Center

MICHIGAN◆ Families Against IncineratorRisk (FAIR) in Ypsilanti continues tofight to shut down an existing sewageincinerator and stop a proposed newone. FAIR won the support of theYpsilanti City Council for ending sew-age incineration in their community. Butlocal officials from Ypsilanti Townshiphave continued to support the incinera-tor, so FAIR organized a petition driveand brought in 4,300 names of Town-ship voters—1,000 more thanneeded—to force an election to recallthe pro-incinerator officials. The deci-sion to continue to incinerate has beenopposed by the American Lung Asso-ciation, the Michigan EnvironmentalCouncil, and the Ecology Center ofAnn Arbor, as well as the entireYpsilanti City Council.

◆ Activists with the Ecology Center,Environmental Health Watch, LoneTree Ecology Center, and MichiganEnvironmental Council havelaunched an intensive public educationand organizing campaign in both Mid-land and the downriver community ofSaginaw to call attention to dioxin con-tamination from Dow Chemical. Earlierthis year, activists learned throughFreedom of Information Act requeststhat in 1996 and 1998 the state De-partment of Environmental Quality

Residents of the Diamond neighborhoodin Norco, Louisiana have won their fight for re-location of the entire community! Two yearsago, Shell offered to buy out half of the 220homes near the Shell Chemical facility, but resi-dents of the African-American neighborhoodcontinued to insist on relocation for everyone.In March, Concerned Citizens of Norco andthe Louisiana Bucket Brigade released “Fam-ily Divided,” a report that described how Shellwas dividing the Diamond community and de-stroying family and social relationships by of-fering to buy out only half the neighborhood.Community pressure and meetings with resi-dents pushed Shell to change its position andoffer a buyout to all Diamond residents! Photo:The Louisiana Bucket Brigade. Courtesy of LABB.

NORCO RESIDENTS WIN RELOCATION FOR ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD!



Action Line

Action Line

(DEQ) had found elevated levels of dioxinin Midland soil. Most of the contaminationwas found downriver of Dow’s Midlandheadquarters near schools, parks, play-grounds and along the banks of theTittabawassee River (a recreation area).In some cases the dioxin levels were thehighest recorded in the state — 80 timeshigher than the current state cleanupstandards allow. Activists are also workingwith the Agency for Toxic Substances andDisease Registry and the state DEQ on asite investigation that could potentiallylead regulators to find the company re-sponsible for extensive dioxin contamina-tion from their past operations. Currently,activists are negotiating the public partici-pation role in this process.

◆ The Ecology Center, Sierra Club,Hamtramck Environmental ActionTeam (HEAT), and other environmentalgroups worked hard on a bill just passedunanimously by the Michigan senate thatshould tighten rules in Michigan and willrequire a review of alternatives to incin-eration. The legislation explicitly statesthat standards should be set according tothe Clean Air Act, which contrasts withU.S. EPA’s current practice, and will notallow any new permits to be issued formedical waste incinerators for severalyears. Within 18 months, the Departmentof Environmental Quality (DEQ) will haveto produce a report for the legislature thatincludes alternatives to incineration ofmedical waste. The alternatives will focuson cleaner, safer and healthier technologyfor both the public and environment. Sup-porters said that not only will this legisla-tion prevent any new incinerators fromopening, but it will also raise standards forthe last remaining incinerator in Michigan(in Hamtramck), which has been plaguedwith violations.Contributed by the Ecology Center

MISSISSIPPI◆ People Effected Against ChemicalEugenics (PEACE) continues to press forinvestigation and testing of the drinkingwater in the McSwain community. TheMississippi Department of EnvironmentalQuality (DEQ) and U.S. EPA continue toinsist that there is no possibility of drink-ing water contamination impacting theMcSwain community. On the Saturdaybefore Easter, PEACE was joined bymembers of People for the Rights ofMississippians on a picket line outside of

the Jackson office of the DEQ, de-manding better action to protect resi-dents. The demonstration broughttogether African-American and whiteMississippians who have suffered ne-glect at the hands of the DEQ. “We’rebeing poisoned and DEQ doesn’tseem to care. We hope this will wakethem up,” a McSwain resident said. Thegroups’ signs included “MS DEQdoesn’t care about you” and “Chemi-cals are killing us.”

MISSOURI◆ Months of community pressure andmounting evidence of the extent oflead contamination in Herculaneumhave forced the Doe Run Company toagree to buy out the homes of resi-dents living close to the lead smelter,the largest in the nation. A state healthstudy released in March showed thatmore than 50 percent of the childrenwithin a half mile of Doe Run’s leadsmelter had elevated levels of lead andthat a mile from the smelter, a fifth ofthe children still showed elevated lev-els. Under its agreement with the state,Doe Run will buy out homes within 3/8of a mile from the smelter. Twenty fami-lies with children under six will be relo-cated this year, and the company willbuy out another 140 homes over thenext year and a half. Residents arefrustrated that the buyout plan will takeso long and that the plan excludesmany families who have children withlead poisoning.

Doe Run has moved aggressively torefurbish its image and to discouragethe community from pushing to extendthe cleanup. In May, the company re-leased an “independent” study claimingthat lead concentrate levels along thetransport road pose no significanthealth risks to children or adults in thecommunity. The study was prepared byGradient Corporation, an industry con-sulting firm that promotes itself asbringing “sound science to bear oncostly environmental problems.” A citi-zens group that seems to have consid-erable resources and to consistprimarily of Doe Run employees hasbeen distributing literature contendingthat the smelter poses no health threat.

Residents are working with the St.Louis Lead Prevention Coalition anda new group, People at Risk (PAR),

Groups across the countryworking on toxics issues usedscreenings of Judith Helfand’s com-edy Blue Vinyl to call attention to thetoxic chemicals used in PVC pro-duction and the history of corporatedisregard for the safety of workersand communities.

North Richmond, CA: An en-thusiastic audience came out for ascreening sponsored by Green-action and the Center for Environ-mental Health. After the film,people raised one good questionafter another about community in-volvement and organizing. HenryClark of West County Toxics Coa-lition, Ethel Dotson of Communi-ties for a Better Environment, andMichelle Ozun, a local bucket bri-gade representative, spoke aboutworking with communities. Con-tributed by Julie Parker (co-producer ofBlue Vinyl)

Boston, MA: The Bostonscreening played to a packed houseon Wednesday, April 24 at the Bos-ton Museum of Fine Arts. Over 400people enjoyed the movie and aquestion and answer session byJudith Helfand, then eagerly signedpostcards to EPA AdministratorWhitman demanding that the Di-oxin Reassessment be released.Contributed by Toxics Action Center

Duluth, MN: Two hundredguests turned out for the screeningheld by the Institute for a Sustain-able Future, including buildingprofessionals, elected officials, andthe health department. Aprescreening pizza party withCajun music playing in the back-ground spiced things up a bit, andawards were presented to the localDuluth Hospital Clinic, a naturecenter and a wastewater treatmentplant, for their environmentally

TOXIC COMEDY ISGREAT ORGANIZING

TOOL



Summer 2002 15

Action Line

Action Line

which focuses on mining pollution is-sues in the region, to address thecommunity’s health needs and tostrategize to obtain relocation for morefamilies in Herculaneum.

MONTANA◆ After two years of investigating theextent of asbestos contamination inLibby, much pushing from an assertiveCommunity Advisory Group, and arequest from Governor Martz in Janu-ary, the U.S. EPA announced in Febru-ary that it was making Libby aSuperfund site. W.R. Grace’s miningoperations on the outskirts of the townyielded vermiculite ore that containedtremolite, a particularly dangerousform of asbestos because it consistsof sharp needle-like fibers that easilypenetrate the linings of the lungs. TheAgency for Toxic Substances and Dis-ease Registry (ATSDR) has screened7,500 residents in the town and sur-rounding areas the last two summersand found that 30 percent have lungabnormalities. The ATSDR considereddeclaring a public health emergency,which was needed to allow it to re-move the insulation from people’shomes, but was opposed by W.R.Grace because of the company’s con-cerns about its liability for a product inhomes around the nation. In May, theEPA, however, announced that itwould move forward with the removalof the insulation without formally de-claring a health emergency. Thecleanup plan calls for the removal ofasbestos insulation from about 800homes and removal of asbestos fromyards, as well as cleanup of specificcontaminated sites in the town.

NEBRASKA◆ A 20-square mile section of centralcity Omaha, including about 5,000homes, is slated to become aSuperfund site because of lead con-tamination from a smelter, battery fac-tories, lead paint in older homes, andhighway traffic. (A school is built onthe site of one of the former batteryfactories.) The U.S. EPA plans to cleanup the soil over 10 years, and the De-partment of Housing and Urban Devel-opment plans to remediate a fewhundred homes. The Lead Safe Coa-lition in Omaha is pressing for a

faster, more complete and better coordi-nated cleanup.

NEW YORK◆ The Cheektowaga Citizens Coali-tion (CCC) has succeeded in getting theNew York Department of Health (DOH) toconduct additional studies in the areamost affected by local polluters and tonarrow a cancer study to the area of thecommunity directly affected by landfill andquarry activity. In addition, the DOH hascommitted to creating a panel comprisedof resident representatives and personnelfrom the DOH and other agencies andlocal governments that would meet oncea month to collaborate in the Bellevuearea. CCC gives a lot of credit for its suc-cess to the support it has received fromthe Coalition of Impacted Neighbor-hoods (COIN), which includes the Citi-zens’ Environmental Coalition (CEC).CCC also joined the CEC and othergroups at two key meetings. One, with apowerful state legislator from the area,pressed for a revitalized state Superfundprogram. The other brought together envi-ronmental justice leaders from all over thestate, allowing CCC members to meetother activists working on auto-immunedisorders, a special concern in theCheektowaga area.

◆ United Neighbors ConcernedAbout General Electric and DeweyLoeffel Landfill (UNCAGED), which isfighting for the cleanup of the PCB-con-taminated dump, finally got the opportu-nity to meet with General Electric face toface. After GE had agreed to meet withlocal governments, UNCAGED insistedon being at the table, and local officialssupported them. At the meeting,UNCAGED representatives suprised GEwith their detailed knowledge of area sitesand the area’s geology, and then askedGE staff point blank why they don’t justclean up the site. GE staff did not re-spond. UNCAGED came out of the meet-ing determined to continue to press GE tomeet with the community and respond tothe community’s needs. The landfill con-tains almost 40,000 tons of PCBs, heavymetals, and other hazardous substancesand has contaminated local water re-sources.

◆ Friends of Westland Hills is fightingto get cleanup of a long-closed construc-tion and demolition dump in an inner city

friendly practices. The followingnight, another Blue Vinyl screeningwas open to one and all. Contributedby Institute for a Sustainable Future

Missoula, MT: The Women’sVoices of the Earth hosted a screen-ing followed by a panel discussionat the University of Montana UCTheatre in Missoula. People posedlots of great questions, especiallyabout health effects and alternativebuilding materials. The crowdsigned postcards to EPA Adminis-trator Whitman and a local petitionasking Smurfit-Stone Container(pulp and liner board) mill to stopburning plastic scrap from the cor-rugated cardboard it processes. Cur-rently the mill is burning up to 15tons of plastic everyday and an es-timated one-ton of it is PVC. Contrib-uted by Women’s Voices of the Earth

Buffalo, NY: Citizens’ Environ-mental Coalition, Great LakesUnited, University of BuffaloGreen, Coalition for Economic Jus-tice and Western New York Coun-cil of Occupational Safety andHealth attracted a diverse group,from labor workers to environmen-talists to community residents, totheir screening at the Hallways ArtsCenter. After the film, communitymembers were eager to get involvedwith the upcoming EPA public hear-ings on the Dioxin Reassessment.Contributed by Citizens’ Environmen-tal Coalition

Seattle, WA: On April 28, theJewish Film Festival partnered witha handful of environmental groupsincluding the Washington ToxicsCoalition, Northwest Jewish Envi-ronmental Project, the WildernessSociety and the People for PugetSound. At the end of the screening,there were a panel of experts to an-swer further questions and discusshow the community could becomeactively involved in eliminating di-oxin exposure and other environ-mental threats.

TOXIC COMEDYcontinued from page 14



Action Line

Action Line

Albany neighborhood. What began asa fight to prevent a school from open-ing on the site, mainly for non-envi-ronmental reasons, has expandedinto a campaign to clean up an entirearea now used as a park, which in-cludes ball fields used for LittleLeague. After local residents foundasbestos on the site, the school boardinvestigated and found lead, mercury,and volatile organic compounds – butstill plans to build the school.

◆ Concerned Citizens ofCattaraugus—a group of teachers,local residents, and environmental-ists—are feeling empowered: they’vesucceeded in shutting down both thehigh school and elementary schoolincinerators in Franklinville! After thegroup successfully pressured the su-perintendent of schools to close theincinerator at the local high school,the school district shifted the burningof the high school waste to the el-ementary school incinerator. Thegroup stayed with the issue and thisspring forced the new superintendentto shut down the elementary schoolincinerator as well. The incineratorshad burned high levels of plastic, ex-

posing children to toxic fumes. Congratu-lations!

NORTH CAROLINA◆ Friends of the Green Swamp(FOGS) gained 100 members in its springmembership drive and sold a lot of T-shirts and other items at the Wild GameCook-Off. Over 200 people attended aDepartment of Water Quality Public Hear-ing on the proposed Green Swamp land-fill, and FOGS reported that “with theexception of a few trained seals that [thelandfill developers] brought with them toread canned speeches, everyone thatspoke was against the landfill.” More thana third of the speakers at the meeting inColumbus County came from neighboringBrunswick County, and they are also ask-ing for a hearing in their county. FOGSsupporters will be following up with letters.FOGS also placed a large and attractivecommemorative sign in the Green Swampnear the area designated as a nationallandmark by the U.S. Park Service.

◆ To get attention-organize! For 60years, fine carbon dust from Great LakesCarbon plant has covered virtually every-thing in Morganton. The company has

thrown unused materials into twodumps, one at the plant and one intown. The local newspaper has ig-nored the environmental issues,even this spring when the plant an-nounced that it wanted to donatepart of the plant’s dumpsite to thetown for a children’s soccer field.Then residents organized a group tooppose the plan —and the newspa-per immediately called to ask for aninterview.

OHIO◆ Advocates for Children’sHealth of Sylvania (ACHS) is fight-ing to clean up, and ultimately toclose, an 80-year old school where aroof leak is the apparent source of aserious mold problem. Local officialshave kept documents from them andmade false statements. A majority ofparents, whose children have nosymptoms at this time, fought to getthe school reopened after a limitedremediation effort. Working with theteachers’ union, ACHS will continueto press for real remediation.

◆ Residents of Cheshire, a smalltown on the Ohio River, have negoti-

CAMPAIGN TARGETS KODAK’S INCINERATORSNew York’s Citizens’ Environmental Coalition

(CEC) and Kandid Coalition (KC) are leading a cor-porate accountability campaign against EastmanKodak to reduce the company’s toxic emissions. InMarch, the groups organized a press conference torelease letters signed by over 60 organizations call-ing on the New York State Department of Health andthe Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Regis-try to address the high rates of children’s brain can-cer in the Rochester community. In April, they orga-nized a Statewide Day of Action for Clean Air atKodak calling on Kodak’s CEO Daniel Carp to makea commitment to phase out the company’s hazard-ous waste incinerators. Activists organized nineevents in seven cities across the state. Rallies andpress conferences were held in key cities, while ac-tivists handed out flyers in front of corporate chainstores that sell Kodak film. The campaign followedthis up in May with a candlelight vigil for justiceoutside of Kodak’s annual meeting. Participants showed up in black funeral attire with faces painted white. The protest wasjoined by over 60 members of Employees Committed for Justice, ex-Kodak employees who are concerned about Kodak’sdiscriminatory hiring practices. Inside, shareholders voted on a resolution, which CEC and a former employee had introduced,calling on the company to disclose the financial liabilities posed by their pollution. The resolution has the support of New YorkState Comptroller Carl McCall. For information on the campaign, see www.kodakstoxiccolors.org.

Photo courtesy of Citizens’ Environmental Coalition.


Summer 2002 17

Action Line

Action Line

ated a settlement with American Elec-tric Power (AEP), giving up their rightsto sue the company in exchange for abuyout. Emissions of sulfuric acid fromAEP, the state’s largest coal-burningpower plant, have made the town unin-habitable. Last summer, blue clouds ofsulfuric acid gas descended on thevillage more than a dozen times, caus-ing headaches, burning eyes, sorethroats, and chemical burns on themouths of local residents. Threeschools located near the plant and at-tended by close to 1,000 students areoutside the boundaries of the settle-ment. The Buckeye EnvironmentalNetwork has released informationabout the toxic threat to these schoolsto the school boards and to localmedia.

◆ Environmental Community Orga-nization (ECO), Communities Unitedfor Action (CUFA), and a variety ofactivists, concerned neighbors, law-yers, and educators have persuadedthe Cincinnati Board of Health to say“No” to Waste Management. The com-pany had applied for a license to oper-ate a 1,500 ton-per-day solid wastetransfer station in Winton Hills, adensely populated low-income, Afri-can-American neighborhood in theheart of Cincinnati that is surroundedby polluting facilities. In February, theboard ruled against Waste Manage-ment after several Ohio citizen groupspresented evidence about thecompany’s troubled record operatingthe Elda landfill at the same site andother facilities around the state, as wellas its national record of legal viola-tions. This was a second victory overWaste Management: the Ohio EPAordered the Elda landfill closed in 1997because of high levels of methane gasand groundwater contamination after acampaign led by CUFA exposed thecompany’s polluting practices.Contributed by Environmental Commu-nity Organization

PENNSYLVANIA◆ Members of Philadelphia’s Com-munity and Labor Sunoil TrackingTeam traveled to Washington, DC inApril to draw congressional attention tolevels of pollution in the community.The Sun Oil facility recently expandedto produce low sulfur gasoline, result-

ing in an increase in pollutionand health problems. Thegroup returned to an explo-sion and fire at the plant,which produced a whole newwave of digestive and upperrespiratory problems in theneighborhood.

PUERTO RICO◆ At the beginning of April,the Comité Pro Rescate yDesarrollo de Vieques(Committee for the Rescueand Development of Vieques)and other groups opposed tothe U.S. naval base inVieques carried out civil dis-obedience actions to stop U.S.military exercises. Protestersentered the bombing range toact as human shields andhalted the exercises for atleast one day. As the exer-cises began, 150 U.S. mem-bers of the National PuertoRican Coalition, who were inVieques to show solidaritywith the protesters, were tear-gassed by U.S. marines fromwithin the naval base. Mem-bers of the Coalition had helda peaceful march and wereboarding school buses whenU.S. forces began firing canis-ters over the naval fence, in-juring nearly a hundredpeople. Back in the U.S, thegroup has demanded a Jus-tice Department investigationinto the incident. Last year, PresidentBush publicly pledged that the Navywould be out of Vieques by 2003, butCongress has passed legislation barringthe Navy from closing the site until anequivalent facility can be found. More thana dozen members of Congress and otherelected officials have written individuallyto President Bush to ask that he put hispromise in writing as an executive order.

SOUTH CAROLINA◆ Community Organization for Rightsand Empowerment (CORE) is leadingthe fight in Holly Hill to stop the expansionof a cement plant. The plant is a majoremployer in the community, but more andmore community members, includingplant employees, have been coming for-

ward to express concerns over healthproblems generated by the cementdust.

◆ Allendale County Citizens Op-posed to Landfills, which shut downthe county landfill, is now mobilizing toprevent the landfill from being reopenedto accept auto fluff—the non-metalcomponents of cars, including PCBs,plastics, and mercury and lead. Hugo-neu-Proler, a large metal recycling com-pany based in New York City, hasoffered to clean up the existing contami-nation at the site (which they are notresponsible for) in exchange for beingable to create a new landfill cell fordumping the auto fluff. Community lead-ers have received and used information

U.S. forces attacked peaceful marchers with teargas at the naval base in Vieques. Photo courtesy ofVieques Libre (www.viequeslibre.org).



Action Line

Action Line

GAG COMES TO WASHINGTONIn Hazleton, Pennsylvania, spring has been a busy time for Group Against Gas (GAG), which is fighting for relocation

because massive underground oil spills have contaminated their homes. In March German filmmaker/TV journalist ThomasWeidenbach, filmed GAG with CHEJ organizer Larry Yates. GAG got two days of press attention out of the visit, includingcoverage on three different TV stations. The group let the U.S. EPA know that Weidenbach’s film will be shown at the UnitedNations Sustainable Development summit in Johannesburg, where 65,000 world leaders, reporters, and others are expected.

EPA staff based in Hazleton continued to downplay the seriousness of the spill and to press ahead with its plans to pullout of Laurel Gardens. The EPA is planning to revise the number of homes affected by the gas spill from 450 homes to 9 andhas suggested to GAG members that it’s their own yard signs that are responsible for the “stigma” of the neighborhood.

Weary of this treatment, a full busload of GAG members came down to Washington, DC to make their case directly to EPAAdministrator Christie Todd Whitman. The meeting was the result of months of efforts by GAG, and the group came well-prepared. GAG members spoke to Whitman and the senators and congressman representing Hazleton for an hour—twice thescheduled time—explaining the factsabout the spill and how their trust in theEPA has been destroyed. A particularlypowerful tool was a map GAG memberscreated showing the homes where deathsand illnesses have occurred. During themeeting, other GAG members picketedand chanted outside the Hart Senate Of-fice Building, joined by Washington areasupporters.

After hearing them out, Whitman ap-pointed one of EPA’s assistant administra-tors as liaison to GAG, and changed herschedule again to speak briefly to thewhole GAG group, promising to commu-nicate “every step of the way,” and assur-ing them she recognized that their lack oftrust in the EPA was “for a good reason.”Senator Specter told the group that onEPA’s part there had been “a derelictionof duty without any question.” Represen-tative Kanjorski, noting that Laurel Gar-dens residents had been called “unrea-sonable” while the spill perpetrators “gotaway with it,” sketched a plan for abuyout of all residents wanting it. Bothlegislators promised to give “as muchstaff time as it takes” to help GAG resolvethe Laurel Gardens situation.

GAG members demonstrate outside of Senate office building while other membersof the group meet with EPA Administrator Whitman. Photo courtesy of GAG.

from Citizens Against Pollution andIndustrial Tyranny (CAPIT) in Owego,New York, which was successful inshutting down an auto fluff dump.CHEJ has been providing technicalsupport to the group, including prepar-ing questions to raise concerning theclosure of the landfill, reviewing datafrom groundwater monitoring wells,and identifying additional testingneeded at the site.

TEXAS◆ Quick organizing by Jefferson resi-

dents forced International Paper to with-draw its application to burn tires instead ofnatural gas at its Jefferson facility. Last fall,the lieutenant governor had written to theTexas Natural Resources ConservationCommission (TRNCC — affectionatelyknown as “Trainwreck”) to urge the issu-ance of a temporary permit for a trial burnof tires. TNRCC wrote back suggesting away for International Paper to shorten thepermit review process. Jefferson residents,facing a complicated and intimidating situ-ation, contacted CHEJ and got advice that“changed the focus of our efforts.” Theyorganized a group and contacted the lieu-

tenant governor, who is from nearJefferson. He told them he only sup-ported a test burn, and assured themthere would be a public hearing inJefferson. A week later, InternationalPaper withdrew its application.

◆ Seabrook residents have won partof their case against American Acryl,which is planning to build a chemicalcomplex that would produce acrylicacid and butyl acrylate, as well as op-erate a hazardous waste incinerator onits property. The company has soughtto have the plant’s emissions data


Summer 2002 19

Action Line

Action Line

sealed as a trade secret, and in 1999the state attorney general issued aruling supporting the company. NowState District Judge Margaret Cooperhas ruled against the company—amajor victory for our right-to-know.The company has projected that it willrelease 4.5 million tons of chemicalsinto the air annually.

UTAH◆ The Chemical Weapons WorkingGroup (CWWG) is working with em-ployees of the U.S. Army’s chemicalweapons incinerator in Tooele. Inter-nal documents obtained by CWWGwith the help of whistleblowers at theincinerator reveal that employeeshave been exposed to lethal chemicalagents. In 1999 Tooele incineratormanagers told a federal judge thatthese problems were fixed. However,CWWG director Craig Williamsstated, “A confirmed nerve agent re-lease in May 2000 and the reportsfrom courageous employees… dem-onstrate that these serious safety andenvironmental issues have not reallybeen addressed.”

VIRGINIA◆ Loudouners Against PowerPlants won its two-year battle over aproposed Leesburg power plant whenHouston-based energy companyTractabel withdrew its plans. Tractabeltold the Washington Post that it is nowmore lucrative to buy power plantsthan to build new ones. However, itseems clear that a key factor in theirdecision was that community resis-tance so delayed the plant thatTractabel missed the window of op-portunity to benefit from energy de-regulation in Virginia. LoudounersAgainst Power Plants gained and heldthe solid support of their county gov-ernment with a strong presence atcounty meetings, and also had such apresence at public hearings in Rich-mond that a second round had to bescheduled. Bridget Bangert, a leaderof the group, told the Post about thefight, “It feels like it’s consumed everymoment of my life for two years. Nowwe can breathe a sigh of relief — puncompletely intended.”

◆ The U.S. EPA is rushing to “finish”


the Superfund cleanup at Avtex in FrontRoyal, and has brought in a public rela-tions firm, Decision Quest, which is usingjob offers as well as a confusing “partici-pation” process to, in one local activist’sword, “snow” the public. Neighbors of theAvtex site were surprised to find out thatdeer hunters were allowed to use the siteat night, and have protested to the EPAand the owners. The site is across thestreet from a residential neighborhood,and the neighbors found out about thehunting when they heard shots after darkat the Superfund site.

WASHINGTON◆ For the last three years, activists havebeen fighting the proposed massive ex-pansion of Glacier Corporation’s gravelmine on Vashon Island in Puget Sound.(Glacier is a subsidiary of Taiheiyo Ce-ment, a Japanese firm whose claim to a“global environmental conservation policy”is based on their “waste recycling” cementplants.) After being bogged down in regu-latory moves for several months, the fightis picking up again. Hands AroundMaury (HAM) held a “turn up the heat”meeting in May to revive and organize theopposition. One hundred island residentsturned out, and the meeting put a newaction plan into effect, with committeesranging from a “spy network” to neighbor-hood canvassing. One task that volun-teers committed to was calling in to the

governor’s regular citizen call-inshow—and three days later, two of thevolunteers actually got through to thegovernor, who was caught off guard.

◆ Residents of Yelm continue to ef-fectively contest a proposed facility totreat “sewerage/sludge/municipalbiosolids” on the grounds that the facil-ity would not only be a health hazard,decrease property values, and createodors, but that the proposal is “contra-dictory and confusing.” Hundreds oflocal residents have come out to meet-ings to oppose the facility, andThurston County staff recently sentback a planning document to the com-pany proposing the facility saying thatit “wasn’t acceptable.”

WISCONSIN◆ Stop Unnecessary Road Expan-sion/Highway J Citizens Group(SURE) is already seeing some resultsfrom their recent radio ad campaign.The governor has been inundated withcalls opposing the highway expansionproject. SURE has also collected al-most 6,000 signatures on a petition. Asa result, the Wisconsin Department ofTransportation (WisDOT) has decidedto immediately install groundwatermonitoring wells along Highway 164 inAckerville, which intersects an area



CHILD PROOFING OUR COMMUNITIESC A M P A I G N P A G E

Child Proofing Our Communities is a locally-based, nationally connected campaignaimed at protecting children from environmental health hazards in schools and childcare settings by raising awareness, empowering community members, and encour-aging concerned adults to take action at the local levels. The campaign is currentlyworking on improving indoor air quality; reducing the toxicity of building mate-rials; reducing the use of pesticides; preventing the location of school buildings onor near chemically contaminated areas; and cleaning up schools located on or nearcontaminated land.

REPORT PRODS CONGRESS

The campaign continues to reapsignificant attention from the Januaryrelease of Creating Safe Learning Zones:Invisible Threats, Visible Actions. The re-port, produced by the campaign’sSchool Siting committee, revealed thatalmost 1,200 public schools in five stateswere located within a half-mile of acontaminated site. The report has evengarnered attention from several Con-gressional offices. In February andMarch, on behalf of campaign mem-bers, CHEJ Executive Director LoisGibbs and Organizing Director JamesTramel met with Representative HildaSolis (D-CA) and staffers from the of-fices of Representative Frank Pallone(D-NJ) and Senators Jim Jeffords (I-VT),Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Hillary Clinton(D-NY), and Charles Schumer (D-NY).Senate hearings on the issue of schoolsiting are tentatively scheduled for laterthis year and present a unique oppor-tunity to enact legislation to limit thewidespread practice of building schoolson or near contaminated sites and toclean up those schools already built insuch areas. In May, Senator Clintonwrote a strongly worded letter to Ad-ministrator Christine Todd Whitmanurging the EPA to “establish environ-mental guidelines for the siting of pub-lic schools . . .to ensure that our childrenhave a clean and healthy environmentin which they can grow and thrive.”

CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTALHEALTH SYMPOSIUM

Another exciting outcome of thereport’s release was the campaign’s role

in facilitating a symposium onchildren’s health, which was hosted byJohns Hopkins University and the Uni-versity of Maryland School of PublicHealth in Baltimore on June 11 and 12.The symposium addressed the levels atwhich children are harmed by pollut-ants and the appropriate methods totest and clean up school property. Thegathering produced exciting discus-sions among academic researchers onchildren’s health, environmental engi-neers who design school cleanups, andorganizerswho workwith com-m u n i t i e s .Three workgroups wereformed whowill preparebrief discus-sion papersaddressingthe sympo-sium topics.We hopethat the symposium is the first step in aprocess that will lead to a change in theway exposure to contaminants is as-sessed and monitored in order to giveour children the protection they need.

CAMPAIGN TO RELEASE HEALTHYBUILDINGS PRIMER

Not to be overshadowed by theSchool Siting committee, thecampaign’s Healthy Buildings commit-tee is hard at work on its own publica-tion on constructing environmentallyhealthy schools. The guide will address

such frequently occurring problems astoxic mold, indoor air quality, lead, andpressure-treated wood.

The guide will be released in earlysummer as a pilot to various groups toreview and field test. After we incor-porate information collected duringthe pilot period, we will release theprimer nationally this fall. If you are in-terested in obtaining a copy of theprimer for use in your community thissummer, please contact CampaignCoordinator Paul Ruther [email protected] or 703-237-2249, ext. 21. The primer will be distrib-uted free of charge—the only caveatbeing that we want your feedback onits usefulness, accessibility, and how tomake it even better.

CONGRESS FAILS TO PROTECTCHILDREN FROM PESTICIDES ATSCHOOL

The School Environment Protec-tion Act (SEPA) has died again in con-gressional committee. The bill was anamendment to the Farm Bill but waswithdrawn at the beginning of May

due to op-position inthe HouseAgricultureCommittee.The versionof the FarmBill passedby the Sen-ate in Feb-ruary hadi n c l u d e dthe legisla-tion. SEPA

would require schools to adopt aschool pest management plan (SPMP)that minimizes health and environ-mental risks in school buildings andplaygrounds. The legislation wouldalso require public schools to notifyparents and staff three times a yearconcerning their pesticide programsand notify parents and staff beforeevery application if they request it.Signs would have to be posted 24hours before and after pesticide appli-cations. The campaign to develop and



Summer 2002 21

The Stop Dioxin Exposure Campaign is a national grassroots effort to eliminatedioxin and initiate a public debate on the role of government in protecting the healthof the American people. Dioxin is the highly toxic by-product of industrial pro-cesses involving chlorine. The campaign works with hundreds of community or-ganizations to pressure corporations, hospitals and government agencies to modifyor shut down dioxin-emitting facilities, such as waste incinerators, paper mills andchemical manufacturing plants.

STOP DIOXIN EXPOSUREC A M P A I G N P A G E

DIOXIN RELEASES AT UNSAFELEVELS

On May 23, the U.S. EPA releasedthe Toxics Release Inventory Data (TRI)for the year 2000. According to the EPA,manufacturing and chemical produc-ing facilities released 99,814 grams(about 1,100 grams TEQ) of dioxin intothe environment in 2000. One gramTEQ of dioxin is enough to exceed theacceptable daily intake for more than 40million people for one year.

2000 was the first year that indus-trial facilities were required to report theamount of dioxin they released. Thenew data indicate that dioxin releasesfrom industrial facilities may be severaltimes what EPA has previously esti-mated. And these reported releases areonly a fraction of the dioxin that is be-ing released into the environment everyday. The TRI does not include a num-ber of dioxin sources, including thethree largest: municipal waste incinera-tion, backyard burn barrels and medi-cal waste incineration.

The bottom line is the average adultalready has enough dioxin in their bodyto cause adverse health effects. There isno “margin of safety” for exposures todioxin—any additional exposure is toomuch.

GAO REPORT ON DIOXINREASSESSMENT

At the end of April, the Govern-ment Accounting Office released Envi-ronmental Health Risks: Information onEPA’s Draft Reassessment of Dioxins. Thereport was commissioned by SenatorsThad Cochran (R-MS) and John Breaux

(D-LA) in 2001. Concerned about thepotential impact the EPA’s Dioxin Re-assessment would have on the food andagriculture industries as well as con-sumers, the senators asked the GAO tolook at three areas: 1) the data EPA usedto estimate human dietary exposure todioxins in the U.S.; 2) how the reassess-ment objectives, processes, analyticalmethods, and conclusions on the healthrisks of dioxin compare with the WorldHealth Organization; and 3) the extentthe draft reassessment reflects the viewsof the independent peer review panelsthat reviewed it in 2000/2001.

The significance of the report is thatit endorses the work that the EPA hasdone thus far and gives the EPA a greenlight to complete and release the long-awaited Dioxin Reassessment. Both thechemical and food industries have beentrying to delay the release of the report.One of their tactics has been to call formore research; another is to challengethe way the EPA arrived at its conclu-sions. The GAO report concludes thatthe EPA and the World Health Organi-zation used similar methodology andreached similar conclusions. The GAOreport also indicates that while there aresome limitations to the data on dioxinlevels in the food supply, the risk assess-ment methods used by the EPA are in-ternationally accepted scientific meth-ods. All of this provides support for theview that there is no need for furtherdelay in completing and releasing theDioxin Reassessment to the Americanpublic. To view the entire GAO report,visit our web site at www.chej.org/Newreports.html.

POPS IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF2002

On April 11, Senator James Jeffords(I-VT) introduced the POPs Implemen-tation Act of 2002. This legislation isintended to serve as the domesticimplementing authority for theStockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs), an interna-tional treaty to phase out a dozen of theworld’s most toxic pollutants. SenatorBob Smith (R-NH) introduced the Re-publican version on May 13. Jeffords’bill is significant because it gives theEPA the authority to implement thetreaty in its entirety, whereas the Repub-lican version would block the processfor adding other toxic chemicals to the12 banned by the Stockholm Conven-tion—a crucial part of the treaty. In ad-dition, Jeffords’ bill includes a provisionthat requires the EPA to submit the fi-nal Dioxin Reassessment to Congresswithin 90 days of the enactment of thislegislation. U.S. members of the Inter-national POPs Elimination Network arestarting to develop both a Capitol Hill-based and grassroots-based lobbyingstrategy. Stay tuned to our web site orcontact our office for how to get in-volved.

CONFERENCE ADDRESSES IMPACTOF U.S. CHEMICAL WARFARE INVIETNAM

In March, the first U.S.-VietnameseConference on Agent Orange was heldin Hanoi, sponsored by the NationalInstitute of Environmental Health Sci-ences (NIEHS). CHEJ’s Science DirectorStephen Lester attended, presenting apaper on the activities of grassroots,community-based organizations indioxin-contaminated communitiesaround the U.S.

Vietnamese scientists presentedtheir research on the impact of whatthey considered “chemical warfarewaged by the US on the country of Viet-nam,” focusing on births defects, mis-carriages, and other reproductive prob-lems in areas the the U.S. Army sprayedwith Agent Orange and other herbi-cides from 1961 to 1971. Other presen-tations identified hot spots of contami-




RESOURCES◆ Green of Another Color: Building Effective Part-nerships between Foundations and the Environmen-tal Justice Movement should be read both for itsanalysis of the environmental justice move-ment and its critique of founda-tion grantmaking. The authors,Daniel Faber and DeborahMcCarthy, view the environ-mental justice movement as criticalto the struggle not only for environmental protection but fordemocracy and social justice. However, as Faber andMcCarthy document, it is also “the most underfunded so-cial movement in the United States.” The authors offer de-tailed recommendations for grantmaking strategies that willhelp ensure that funds reach community-based organiza-tions and support organizing efforts and movement build-ing. The report also frankly addresses the lack of racial andcultural diversity within the philanthropic community andits impact on funding practices. (Available online atwww.casdn.neu.edu/~socant/Another%20Color%20Final%20Report.pdf)

◆ The Grassroots Recycling Network has developed sev-eral excellent educational materials to support its Zero Wastecampaign. The materials include two videos by PaulConnett: Zero Waste: Idealistic Dream or Realistic Goal? (28minutes), in which waste experts introduce in an informaland engaging way some of the key ideas of zero waste; andNova Scotia: Community Responsibility in Action (32 minutes),which looks at innovative recycling, reuse, and compostingprograms being implemented in Canada. In the booklet “ACitizen’s Agenda for Zero Waste” (27 pp.), Paul Connett andBill Sheehan provide a detailed introduction to zero wastepractices drawing on communities worldwide that havepassed zero waste legislation or implemented creative re-source recovery programs. Finally, a well-designed ZeroWaste Briefing Kit succinctly lays out the principles of thecampaign and includes facts, figures, and case studies. (Forthese and other materials, see www.grrn.org or contact theGrassroots Recycling Network at 706-613-7121 [email protected].)

◆ In The State of Children’s Health and Environment 2002, JohnWargo and Linda Evenson Wargo provide a thorough in-troduction to environmental threats to children’s health. Theauthors summarize trends in children’s health in three ar-eas: asthma, birth defects and developmental disabilities,and cancer, providing clear descriptions of the broad rangeof pollutants, neurotoxins, and carcinogens that children areexposed to. A central concern of the work is the inadequacyof government regulation of toxic substances. The authorsrecommend practical steps that parents can take to minimizetheir children’s exposure to environmental hazards. John

Wargo is the author of Our Children’sToxic Legacy: How Science and Law Failto Protect Us from Pesticides, for whichhe won the 1997 American MedicalWriters Association Award of Ex-cellence in Medical Communica-tions. (Children’s Health Environ-

mental Coalition, February 2002,71 pp., $18.00; available online at

www.checnet.org.)

◆ In Environmentally Induced Illnesses: Ethics, Risk Assess-ment and Human Rights, Thomas Kerns makes a powerfulcase for a rights-based approach to protecting human health.Kerns, a professor of philosophy who specializes in medi-cal ethics, reviews what we know about the public healththreat posed by chronic low-level exposure to toxic chemi-cals, presents a brief but sharp critique of environmental riskassessment, and lays out in some detail an alternative ap-proach grounded in moral rights and duties. The precau-tionary principle and the right to know are central to Kerns’human rights approach, and he offers specific proposals fortranslating these principles into public policy. (McFarland& Company, 2001, 294 pp., $39.95)

◆ The Bush administration seems to be aiming at nothingless than dismantling three decades of federal environmen-tal regulation. In Rewriting the Rules: The BushAdministration’s Assault on the Environment, the NaturalResources Defense Council documents actions taken by theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federalagencies to subvert environmental regulations and explainsthe critical role in this assault being played by the Office ofManagement and Budget, which is using its new authorityto roll back existing rules and bottle up new ones. The re-port includes a detailed chronology of over 100 actions takenby the Bush administration that have weakened environ-mental protections in the U.S. (Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, April 2002, 57 pp., $7.50; available online atwww.nrdc.org/legislation) ■

ACTION LINEcontinued from page 19

contaminated by the Ackerville landfill, and conduct tests fortrichloroethylene (TCE) and arsenic contamination. The moni-toring wells and testing have been a longtime demand of thegroup. SURE and its allies celebrated their win by holding apress event at the site. A second round of radio ads followed,focusing on “protecting the health and safety of our familiesand children.” SURE is now working with the Sierra Club toprepare television commercials and a video documentary. ■


Summer 2002 23

INDIVIDUALS

GUARDIANS’ CIRCLE(gifts of $1,000 or more)

Community ProtectorsAndris Salter

PARTNERS’ CIRCLE(gifts of $100-999)

Neighborhood AdvocatesChen Yu HuHarold & Sara O’Connell

Family ProtectorsJudi FriedmanGary & Cynthia Gillen

Randye Schwartz & EdwardGralla

Steven Hill

Health DefendersAnonymous DonorsCharles & Rosemary BerschJerry BrownSamson CardozaMartha ClarvoeLynn CorcoranRobert DeBoltJ. Allen FeryokJane & Eugene FosterLeonard FremontWilliam GibsonRobert GinsburgJulian HolmesEdwin Lamb

WITH SPECIAL THANKS

Sally LawsonEdward & Marjorie LeeMurray & Addie LevineDan MacDougallMichael & Louise MalakoffBill & Agnes MartinKenneth and Katherine

MountcastleGeorge MorrenThomas PetersonElyse PivnickZoe RothchildNancy SampsonWilliam SheltonRoger & Joan SmithMartha VinickBrad & Ann Wallace

Matching GiftsC.R. Bard

COMMUNITYGROUPS

Montanans Against ToxicBurning (MT)

Pennsylvania EnvironmentalNetwork (PA)

Sustainable Resources (MN)Women’s Voices for the Earth

(MT)

INSTITUTIONSMethodist Federation for Social

Action

pass SEPA has been spearheaded by Beyond Pesticides (Na-tional Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides).

Keep a close watch on the SEPA bill, as we will all have achance to fight for its passage again. Until then, we’ll continueto work on state and local policies that protect children frompesticides.

For more information on the Child Proofing Our Com-munities campaign or to read our report Creating SafeLearning Zones, please visit our web site atwww.childproofing.org. ■

STOP DIOXINcontinued from page 21

CHILD PROOFING OUR COMMUNITIEScontinued from page 20

The Center for Health, Environment and Justice remains an advocate, educator, organizer and leader in the grassrootsenvironmental movement through the generous support of our members, Partners, Guardians and key foundationsand institutions. CHEJ would like to acknowledge the following individuals and institutions who made critically im-

portant donations to support our work between March 8, 2002 and June 17, 2002. Our members number in the hundreds, andare therefore too many to name. However, each gift, no matter what the size, is very much appreciated.

nation that remain throughout the country. Many of the U.S.and international presentations provided general summariesof the adverse health effects associated with exposure to di-oxin in communities around the world. Following the confer-ence, NIEHS held a closed meeting with Vietnamese scientiststo hammer out an agreement on joint research to be done bythe U.S. and Vietnamese governments to address the impactof the spraying. The Vietnamese are asking the U.S. to cleanup identified hot spots and to provide humanitarian aid to ad-dress the many health problems, while the U.S. is only will-ing to fund basic research projects.

NIEHS intends to make all of the papers presented at theconference available on their web site. For more information,see the NIEHS web site at www.niehs.nih.gov/external/usvcrp/project1.htm.

TOXIC COMEDY A BIG SUCCESS

On May 5th, HBO premiered the toxic comedy, Blue Vi-nyl, a story of one woman’s search for a non-toxic alternativeto her parents’ blue vinyl siding. Over the course of her search,the audience meets community people living on the fencelineof PVC manufacturing plants, workers who turn raw PVC intoconsumer products, scientific experts who talk about the dan-gers of dioxin, alternative building experts promoting non-PVC alternatives, and the widows of laborers in Venice, Italy

who died making toxic PVC. Despite the important and poi-gnant message about the hazards of PVC, Blue Vinyl is anaccessible, funny and delightful film that audiences love. Ifyou are interested in holding a Blue Vinyl screening in yourcommunity, please email the Stop Dioxin Exposure campaignat [email protected].

Thus far, over 60 community groups across the countryhave planned more than 80 viewing events to help educatethe public on the dangers of PVC and dioxin. For details oncommunity events that have already taken place throughoutthe U.S., check out the box in Action Line on page 14.

For more information on the Stop Dioxin Exposure cam-paign, please visit our web site at www.chej.org. ■

CHEJ and the grassroots environmental movement have begun the COUNTDOWN tothe 25th anniversary of Love Canal—the community struggle that woke up the nation tothe threat posed by toxic pollution. The community at Love Canal won the relocation of900 families—and started a broadbased grassroots movement that has changed thecountry. The movement’s accomplishments are many:

• Federal, state and local regulations have been passed to clean up toxic pollution.

• Commercial landfilling of hazardous waste has declined.

• Right-to-know laws have been enacted that force corporations to reveal theirpolluting practices.

• The recycling rate nationwide has almost tripled.

• The demand to eliminate pesticides in schools has gained momentum across the country.

The movement is now at a milestone—and ready to move on to the next phase.

Almost 25 Years Since Love Canal

CHEJ and other leaders will be developing and circulating a platform—based on theprecautionary principle—that we hope will become a guide to public policy. We need yourparticipation to develop this platform—and to make the campaign a success. Events will beheld to celebrate local victories, raise funds and educate the public and policy makers.

Don’t be surprised if someone from CHEJ contacts you about the campaign. Your voiceand participation will play a vital role in our efforts. Stay tuned for more information—we’reonly nine months away from the campaign launch date!

You can be part of the launching of this next stage by participating inthe yearlong campaign to educate and organize for public health.

A note on our mailing labels:Expires: [date]=Date subscription expiresLast or final issue=Time to renew your subscription

CHEJP.O.Box 6806Falls Church, VA 22040(703) 237-2249

Non-Profit Org.U.S.Postage PaidMerrifield, VAPermit No. 6484

E veryone’s Backyard

Documents