The WTI struggle is a regional issue that drew much national attention during the early 1990's, much to the credit of organizer Terri Swearingen, a citizen of Chester, W. VA. who coordinates the Tri-State Environmental Council. Tri-State Environmental Council became outraged by the various environmental problems that the WTI facility has created for several reasons. First, there has never been a comprehensive study of the potential health effects upon the surrounding community, either from inhalation of toxics or accumulation of materials (such as dioxin, a known carcinogen) in fatty tissues and subsequent transmission via mother's milk or the food chain. Also, the incinerator will be pumping hazardous chemicals into the environment, including mercury and other heavy metals. It is expected to emit 4.5 tons of lead per year, and this less than 400 yards from an elementary school and residential area.
Foremost, issues of environmental justice have been avoided by regulatory officials through this struggle, although it has been observed that East Liverpool and the surrounding communities are predominantly low-income and minority neighborhoods. These neighborhoods have already incurred adverse environmental effects from existing local industry. Government response during the reauthorization process for WTI as well as towards these concerns has been conspicuously slow.
There have been repeated discrepancies in ownership throughout the permit application process. RCRA permits are not transferrable between parties, thus the Ohio Attorney General declared the permits invalid. Furthermore, the initial permit applications were not signed, and thus technically cannot be issued. The initial permits listed Columbiana Port Authority as part owner of the facility. Later, Columbiana Port Authority asked to be removed from the permit, and may have been listed as part owner simply because the land on which WTI sits was once owned by the Port Authority. The land then taken in emminent domain from the Port Authority, later to be sold to WTI. Emminent domain requires that a public entity show "proper public purpose" before it acquires property for public use. Whether WTI's incinerator demonstrates proper public purpose is obviously still at question by the community of East Liverpool.
WTI's facility seems to have escaped various environmental regulations. For example, an Ohio law passed in August 1984 prohibits any incinerator within 2000 feet of a school, hospital, prison or in a floodpain. However, WTI was exempted because the new policy did not go into effect until after pending appeals were resolved with the WTI case and permits granted in January 1985. Later, the 18 month moratorium on new incinerators imposed by U.S. EPA in 1992 would exempt WTI and other incinerators that had already begun the permit application process, as did a 1991 moratorium on new hazardous waste incinerators in the state of Ohio.
Citizens opposing the incinerator filed suit to enjoin the incinerator in Ohio and Pennsylvania District courts under provisions of RCRA. However, the lawsuit failed becauses do not have discretion to issue, revoke, deny or otherwise affect permits for hazardous waste incinerators. Hearings concerning WTI have been held before U.S. Senate and House Committees. However, none of these actions produced evidence that the EPA would consider grounds for the "automatic revocation" of the RCRA permit.
Below are some charts that detail several demographic characteristics of East Liverpool. All information is taken from 1990 U.S. Census Data.
It is important to note that children and the elderly make up a large proportion of total population in East Liverpool. It is obvious that these two population groups are most susceptible to health risks created by polluted air, especially during periods of air inversion.
As stated, a significant proportion of households in East Liverpool lives on $15,000 or less annually. This might imply that much of the population would be unable to move if air quality continues to decline as a result of the WTI incinerator. Further, it is likely that few households can afford health care to help cover costs of possible damage to their respiratory systems.
New developments concerning WTI suggest that there may still be opportunity for action that will benefit the citizens of East Liverpool and the surrounding area. In order to successfully resolve this case, large numbers of citizens must be mobilized to pressure their elected officials to hold governmental agencies accountable. As Terri Swearingen said, when a battle has been ongoing for sixteen years, it's difficult to get mass participation. She said that the residents near WTI are far from apathetic, but they are beginning to feel discouraged. She states, "We're just not going to get 1500 people to participate in a demonstration like we used to be able to." Should the battle begin on a national level again, environmentalists must be prepared to act. When the problems are as deep-rooted and pervasive as they have been with the WTI facility, the government needs to hear that people disapprove. Many people mistakenly believe that the WTI struggle is over, because the facility is currently operating. However, there are opportunities for action right now. Citizens involved in WTI need to actively seek national attention once again.
The citizens involved in the fight against the Waste Technologies Industries, Inc. hazardous waste incinerator have been successful. They built strong coalitions, engaged in a multitude of non-violent protests and civil disobedience, drew media attention to their cause through press conferences and staged events, garnered national support, engaged in litigation, and gained access to elected and administrative officials at the local, state and federal level. Nonetheless, their actions have not resulted in the attainment of their goal, which is to either (a) prevent the facility's further operation, or (b) restrict its operation such that chlorine wastes and heavy metals will not be processed there and no waste burned at all during periods of air inversion.
The struggle against WTI should be continued. Not only have irregularities and misconducts been identified in the permitting process, and principles established that render the WTI incinerator illegal or questionable, but the citizens have already been very successful in bringing the hazards associated with such incinerators to national attention. They deserve national support from environmentalists as well. It was their persistent efforts that brought more stringent regulation of hazardous waste incinerators nationwide, and it is grossly unfair that these victories cannot be used to defeat the hazardous waste incinerator in their own community.
One may request a 1995 Facility Master Report for WTI. These are made available by OMB Watch and Unison Institute, through the Right-To-Know Network (RTK NET)'s copies of a number of EPA databases.
Information may also be obtained from the citizens' organizations at the forefront of this long struggle:
Terri Swearingen, Tri-State Environmental Council (304) 387-0574
Alonzo Spencer, Save Our County (216) 385-4584
Personal Communications
Park, Mike. Public relations manager at the WTI facility. Telephone interview on 26 March 1996.
Sederstrom, Scott. Great Lakes United. Worked for Greenpeace on this issue. Personal Communication on 28 March 1996.
Swearingen, Terri. Tri-State Environmental Council. Telephone interview on 21 November 1996.
Letters
Gore, Senator Albert, Jr., and Senators Arlen Specter, Robert Byrd, Howard Metzenbaum, John Rockefeller, Harris Wofford, and John Glenn, with Congressman Alan Mollohan, unpublished letter to Mr. Charles A. Bowsher, Comptroller General of the United States General Accounting Office, 7 December 1992.
Guimond, Richard. Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, unpublished memorandum to Carol Browner, Administrator, 22 January 1993.
Marshall, D.J.B., President of Von Roll, Inc., unpublished letter to Hon. J. Danforth Quayle, Vice-President of the United States of America, 21 May 1992.
Metzenbaum, Senator Howard M., unpublished letter to Mr. Richard J. Guimond, Deputy Assistant Administrator, USEPA, 24 July 1992.
Swearingen, Terri. Tri-State Environmental Council. Unpublished letter to the Honorable Lee Fisher, 23 August 1993.
Van Kley, Jack. Environmental Enforcement Section, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, unpublished letter to Terri Swearingen, Tri-State Environmental Council, 22 September 1993.
Government Publications
Report to Congressional Requesters: Hazardous Waste Issues Pertaining to an Incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. General Accounting Office, RCED-94-101, September 1994.
Report on the Technical Workshop on WTI Incinerator Risk Issues. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/630/R-94/001, December 1993.
Turley, Jonathan, Professor of Law, Director of the Environmental Crimes Project, George Washington University. Statement to Congressional Symposium on the WTI Incinerator, 6 December 1993.
Newspapers
Adler, Jerry. "It's Not Easy Being Green." Newsweek, 28 December 1992. p 66.
Brookes, Jay. "Liverpool Mayor Calls For Healing in City Address." Morning Journal, 5 January 1993, 6A.
Brown, T.C. "Citizen's Arrest." The Plain Dealer, 7 June 1993.
Brown, T.C. "Incinerator Still Sparking Debate." The Plain Dealer, 8 May 1993.
Brown, T.C. "WTI Sought Quayle's Aid." The Plain Dealer, 5 August 1992.
Bukro, Casey. "Two Court Cases Could Douse the Burning of Toxic Waste." Chicago Tribune, 12 February 1993.
Chalfant, John. "Incinerator Ban Won't Affect WTI." Morning Journal, 17 December 1992.
Coeyman, Marjorie. "WTI Battles for Hearts and Minds of Its Neighbors." Chemical Week, 8 December 1993.
Cooney, Catherine. "VP-Elect Gore's Probe of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permit Worries Industrial Waste Generators," Environmental Protection News, 8 January 1993.
Gorisek, Susan. "The Housewife That Roared." Ohio Week. 31 December 1993.
Hanson, David. "Gore Asks for Probe of Ohio Waste Incinerator." Chemical and Engineering News, 14 December 1992.
Hanson, David. "Hazardous Waste Incineration Presents Legal, Technical Challenges." Chemical and Engineering News, 29 March 1993.
Hopey, Don. "Incinerator Health, Safety Issues Fuel Debate (first of four-part series)." The Pittsburgh Press, 15 March 1992.
Hopey, Don. "Safety Concerns Hound Incinerator Industry (second of four-part series)." The Pittsburgh Press, 16 March 1992.
Hopey, Don. "Communities in State Resist Incinerators (third of four-part series)." The Pittsburgh Press, 17 March 1992.
Hopey, Don. "Incinerator Neighbors Mistrust Government (last of four-part series)." The Pittsburgh Press, 18 March 1992.
Kemezis, Paul. "Court Blocks Ohio Incinerator." Chemical Week, 17 March 1993.
Robbins, Richard. "Some See Motive for Administrative Flip-Flop on WTI." Sunday Tribune-Review, 10 April 1994.
Schneider, Keith. "Agency Head Removes Herself From Decision on Ohio Incinerator." The New York Times, 8 February 1993.
Schneider, Keith. "Gore to Try to Halt WTI Plant." The Plain Dealer, 7 December 1992.
Schneider, Keith. "Incinerator Trial is Blocked, Leading to Test of New Administration." The New York Times, 18 January 1993.
Schneider, Keith. "Ohio Orders New Public Review of Hazardous Waste Incinerator." The New York Times, 4 July 1993.
Seraile, Brian. "Browner Cautious on WTI Queries." Evening Review, 12 January 1993.
Shryock, Todd. "300 Attend Rally for WTI." Evening Review, 4 January 1993.
Smith, Erik. "Incinerator Plans Worry Farmers." Tri-City Herald, 18 February 1993.
Wise, Dennis. "Eating Beef Raised Near WTI Poses Threat." Evening Review, 10 February 1993.
Wise, Dennis. "Traficant Wants School Moved." Evening Review, 10 December 1992.
"WTI Unit to Meet Dioxin Rule." ENR, 26 July 1993.