The Problem

Document Sample
The Problem Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                                    Liam Kelly
                                                                                       12/8/00
  Environmental Justice Case Study: An Incinerator in Flint,
                         Michigan

Table of Contents:

Problem

Background

Actors

Demographics

Strategies

Solutions

Recommendations

Works Cited
                                         (Map obtained from http://maps.epa.gov/enviromapper)




Problem
         Currently, a large wood fired power plant is operating in an economically

depressed community outside Flint, Michigan. This facility incinerates wood waste to

generate electricity for sale to the Consumer Power Company. However, this facility, the

Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, also generates pollution. This pollution is

released through the incinerator’s smokestack into a community that was already polluted

before the facility was constructed, indeed before the plan for the facility was

contemplated. The incinerator is located in Dort/Carpenter Industrial Park, which is

home to three hazardous waste facilities regulated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), two facilities that emit toxic air pollution, and three facilities that deal

with multiple forms of toxic waste, one of which is a petroleum tank farm

(http://www.epa.gov). In addition, the community is predominantly comprised of people

of color, and of people with low incomes.

       Any situation where a group of people must endure more than their share of

negative environmental consequences constitutes an environmental injustice. Regarding

environmental justice, the EPA holds that, “no group of people, including racial, ethnic,

or socioeconomic group should bear a disproportionate share of the negative

environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial

operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies”

(Lowe 2). The people that live around the Genesee Power Station incinerator are

subject to a disproportionate amount of pollution, making this situation a clear example

of an environmental injustice. Further, the Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality did not address several key issues regarding the community when it approved the

incinerator’s air pollution permit in 1992.

Back to Table of Contents



Background

       The Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership incinerator has been a problem

for the surrounding community since 1992. On December 2, 1992, the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) approved the permit for the facility. The

permit approved the construction of the $80 million incinerator, which was the first in the

state to use demolition wood for fuel. The plant produces 35 megawatts of electricity for
sale to Consumer Power Company, which then sells the energy to residents. The plant

produces enough electricity for 35,000 homes in Flint and the surrounding Genesee

Township. Flint is the largest city in Genesee Township and is comprised of 51.1%

people of color (United for Action 1994).

       The industrial park that the incinerator occupies is in an economically depressed

minority and low-income community. The park is located on the north side of Carpenter

Road in a primarily residential area. An elementary school is located directly to the West

of the industrial park, and there are 14 more schools within a three-mile radius from the

incinerator (United for Action 1994). This means that children on recess outside their

school are subject to harmful air emissions.

       The incinerator generates electricity by burning wood waste, which then heats a

boiler that generates the energy. Some of the wood waste fuel comes from the demolition

of buildings and other structures, and is called demolition wood waste. This demolition

wood is sometimes coated with lead-based paint, and other lead-based substances that

were used in the construction of the demolished buildings. When this demolition wood

coated in lead is burned, lead is released into the air and the surrounding community

through the incinerator’s single smokestack (United for Action 1994).

       Lead is not the only substance the incinerator releases. It is regulated by the

Environmental Protection Agency to release carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,

inorganic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter (http://oaspub.epa.gov). Of

all the emissions, lead is the most harmful to the surrounding community. The Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says that lead is most harmful to young

children, and unborn children. If a pregnant woman is exposed to lead it can be carried to
the unborn child and cause premature birth, low birth weight, or even abortion. Young

children are at risk because they swallow lead when they put toys or other objects soiled

with lead containing dirt in their mouths. For infants and young children, lead has been

proved to cause decreased intelligence test scores, slowed growth, and hearing problems.

Exposure to high levels of lead can cause kidney and brain damage in adults, increased

blood pressure, and can damage the male reproductive system (www.astr.cdc.gov).

       The incinerator uses several measures to try to prevent the emission of lead into

the atmosphere. Some wood waste is cleaned before being burned to remove the toxic

lead substances. Also, the facility uses a multiclone and electrostatic precipitator to trap

lead emissions before they are released through the smokestack (United for Action 4). In

fact, a 1998 press release from the MDEQ states that, “The permit authorized by DEQ is

very protective of the local population.” And that, “lead emissions from the facility

impacting the surrounding neighborhood will be 100 times less than the national

standards for lead emissions” (MDEQ 1).

       However, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality did not address

some key issues regarding lead emissions before issuing the permit for the incinerator in

1992. The MDEQ never prepared an environmental impact statement before issuing the

permit, nor did they attempt to ascertain the amount of lead already present in the

community. Also, MDEQ did not determine if people in the community were already

suffering from exposure to lead, and did not study the potential changes in the amounts of

lead exposure that the incinerator could cause in the community (United for Action 6).

The potential impact on the community was never determined, nor was it even studied.
       In addition, the requirements set by MDEQ for preventing lead-coated wood

waste from burning in the incinerator are lacking. Genesee Power Station was required

to submit a wood waste procurement and monitoring plan to the MDEQ, which would be

used to prevent burning of unacceptable materials. However, the only element of the

plan specified by the MDEQ was the requirement that all wood waste be visually

inspected before being burned. This visual inspection requirement is not enough to

eliminate lead coated wood from the incinerator’s fuel supply. In addition, the permit

states that Genesee Power station should use “extensive processing procedures” (United

for Action 1994) on the wood waste to help decrease the amount of lead burned in the

incinerator.

       These procedures were not defined by the MDEQ or by Genesee Power Station

prior to the facility’s construction. The permit issued in 1992 stated that the procedures

were to be outlined in the wood waste procurement and monitoring plan, which would be

submitted sometime before the facility began operation (United for Action 8). This made

the possibility of implementing more stringent regulations on the facility very unlikely

due to the difficulty of changing technology that would have already been in place. This

placed the community surrounding the facility in a very limited position. The

community’s needs were not recognized by the MDEQ when they approved the

construction of the incinerator, forcing the community to take action.

Back to Table of Contents



Actors
St. Francis Prayer Center and United for Action: These are two community groups

that mobilized to combat the problems presented by the Genesee Power Station

incinerator. These groups are concerned with the well being of their community, and the

quality of their lives. They see the Genesee Power Station incinerator as a threat to their

community’s health, and wish to end its operation. They also believe that the permitting

process that the MDEQ used for Genesee Power Station did not allow for enough

community involvement.



Michigan Department of Environmental Quality: It is the MDEQ’s job to issue

permits for the construction of facilities that emit pollution. The MDEQ’s mission is to

“drive improvements in environmental quality for the protection of public health and

natural resources to benefit current and future generations” (http://www.deq.state.mi.us).

However, the MDEQ must do this “while helping to foster a strong and sustainable

economy” (http://www.deq.state.mi.us). Therefore, the MDEQ is interested in both

economic development, and the quality of the environment. These two interests

frequently come in conflict with one another.



The Guild Law Center: The Guild Law Center (GLC) is a national, non-profit public

interest law center. Their work is focused around pursuing economic justice and

protecting the rights of the economically disenfranchised. The GLC supplied legal

assistance to the community surrounding the Genesee Power Station incinerator.

Attorneys from the GLC handled litigation concerning the incinerator, and were a

valuable resource for the community (http://www.glc.org).
Back to Table of Contents



Demographics

         A demographic analysis of two US Census tracts (data from the 1990 census) that

make up the community around the incinerator yields some interesting results. The data

from the census tracts show that the community is composed of 75.3% minorities and

people of color. A breakdown of all the residents of the community is shown in the table

below.



              Race                                        Percent of Total Population
              White                                       24.7
              Black                                       72.9
              American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut            0.29
              Asian or Pacific Islander                   0.58
              Other Race                                  0.15


           (All census data obtained from http://tier2.census.gov Census tracts 0017 and 0018)



         Also, the 1990 census data show that 47.2% of the total population of the

community is below the poverty line (http://tier2.census.gov). These data show that the

community is clearly economically disenfranchised, and predominantly composed of

minorities and people of color.

         Comparing these data with demographics from Genesee County as a whole also

yields interesting results. 77.3% of the people living in Genesee County are white, and

only 21.1% are black. Other minorities make up less than 2% of the population

(http://www.tier2.census.gov). This comparison shows that the demographics of the

community surrounding the incinerator are not representative of Genesee County.
Therefore, the people living in this community constitute a distinct racial group and bear

a disproportionate amount of the negative impacts associated with the incinerator when

compared to the benefits (electricity) Genesee County receives as a whole. This fits

within the definition of an environmental injustice.

Back to Table of Contents



Strategies

       After the permit for the Genesee Power Station incinerator was issued in 1992,

nine petitions were filed to the EPA Appeals Board in opposition to the incinerator.

These appeals were submitted by community residents, United for Action, the American

Lung Association of Michigan, and the Genesee County Medical Office (United for

Action 5). These petitions were intended to draw attention to the plan for building the

incinerator, and bring about changes in the permit supplied by the MDEQ. The EPA

Appeals board decided to change the language of the permit, but made no real

improvements. The permit did not hold Genesee Power Station responsible for any

negative impacts the incinerator might have on the community, nor did it “contain any

clear, enforceable limitations on the burning of low quality construction and demolition

wood waste at the facility (United for Action 8).” Clearly, the Appeals Board failed to

solve the problem for the community around the incinerator.

       No other legal action was taken against the incinerator until 1995. In the mean

time, the St. Francis Prayer Center and United for Action attempted to gain legal council,

and use the media to draw attention to their problems. The community made numerous

attempts to gain council to open a lawsuit against the MDEQ for approving the permit
that resulted in polluting their homes. Construction began on the facility, and was near

completion in July 1995 when the NAACP and the Guild Law Center filed a lawsuit in an

attempt to shut down the facility and relieve the community (Peters 1999).

        The original lawsuit was titled NAACP vs. Engler. The suit claimed that the state

of Michigan’s approval of the permit for Genesee Power Station violated Title VI of the

federal Civil Rights Act, the Michigan Elliott-Larson Act (the state equivalent of Title

VI), the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, and the equal protection clause of the

Michigan constitution (Peters 1999). The original defendants were Genesee Township,

the State of Michigan and its governor, John Engler. Genesee Power Station was not

sued.

        Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act gives the federal government leverage

over state governments that receive federal funding. If a state’s actions are found to be

discriminatory, the federal government must withdraw its financing (Lowe 1998). In this

case, the community hoped to prove that the State of Michigan’s approval of the

incinerator’s permit was an act of discrimination because it intentionally placed the

incinerator in a poor, minority community. If the community’s lawyers proved a

discriminatory act occurred, then the State of Michigan would have to shut down the

incinerator because of the threat of the federal government withdrawing funds. It was

also necessary for the plaintiffs to prove an act of discrimination occurred to prove their

claims on the state acts.

        In August 1995, the case went to trial at Federal court. The court remanded all

the state law claims to the Genesee Circuit Court, and retained the federal Title VI claim

(Peters1999). In September 1995, the court dismissed the Title VI claim with prejudice.
The plaintiffs were not able to prove that the State of Michigan committed an act of

discrimination, and because the claim was dismissed with prejudice, are unable to bring

that claim to court again. However, the state claims still remained and soon went to trial

(Peters 1999).

       In March 1996, Genesee Power Station (GPS) was added to the list of defendants,

and the case was sent to Genesee Circuit Court. The court came to a settlement on the

Equal Protection claim, and both parties agreed to a dismissal of the claim under the

Michigan Environmental Protection Act. The settlement stipulated that the incinerator

would only burn 20% construction and demolition wood as fuel. The settlement also

allowed GPS to request an increase in this percentage if it could show that its lead

emissions would not exceed 20% of the permitted level (Peters 2). This settlement did

not satisfy the plaintiffs. The discriminatory site of the incinerator was not addressed.

Also, the court did not increase the firmness of the regulations on the procedures used to

prevent the burning of lead-coated demolition wood in the incinerator. A second state

trial followed (Lowe 1998).

       The only remaining strategy was the plaintiff’s claim that the MDEQ’s policy for

determining sites for incinerators had a disparate impact on minority communities in

violation of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Sadly, the court found that the plaintiffs

failed to prove their claim, and the claim was denied. However, some good did come

from this trial. The court held that the policies and regulations enforced by the State of

Michigan did not go far enough to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.

On May 29, 1997, the court enjoined the MDEQ from granting permits to major air

polluters until the MDEQ performed a risk assessment, notified the interested parties and
governmental units that would be affected, and gave them an opportunity to be heard

before the Department. These changes in the MDEQ’s policies would be evaluated at

another trial that was to be held one year later. Until this trial, the MDEQ was barred

from giving permits to air polluters in Genesee County (Lowe 1998). This was in direct

response to the MDEQ’s actions regarding Genesee Power Station’s permit.

       However, this victory was quite short-lived. In 1998 the State of Michigan

appealed the decision of the trial court to the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of

Appeals vacated the injunction, thus successfully overturning the ruling of the trial court.

In regard to the claim under the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act, the Court of Appeals said

that, “allegation that the MDEQ failed to consider race in issuing the permit is simply not

a denial of the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations of a place of public accommodation of public service (Lowe 6).” In

other words, the court decided that the MDEQ did not commit an act of discrimination

when issuing the permit to GPS.

Back to Table of Contents



Solutions

       The community has attempted to solve their problem through almost every legal

avenue possible. The claim under Title VI can never be made in court again, and the

community’s legal council has made all the possible discrimination claims under state

law already. The community has also explored all its options with the EPA and the

MDEQ. The incinerator continues to operate, although it was shut down for a year due to

permit violations (Lowry 2000). This problem is far from being solved.
Back to Table of Contents



Recommendations

       According to Alma Lowry (11/30/2000), the environmental justice representative

at the Guild Law Center, the community needs to continue to use the media to gain

publicity for their cause (Lowry). The worst thing that community groups can do is give

up. Groups like the St. Francis Prayer Center and United for Action need to keep putting

pressure on the EPA and other governmental organization even though their efforts have

failed thus far. Some possible activities could be a letter writing campaign, or staging

non-violent public protests.

       There is one more legal option that the community may be able to explore in the

future, which is a private citizen suit claiming a violation of Title VI. This approach has

never been attempted before, and the EPA is still deciding if it is acceptable (Lowry

2000). Should the EPA decide that it is, the community should defiantly use this legal

avenue to continue their fight against the incinerator.

Back to Table of Contents

Works Cited

Peters, Marilyn A. “Appeals Court Rejects ‘Environmental Justice’ Claims. Washington
Legal Foundation Legal Opinion Letter. 16 April 1999. http://lexis-nexis.com/universe

The State of Michigan. Department of Environmental Quality. Press Release. 30
November 1998. http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pr/981130.html

United for Action. Letter to Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 5. 6
July 1994. Guild Law Center.

Lowe, Suzanne. “Environmental Justice: An Overview.” October 1998.
Http://www.senate.state.mi.us
Lowry, Alma. Personal Interview. 30 November 2000.

Back to Table of Contents

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:27
posted:8/7/2012
language:
pages:13