NEXT PAGE -->
|
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN LOUISIANA
by Charlie Cray and Monique Harden*
Alongside the Missisippi River in southern Louisiana, a tiny, predominantly African-American community called Convent (population 2052) is locked in struggle with a giant Japanese chemical corporation called Shintech. In 1996, Shintech announced plans to spend $700 million building 3 chemical factories and an incinerator next to homes and schools in Convent, but the local people are just saying No. Each year, the Shintech plant in Convent would produce 1.1 billion pounds of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, better known as vinyl). Shintech officials acknowledge that their "state of the art" plant would be permitted to emit 611,700 pounds of toxic air contaminants each year, many of them known to be potent carcinogens. That's almost 300 pounds of industrial poisons for each man, woman and child in Convent each year. The people of Convent see Shintech's plan as a continuation of years of race, class and environmental injustice --more disadvantaged people being dumped on by the chemical industry. The chemical industry sees it as a continuation of past triumphs.
What began as a local struggle to stop Shintech in Louisiana has grown into a national and international debate over (a) the power of civil rights laws to stop polluting industries from locating in communities of color, and (b) the need for a phase-out of PVC.
Under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, residents of Convent have filed a complaint with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), charging that their civil rights were violated by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's [LDEQ] 1997 decision to issue air permits to Shintech. EPA's regulations under Title VI prohibit racial discrimination either as an intent or consequence of state environmental agency actions. The civil rights law gives EPA the authority to intervene in state permitting decisions. Living with over 16 million pounds of toxic air releases every year from ten surrounding industries, Convent residents make a very strong case that the state of Louisiana has been guilty of environmental racism for years.[1]
Convent is located in St. James Parish, in the heart of "Cancer Alley," the 85-mile stretch along the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans where there are presently over 140 petrochemical and other industrial plants. (In Louisiana, counties are called parishes.) Convent is over 80% African-American, and 40% of its 2052 residents live at or below poverty level.[2] According to EPA's ongoing Title VI investigation, Shintech would expose the African-American population in St. James Parish to anywhere from 71% to 242% more airborne industrial poisons than the white population.[3] In 1995, 10 facilities within 4.5 miles of the two elementary schools in Convent emitted over 16 million pounds of toxic air pollutants, an average of 250,000 pounds of industrial poisons per square mile; the national average is 382 pounds per square mile.[4] A recent study examining cancer deaths in St. James Parish found an excess mortality of 41% for whites and 59% for African-Americans for the years 1979-1992.[5]
Four years before Shintech announced its plans for Convent, the Louisiana State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a report on environmental racism in Louisiana. The Committee concluded that, "many black communities located along the industrial corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans are disproportionately impacted by the present State and local government system for permitting and expansion of hazardous waste and chemical facilities.... In spite of the disproportionate impact upon certain communities, the State and local governments have failed to establish regulations or safeguards to ensure such communities are reasonably protected from a high concentration of hazardous waste and industrial facilities and risk associated with living in and around such facilities."[6]
During more than two years of battle, Convent area residents have been steadfast in their opposition to Shintech. Some residents say they oppose Shintech because they want a healthy future for their children and grandchildren. Others base their opposition on the environmental degradation of their community that has already occurred as a result of massive industrial development.
Under the banner cry "Enough is enough!" residents have joined together to form St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment.[7] Reaching out to a diverse coalition of supporters, residents have gained the help of the Rev. Jesse Jackson, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC, founded by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.), EPA's National Environmental Advisory Committee (NEJAC), and all of the members of the U.S. Congressional Black Caucus. Residents are united in their opposition to Shintech and their unity crosses racial lines. As one newspaper reported, "Had the Romeville Elementary School [where a Shintech permit hearing was held in January] been a boat it would have capsized. One side was filled with Shintech opponents, the other side a small group of Shintech supporters."[8]
In March of this year, EPA issued its INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR INVESTIGATING TITLE VI ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS challenging new pollution permits.[9] EPA's GUIDANCE document was intended to help EPA's Office of Civil Rights process a backlog of citizens' complaints that allege discrimination resulting from the issuance of environmental permits. As of August, 58 Title VI complaints had been filed with EPA. EPA has acknowledged that the Shintech case is shaping its Title VI policy.[10]
A corporate backlash has developed against EPA's Title VI initiative, led by the National Association of Manufacturers. The Environmental Council of States (an association of state environmental agencies), the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and a number of corporate-funded think tanks such as the Washington Legal Foundation have been vocal in criticizing the emerging Title VI guidance or calling for its elimination.
Corporate critics charge that EPA's efforts to enforce the civil rights law will derail other federal programs, such as brownfields, which is EPA's plan to find new uses for Superfund dump sites in rundown urban areas. The Congressional Black Caucus says there is no conflict between Title VI and brownfields. They say the brownfields program requires meaningful community participation. A well-run brownfields project would not violate the civil rights of people of color because they would be involved in the program's design and implementation, the Caucus says. Nor would citizens object to a project if they saw that it provided jobs without threatening their health or environment. As Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) put it, "dirty industries are not the only option for revitalizing poor communities."[11] None of the 58 Title VI complaints filed with EPA has involved a brownfields project.
EPA was expected to issue a decision on the Shintech civil rights case this summer. However, in June, EPA asked its Science Advisory Board (SAB) to review its techniques for assessing disproportionate "burden." The SAB review has delayed further action. EPA's assessment of disproportionate "burden" combines 1990 census data and industry-reported air emissions estimates. Unfortunately, EPA has never independently assessed the quality of the industry-reported emissions data. An initial response from the SAB is expected in October. By deferring to its Science Advisory Board, EPA evidently hopes to appear scientific in its reasoning, not political. However, EPA has played politics in numerous attempts to offer residents lower emission levels from surrounding industries in exchange for the construction and operation of Shintech's chemical behemoth.[12] Residents have consistently refused such offers, demanding that area industries should be reducing overall emissions even if Shintech is sent packing.
Lawyers describe the Shintech case as a BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION for the environmental justice movement. (BROWN VS. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOPEKA was the federal lawsuit that ended the official policy of apartheid in U.S. schools, in 1954.) The ultimate decision by EPA or the courts will answer the $700 million question: can environmental regulators say "no" to Shintech in defense of an African-American community already enduring significantly elevated levels of industrial poisons in the air?
The failure by Louisiana state government to protect the environment of communities of color, as reported by the state Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, has turned ugly. Louisiana authorities and corporations have launched --there is no other word for it --VICIOUS attacks against Convent residents and their supporters. Louisiana Governor Mike Foster first claimed the community favored the Shintech proposal. When that failed, Foster brutally maligned the Tulane Environmental Law Clinic for providing legal assistance to Convent residents and threatened to revoke Tulane University's tax exempt status. Foster's threats, multiplied by contributions from allied corporations, led the Louisiana Supreme Court in June to set draconian new rules that prohibit the Clinic from ever again representing a client group like the St. James Citizens for Jobs and the Environment --a stunning setback for any group that needs an attorney and can't afford one. The Foster administration has also investigated and threatened to take away the non-profit tax status of organizations that have opposed Shintech at public hearings (such as Louisiana Environmental Action Network [LEAN], Louisiana Communities United, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others). Governor Foster has pledged to devote the resources of his entire administration to locating the Shintech PVC plant in Convent. As the Governor explained to a New Orleans newspaper columnist, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality's (LDEQ) job is "to go out and make it as easy as they can within the law" for Shintech to get their permits.[13]
Shintech Vice President of Manufacturing Erv Shroeder says, "Shintech's siting decision has been based upon its assessment of basic economic factors such as availability of raw materials, direct access to deep water and access to rail transportation. At no point during the site selection process did Shintech consider the racial composition or income-earning composition of the surrounding residents."[14] But that is exactly the point. The people of Convent, just like many other communities that face the same kind of malign neglect, are tired of being treated as invisible by transnational corporations that are blind to everything except the local resources they can exploit. They say, "Enough is Enough!"
DRUGS IN THE WATER
A new class of water pollutants has been discovered during the past six years.[1] Pharmaceutical drugs given to people and to domestic animals --including antibiotics, hormones, strong pain killers, tranquilizers, and chemotherapy chemicals given to cancer patients --are being measured in surface water, in groundwater, and in drinking water at the tap. Large quantities of drugs are excreted by humans and domestic animals, and are distributed into the environment by flushing toilets and by spreading manure and sewage sludge onto and into soil.
German scientists report that anywhere from 30 to 60 drugs can be measured in a typical water sample, if anyone takes the time to do the proper analyses.[2] The concentrations of some drugs in water are comparable to the low parts-per-billion (ppb) levels at which pesticides are typically found.[1] To some people this is reassuring, but others are asking, "What is the long-term effect of drinking, day after day, a dilute cocktail of pesticides, antibiotics, pain killers, tranquilizers and chemotherapy agents?" Of course no one knows the answer to such a question --it is simply beyond the capabilities of science to sort out the many chemical interactions that could occur in such a complex chemical soup. The only solution to such a problem would be prevention.
The first study that detected drugs in sewage took place at the Big Blue River sewage treatment plant in Kansas City in 1976. The problem was duly recorded in scientific literature and then ignored for 15 years.[3] In 1992, researchers in Germany were looking for herbicides in water when they kept noticing a chemical they couldn't identify.[4] It turned out to be clofibric acid (CA), a drug used by many people in large quantities (1 to 2 grams per day) to reduce cholesterol levels in the blood.[1] Clofibric acid is 2-(4)-chlorophenoxy-2-methyl propionic acid, a close chemical cousin of the popular weed killer 2,4-D.[1] Based on that early discovery, the search for clofibric acid (CA) in the environment was stepped up.
Since 1992, researchers in Germany, Denmark and Sweden have been measuring CA and other drugs in rivers, lakes, and the North Sea. To everyone's surprise, it turns out that the entire North Sea contains measurable quantities of clofibric acid. Based on the volume of the Sea, which is 12.7 quadrillion gallons (1.27 x 10E16 gallons), and the average concentration of CA, which is 1 to 2 parts per trillion (ppt), researchers estimate that the Sea contains 48 to 96 tons of clofibric acid with 50 to 100 tons entering the Sea anew each year.[1] The Danube River in Germany and the Po River in Italy also contain measurable quantities of clofibric acid.[5,6] Of more immediate concern to humans is the finding that tap water in all parts of the city of Berlin contains clofibric acid at concentrations between 10 and 165 ppt.[5] The water supplies of other major cities remain to be tested.
As a result of this European work, a few U.S. researchers are now beginning to pay attention to drugs in the environment. Individual scientists within the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been concerned about this problem for a decade,[7] but so far FDA has taken the official position that excreted drugs are not a problem because the concentrations found in the environment are usually below one part per billion (ppb).[2]
Drugs are designed to have particular characteristics. For example, 30% of the drugs manufactured between 1992 and 1995 are lipophilic, meaning that they tend to dissolve in fat but not in water.[8] This gives them the ability to pass through cell membranes and act inside cells. Unfortunately, it also means that, once they are excreted into the environment, they enter food chains and concentrate as they move upward into larger predators. Many drugs are also designed to be persistent, so that they can retain their chemical structure long enough to do their therapeutic work. Unfortunately, after they are excreted, such drugs also tend to persist in the environment. A landfill used by the Jackson Naval Air Station in Florida contaminated groundwater with a plume of chemicals that has been moving slowly underground for more than 20 years. The drugs pentobarbital (a barbiturate), meprobamate (a tranquilizer sold as Equanil and Miltown) and phensuximide (an anticonvulsant) are still measurable in that groundwater plume.[8,pg.362]
When a human or an animal is given a drug, anywhere from 50% to 90% of it is excreted unchanged. The remainder is excreted in the form of metabolites --chemicals produced as byproducts of the body's interaction with the drug. Researchers report that some of the metabolites are more lipophilic and more persistent than the original drugs from which they were derived. Because of the complexity of the chemistry involved in drug metabolism, and the interactions of the metabolites with the natural environment, Danish researchers say is it "practically impossible to estimate predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) of any medical substances with available knowledge."[8,pg.385]
Yet U.S. regulatory policy for new drugs depends entirely upon estimating concentrations that might result from excretion. When a new drug is proposed for market, FDA requires the manufacturer to conduct a risk assessment that estimates the concentrations that will be found in the environment. If the risk assessment concludes that the concentration will be less than one part per billion, the drug is assumed to pose acceptable risks.[2] FDA has never turned down a proposed new drug based on estimated environmental concentrations, and no actual testing is conducted after a drug is marketed to see if the environmental concentration was estimated correctly.
German chemists have found that many drugs can be measured at environmental concentrations that exceed one ppb. And of course several drugs measured together can exceed one ppb. Furthermore, there is ample evidence from research conducted during the past decade showing that some chemicals have potent effects on wildlife at concentrations far below one ppb. For example estradiol, the female sex hormone (and a common water pollutant), can alter the sex characteristics of certain fish at concentrations of 20 ppt, which is 1/50 of one ppb.[2]
Another problem resulting from drugs in the environment is bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics. The general problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been recognized for more than a decade. (See REHW #402.) Antibiotics are only useful to humans so long as bacteria do not become resistant to their effects. Hospital sewage systems discharge substantial quantities of antibiotics into the environment.[9] Bacteria exposed to antibiotics in sewage sludge, or water, have an opportunity to develop resistance. Janet Raloff of SCIENCE NEWS quotes Stuart Levy, who directs the Center for Adaptation Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University in Boston, saying, "[T]hese antibiotics may be present at levels of consequence to bacteria --levels that could not only alter the ecology of the environment but also give rise to antibiotic resistance."[2]
What can we learn from the emergence of this new problem?
1) Hospitals and the health care industry are the major sources of these problems, especially antibiotics and chemotherapy chemicals.[10] The large national coalition of environmental and health groups, Health Care Without Harm,[11] might consider tackling this difficult but important problem.
2) Sewage sludge provides a major pathway by which drugs enter the environment. Until the drug problem is understood and controlled, it provides a solid scientific rationale for labeling sewage sludge a dangerous soil amendment, the use of which should be forbidden.
3) For a long time, people have worried that the world was going to run out of natural resources. It is now apparent that we have run out places to throw things away. There is no place left where we can throw away exotic substances without affecting people or wildlife (upon whose well being we ultimately depend).
From the viewpoint of disposal, not many decades ago the world still looked pretty empty. Today there can be no doubt that the world is full --full of people armed with double-edged technologies. To survive in a full world will require quite different attitudes. We need to curb our numbers. We need to curb our technologies. We need to curb our appetites. And we need to operate from a position of humility. We should assume that anything we do will have negative consequences on the rest of the planet. We must limit our technological interventions into nature long before we have definitive scientific proof of harm. This is the principle of precautionary action, and if we don't adopt it, nature will get along just fine without us.
--Peter Montague
ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS
Starting in the 1950s, awareness of environmental destruction developed slowly in the U.S.[1,2] Various events slowly shook the public awake: Atomic fallout from weapons-testing in the years 1956-1963; a nation-wide pesticide scare in 1959; birth defects from the drug thalidomide in 1961; Rachel Carson's book SILENT SPRING in 1962; the discovery of cancer-causing food additives (such as the artificial sweeteners, cyclamates, in 1969); and other byproducts of corporate technology, contributed to a growing awareness of environmental degradation.[3]
By 1965, the dangers of a deteriorating environment were acknowledged at the highest levels of government; the President's Science Advisory Committee in 1965 published RESTORING THE QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, a catalog of pollution problems and their effects on human and environmental health.[4] In 1969, Congress passed the Environmental Policy Act and in 1970 President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by executive order.
Starting in the late 1960s, the modern "environmental movement" took shape as activist lawyers and scientists came to the aid of citizens who were trying to ban the pesticide DDT, prevent air pollution by stopping new highways, discourage nuclear technologies and curb obvious water pollutants such as foaming detergents. During the 1970s, Congress passed a dozen major environmental laws. Environmental groups hired professional staffs who were knowledgeable about technologies, pollutants, regulatory strategies, and politics.
In other industrialized countries, governments and citizens began similar efforts. The governments of Denmark, the Netherlands, Britain, Sweden, West Germany, Japan, France, and Canada passed a series of laws aimed at reversing the trends of environmental destruction. Here and abroad, universities organized seminars and conferences and eventually created whole departments devoted to "environmental studies." A new industry developed, called "environmental consulting," in which highly-paid specialists helped governments and private corporations respond to environmental concerns. The mass media began to devote significant space to environmental problems. In the U.S. environmental reporting became a journalistic specialty and a "Society of Environmental Journalists" was launched. Corporations with tarnished reputations devoted billions of dollars to environmentally-preferable technologies, and created a new public relations industry that specializes in "greenwashing."
Now, after 20 years of intense efforts to reverse the trends of environmental destruction, the question is, are we succeeding?
So far as we know, only one study has tried to answer this question in a rigorous way. The study, called INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS, was published in April 1995 by the National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives in Washington, D.C.[5] In it, the authors measured trends in a wide range of serious environmental problems facing industrial societies. The study relied on the best available data, most of it gathered and maintained by national governments.
The study examined 21 indicators of environmental quality, summarizing the data into a single numerical "environmental index." The index shows that, despite 20 years of substantial effort, each of the nine countries has failed to reverse the trends of environmental destruction. See Table 1.
Table 1
RANKING FROM LEAST TO MOST ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION, 1970-1995
Denmark: -10.6% Netherlands: -11.4% Britain: -14.3% Sweden: -15.5% West Germany: -16.5% Japan: -19.4% United States: -22.1% Canada: -38.1% France: -41.2%
Data from: Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives, 1995), pg. 2.
Here is a brief discussion of the 21 categories of data from which the summary index was calculated:
Air Quality
The study used six measures of air quality: sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, particulate matter (essentially, soot), and carbon dioxide. The first five are called "criteria pollutants" in the U.S. The sixth, carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas, now thought to be contributing to global warming.
The study found successful reductions of sulfur oxides in all nine countries, but also found that acid rain --caused by sulfur oxides --continues to damage forests in Denmark, Britain and Germany. The same is true in the U.S. and Canada, so additional reductions will be needed.
The study did not include "the vast range of hazardous air pollutants, called 'air toxics' in the United States," because "regulatory bodies in the nine countries have failed to comprehensively monitor or regulate most hazardous air pollutants." The study says, "There are roughly 48,000 industrial chemicals in the air in the United States, only a quarter of which are documented with toxicity data."[5,pg.11]
The study also did not include indoor air pollution which is "virtually unmonitored and... probably on the rise in many of the countries surveyed."
The study notes that, "The necessary reductions in NOx [nitrogen oxides] and CO2 [carbon dioxide], it seems, may require far more change than seems politically possible --major reductions in the use of private automobiles, for example."[5,pg.11]
Water quality
Water quality in the index is represented by pollution trends of major rivers within countries. Specific measures include dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, ammonium, and metals. Unfortunately, national trend data on water quality is generally poor, compared to data on air quality. For example, in the U.S., only 29% of the nation's river miles have been monitored.
The study did not include trends in groundwater quality "because most countries do not produce national trend data on groundwater pollution. Yet groundwater in all index countries is contaminated, and by most measures, the problem has worsened since 1970," the study says.[5,pg.13] The study did measure groundwater withdrawals, compared to the natural rate of replenishment of groundwater.
Chemicals
The study measured production of fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.
The chemical industry continues to grow at a rate of 3.5% each year, thus doubling in size every 20 years (see REHW #197, #199). Of the 70,000 chemicals in commercial use in 1995, only 2% had been fully tested for human health effects, and 70% had not been tested for any health effects of any kind. At least 1000 new chemicals are introduced into commercial use each year, largely untested. If all the laboratory capacity currently available in the U.S. were devoted to testing new chemicals, only 500 could be tested each year, the study notes.[5,pg.14] Therefore, even if the necessary funding were made available, there would be no way of ever testing all the chemicals that are currently in use, or all of the new ones being introduced each year.
Wastes
The study examined trends in municipal wastes and nuclear wastes in the nine countries. Both kinds of waste are increasing steadily. Trend data for industrial wastes and hazardous wastes are not available. The study concludes that, "The United States is arguably the most wasteful --that is, waste-generating --society in human history."[5,pg.8]
Land
The study examined the area of wetlands, and the amount of land devoted to woods in each of the nine countries.
Structural barometers of sustainability
Two additional measures were used in developing the index of environmental trends: the amount of energy used by each country, and the total number of automobile miles traveled.
Summary
In sum, this study of environmental quality in nine nations reveals that environmental destruction is continuing, and in some cases accelerating, despite 20 years of substantial effort to reverse these trends. The study concludes, "The index data suggest that achieving across-the-board environmental protection and restoration will require deeper, more fundamental change than has yet been attempted in the countries surveyed."[5,pg.5]
The questions raised by this study seem obvious, at least for the environmental movement:
** Given that we are clearly not succeeding in reversing the trend of environmental destruction, how can we think that by merely redoubling our efforts we will begin to succeed?
** Isn't it time we made some serious effort to evaluate what has worked in the past and what has not worked in the past? It seems clear that most of what has been tried in the past has not worked well enough to make a real difference. How, then, can we justify spending money and time on more of the same?
** Shouldn't we be asking ourselves what path we want to take in the future? Don't we need to identify a path that might achieve "deeper, more fundamental change" than we have aimed for in the past?
--Peter Montague
NEXT PAGE -->
|