Environmental Justice

The study topic is based on an Environmental Justice Case Study of Waste Technologies Industries, Inc. and the Fight Against a Hazardous Waste Incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. The two key research questions are: What is the relationship between the existence of Waste Technologies Industry Inc.’s incinerator and the health of persons living in the Ohio River floodplain in East Liverpool?

What are the duties of authorities in Columbiana County, Ohio State, and the United States, as well as other environmental stakeholders, in mitigating the health consequences of flue gas emissions, from the Waste Technologies Industry Inc. incinerator based in East Liverpool?

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The research will seek to prove the following hypotheses, in order to ascertain their level or how untrue they are. Therefore, the whole research will be aimed to test these hypotheses which will act as the research parameters.

Constructing the incinerator on a floodplain

There is a big relationship between the types of ailments suffered by the residents living in the floodplain of Ohio River and the emission of flue gases by the Waste Technologies Inc.’s incinerator.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND HOW IT WAS USED

The research design used was a case study on the WTI problem. To be able to understand the problem, the case study narrowed down the whole crises and was used to identify the main key points in understanding the whole incinerator issue:

The incinerator is located in Ohio river at a floodplain area while the area around is elevated on a bluff such that the windows of buildings are leveled with incinerator’s stack. Just at 1100 feet from the incinerator, an elementary school is located yet in August, Ohio passed a law that prohibits any incinerator within 2000 feet from a hospital, prison, school or floodplain. In 2015, EPA presented a 20-page document which detailed the possible criminal and civil penalties which the incinerator could face for its continued operation. According to EPA, the incinerator exposes the residents living nearby to chemicals which can cause cancer, miscarriages and possible early deaths.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The adoption of waste incineration as a method of solid waste management was adopted in the United States in 2006 after many years of debate and modification of the idea to ensure that it provided a better alternative in the disposal of solid waste. The necessary authorities skeptically adopted the idea because they feared that it could expose human beings and the environment to hazardous substances and consequently affect them. As a result, household and farm waste were allowed to be incinerated, although only in small quantities and as long as it did not affect other. Subsequently, some states such as Wisconsin, New York, and Minnesota have made certain rules and regulations to regulate incineration of waste based on the level of health threat that the exercise poses (Dyke, Foan & Fiedler, 2016).

The process of incineration produces flue gas which is released to the atmospheres. Although some incinerators have adopted the use of flue gas cleaning system, others still release the gas into the atmosphere without cleaning it. Flue gas contains many pollution components such as particles, dioxins, furans, and Sulphur (IV) oxide, which are harmful to human body. Moreover, some flue gas emissions contain heavy metals such as mercury and lead and when emitted into the atmosphere, they have numerous health effects on the human body.

A lot of studies have been done on the possible effects of Flue gas emissions on the biodiversity and the various ways through which these substances get into the human body. For instance, Czuczwa and Hites in their research found out that dioxins and furans which are a product of incineration’s heat system get indirectly to the human body system through the food chain such as animal products which contain fat, milk and meat. Although they may take longer to get into the human body, their accumulation may eventually bring bad health effects (Czuczwa & Hites, 2014). Dioxins and furans cause cancer to human beings while also affecting the process of growth and development human body and its systems. People living in different areas have different body concentrations of furans and dioxins and although there are no certain safe levels of these substances, their high presence in human body makes it susceptible to cancer (Cunliffe & Williams, 2009).

Furthermore, flue gases have high concentrations of PCB’s. Although these substances are found in 209 different forms, the PCB 153 and 180 make the most frequent and yet dangerous forms. These substances accumulate in water bodies and get to the human body through the fish food. Researchers have been trying to establish the possible types of wastes whose incinerations emit poisonous lead into the atmosphere. Furthermore, Ferro industries, as well as paint manufacturers, are the leading sources of lead in the environment, contributing about 21% of the total poisonous lead found in the environment today (Nriagu, 2011).

MAJOR KEY ACTORS OF WTI

Waste Technologies Industry-Due to the financial support it offers to the area, it has garnered citizen support and political support. Von Roll America, a Swiss company owns and operates the WTI.

Ohio Governor George Voinovich- Even though the governor is capable of stopping the incinerator from operating, he has not stopped the company from operating saying that the pleas have become too emotional.

Tri-State Environmental Council- This group is the primary resource for citizens concerned about WTI.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- EPA has been accused of favoring WTI without regarding the public’s pleas and woes.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency- Ohio, EPA, has the right to issue or revoke a permit to WTI but has not yet reissued or revoked their operating permit.

Save our country- This is a citizen opposition group that was formed to oppose the approval of the permit of the incinerator when it began.

DEMOGRAPHICS

East Liverpool has a population of around 13000 people with the majority of the people living in the immediate vicinity of the incinerator. Majority of the residents live in poverty or are near the poverty level. The children and the elderly comprise the larger population and are therefore susceptible to health risks created by fumes from the incinerator. With poverty experienced in the area, respiratory problems might be hard to treat as they may not be able to pay for the bills.

HOW CASE STUDY PROVIDED SOLUTIONS

Using this research design, the case study was able to provide ways in which possible solutions can be met with the research questions. The methods were;

Building a Coalition- citizens in the Tri-state area had to form coalition groups that were monitored the incinerator.

Gathering Information and Networking- Groups like Save our Country and the main group of about 10 locals monitors operation of the incinerator closely

Gaining support from non-governmental organizations-Greenpeace efforts brought a lot of help to the people concerning WTI.

Strengths of the Case study

The case study was comprehensive as it provides a holistic review concerning the West Technologies industries. It identifies the problem, cause of the problem, ways to come up with solutions and provides solutions to the problems as well.

The case study stimulated new research i.e. learning about flue gas whereby a research conducted by Dyke, Foan & Fiedler on the effects of the PCB’s produced by incineration facilities on human body which explains that the substances could be attributed to the lower weights of natal babies as well as high effects on the human immune system (Dyke, Foan & Fiedler, 2016).

Weaknesses of using a case study

The case study gave contradicting ideas that are established i.e WTI brings financial resources to the area making it gain support but the people living there are still campaigning to have the incinerator removed.

The case study gave a Hawthorne effect-When the company knew that it was being observed, measures started being taken such that

HYPOTHESIS TESTING

Data was collected on people that died because of cancer. It was noted that Ohio citizen recorded local school children as having increased levels of mercury. Air quality was tested by the EPA and the air was found to be polluted by the fumes which cause cancer.

References

Cunliffe, A. M., & Williams, P. T. (2009). De-novo formation of dioxins and furans and the memory effect in waste incineration flue gases. Waste Management, 29(2), 739-748.

Czuczwa, J. M., & Hites, R. A. (1984). Environmental fate of combustion-generated polychlorinated dioxins and furans. Environmental science & technology, 18(6), 444-450.

Dyke, P. H., Foan, C., & Fiedler, H. (2003). PCB and PAH releases from power stations and waste incineration processes in the UK. Chemosphere, 50(4), 469-480.

Fischbein, W. T. (1993). Alternative Dispute Resolution in Hazardous Waste Siting: A Solution for Ohio and East Liverpool. Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol., 9, 399.

Nriagu, J. O. (1988). A silent epidemic of environmental metal poisoning?. Environmental pollution, 50(1-2), 139-161.