T A B L E   O F   C O N T E N T S        M A R C H    2 0 0 2

N   E   W   S

Is Harding Covering Up for Dow?

By Gregory V. Button

Take a public official (sworn to uphold the constitution of the state of Michigan and to protect and defend the citizens and the environment), intrepid environmentalists (backed by decades of grassroots activism), dioxins (known to be among the most toxic substances on the planet). Add to that one of the world’s largest corporations (Dow Chemical Company). Finally, as if from Hollywood’s central casting, mix in a couple of insider whistle-blowers, and you have the makings of one of the most intriguing environmental scandals in a decade.

Documents obtained in January by the Michigan Environmental Council (MEC) show that the state has found dioxin levels 80 times its own cleanup standards near parks and residential areas in a floodplain south of the city of Saginaw. Furthermore, the documents also demonstrate that Russell Harding, director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), has blocked further testing and is suppressing a state health assessment that calls for aggressive state action.

According to documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), MDEQ’s response division reported that 29 of its 34 soil samples exceeded the state standard. According to state standards, if dioxin levels exceed 90 parts per trillion (ppt) in a residential area, cleanup is required.

While no one knows for sure the source, or sources, of the contamination, environmentalists — and some DEQ staffers — believe it may have been from Dow Chemical Company’s waste-water treatment plant flood in 1986.

The state discovered the contamination in 2000. However, the high levels of pollution only became public two years later after environmental groups secured the documents in January through FOIA.

The documents further disclose that Harding wants to override MDEQ staff’s recommendations and weaken the state’s cleanup standard for dioxins. An MDEQ employee stated that, based on emerging science, the state standard should be toughened, not weakened.

In a November 20, 2001, e-mail MEC obtained through FOIA, MDEQ Deputy Director Arthur Nash wrote of becoming “uncomfortable” with Harding’s decision and that Harding’s approach is “not protective of public health and not based on the ‘best available information.’”

The central question is this: Why did Harding not immediately inform public health officials, as is the protocol in a situation of this severity? And why did he not approve local and state staff recommendations to immediately conduct further testing to investigate the full extent of the contamination? As an editorial in the Bay City Times stated, “Why weren’t we told earlier?”

If it is proven that the contamination is from the Dow wastewater plant, then Dow Chemical Company would be responsible for a very costly cleanup. Only Dow or other possibly responsible parties benefit from the untimely delays. Says MEC’s Dave Dempsey:

Director Harding is seeking to ignore the preponderance of scientific evidence, which is driving the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to toughen standards to protect the public in order to benefit Dow Chemical Company.

Tracey Easthope, Ecology Center Environmental Health Director, says, “Harding’s actions on this matter are a betrayal of the public trust.”

Diane Hebert, Director of Midland’s Environmental Health Watch, stated, “the evidence points to Harding repeatedly delaying staff effort to discover the extent of the dioxin problem.”

Environmental activists aren’t the only ones disturbed by Harding’s decisions. Some disgruntled MDEQ staffers have grown increasingly frustrated by the their department’s historic failure under the Engler administration to protect and defend Michigan’s citizens and the environment. Some of this is evident in the internal documents. Perhaps because Governer Engler is now a lame duck, some staff have secretively released information that supports environmentalists’ allegations.

After the disclosure of the MDEQ documents and the controversy surrounding them, Harding seemed to back off a little. In an article in Chemical Policy Alert released in the middle of February, he was quoted as saying the Department would not weaken the dioxin standard until the EPA releases its long-awaited scientific reassessment on dioxin.

He then proceded to do the exact opposite. Shortly after Harding’s more moderate statement appeared, MDEQ released proposed rules that would weaken the dioxin cleanup standard. Rejecting his professional staff’s advice, Harding proposed almost doubling Michigan’s dioxin cleanup standard for residential areas from 90 ppt to 150 ppt.

Harding’s rush to judgement seems especially premature since, as noted above, U.S. EPA is about to complete a 12-year reassessment of dioxin risks that validates the increased concern about them. While at least one dioxin compound is a confirmed carcinogen, an emerging body of scienti€c evidence shows that many dioxin compounds can cause birth defects, neurological delays, and chronic ailments. There is good reason to believe that the federal standards will become stricter in light of this and other evidence.

In fact, an MDEQ document that we obtained through FOIA suggests that dioxin levels in many areas of Michigan may be unsafe. According to the document, the U.S. EPA will release a revised draft of “Dioxin Reassessment” on the Internet on or before May 15.

The MDEQ document goes on to state

information obtained by Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff from USEPA contact indicates that Dioxin reassessment will present a cancer potency for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 25 to 100 times greater [emphasis ours] than the value previously used in risk assessment for these compounds. Further, the Dioxin Reassessment will indicate that current dioxin intake from diet alone is greater than the acceptable daily dose and that additional exposure from other sources is therefore unacceptable.

The document also makes clear the significant policy implications these new standards would have for the state:

Soil concentrations in areas of the state where there has been a known release, such as the city of Midland, will far exceed the new criterion.

This near-doubling of the amount of dioxin that people can be exposed to is considered by many to be incomprehensible since all of the scienti€c evidence, including the forthcoming U.S. EPA Dioxin Reassessment report, points to the conclusion that we must signi€cantly reduce exposures.

“With a wave of the wand, Harding is trying to ‘declare’ some areas clean instead of actually removing dioxin,” said Tracey Easthope. “This could save Dow millions of dollars but cost the people of Michigan tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup and health care costs.”

Harding’s proposal is even worse than it sounds: it would not only weaken the dioxin standard but would also lock into place permanent rules, thus making it harder to toughen the standards in the future. Here’s why: Until now, environmental cleanup standards have not been promulgated as rules. Instead, the mathematical formula for determining these standards has been promulgated in the rule. Under such a system, the DEQ could revise cleanup standards as new peer-reviewed studies demonstrate health concerns.

Thus far, it appears that Harding has ignored the professional advice of his staff and rejected a growing body of scienti€c evidence in order to make decisions that clearly are not in the interest of the public or the environment. Only Dow stands to bene€t from such incomprehensible decisions.

This is not a controversy that will soon disappear. At this point, probably only federal and congressional investigations will explain Harding’s behavior and uncover the full story.

“With a wave of the wand, Harding is trying to ‘declare’ some areas clean instead of actually removing dioxin.”

Sources within the MDEQ have privately expressed the hope that, what-ever the outcome, the department will adopt standards based on prevailing science and not political maneuvering.

In response to the disclosures in the documents, an alliance of four environmental groups — The Ecology Center, MEC, Environmental Health Watch, and the Lone Tree Council — are calling for:

1) Immediate action to protect children from exposure to dioxin in parks and residential areas along the Tittabawassee River to its confluence with the Saginaw River.

2) Release of the public health assessment of the risks posed by contamination in Midland and the Tittabawassee River flood plain.

3) Immediate state authorizationfor a more detailed investigation into the extent of dioxin/furan contamination in the Tittabawassee River, and determination as to the source or sources.

4) State authorization for development of a cleanup plan.

5) Federal and Congressional investigation into the failure of MDEQ, the Department of Agriculture, and Department of Community Health to inform local agencies, and to address a major, public health risk in a timely fashion.

Go to our web site, www.ecocenter.org, to learn more. There, you will €nd the documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and up-to-the-date information.

back to top

 
For A Clean and Safe Detroit: Close the Country's Largest Incinerator

By Mary Beth Doyle and Brad van Guilder

When Kwame Kilpatrick was campaigning in last fall’s mayoral race, he called for new ideas to improve Detroit’s public services and address severe financial problems. A coalition of neighborhood and environmental organizations are offering the new Mayor a plan to do both, and to clean the City’s air at the same time. The Ecology Center, Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice, and 10 other groups are calling for the City to close its trash incinerator and start a comprehensive recycling program. This plan would make better use of resources, reduce air pollution, and save the city money.

Detroit began building its incinerator in 1986, despite protests from environmental justice and public health activists, who were dismayed to see the city invest so heavily in a polluting technology. “We knew then that this was a bad idea for the environment, and we’ve since learned that it’s a bad idea financially as well,” said Ed McArdle, Detroit-area resident, Ecology Center Vice-President, and Sierra Club activist.

At the time, proponents considered incineration to be a clean and affordable alternative to landfills, but the project quickly turned into another expensive embarrassment for Detroit. Today, the Detroit incinerator is the largest of any municipality in the U.S. It burns more than 700,000 tons of waste per year — about 3,000 tons per day — of which 60% comes from Detroit. The City will spend about $77 million this year to burn and landfill its trash, nearly ten times the amount paid per ton by its suburban neighbors.

A Question of Health and Justice

The incinerator sits in the heart of the city where I-75 and I-94 intersect, in a low-income, predominantly African-American neighborhood. The surround-ing community is already exposed to pollutants from numerous sources in the area, including Michigan’s only commercial medical waste incinerator, the GM Poletown plant, and two major highways.

It is in this overburdened community that Detroit decided to build the incinerator, which is legally allowed to release more than 25 tons of hazardous air pollutants and more than 1,800 tons of other pollutants, including sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulate matter, mercury, and lead, every year.

A recent Michigan Senate report cited municipal waste incinerators as the second largest source of mercury contamination in Michigan and a threat to the Great Lakes. Municipal waste incinerators are also a major source of dioxin, a persistent chemical that is toxic even in very small amounts. Dioxin is a hormone disrupter that can cause cancer as well as reproductive and developmental effects.

The community already has its share of health concerns. The neighborhoods surrounding the facility have one of the highest rates of elevated blood lead levels in the city. Almost 40% of Detroit children with elevated blood lead levels live within 10 zip code areas in the center of the city, including the area containing the incinerator.

Many pollutants from incinerators can affect lung function and trigger asthma attacks. Detroit has one of the highest asthma rates in the country — three times the national average — and ranks third in asthma-related deaths. It leads the nation for asthma death rate among African Americans.

Regardless of whether these health problems are caused by emissions from facilities like the Detroit incinerator, the prevalence of these illnesses within the community makes this population more susceptible to harm from the pollutants emitted by the incinerator.

Who Profits?

The Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Authority (GDRRA) is the public body responsible for the bond repayment and operation of the facility, and Covanta Energy Corporation (formerly Ogden) oversees day-to-day operations. However, the incinerator is owned by Philip Morris Capital Corporation, a subsidiary of the tobacco conglomerate. Philip Morris bought the facility in 1991 and leases it back to the city.

“It’s been well-documented that cigarette companies target minority communities like Detroit with their billboards,” said Donele Wilkins, Executive Director of Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice. “It’s ironic Philip Morris is targeting our community with the country’s largest municipal waste incinerator as well.”

Continued operation of the incinerator is also an economic disaster for the citizens of Detroit. In the current fiscal year, Detroit will spend $77 million to burn and landfill approximately 600,000 tons of trash.

This $130-per-ton cost is an Enron-sized scandal, given the City’s fiscal problems and the disposal costs paid by its suburban neighbors. The Southern Oakland County Resource Recovery Authority (SOCCRA) recently received a bid of less than $14 per ton to dispose of its trash at Republic Industries’ Carleton Farms Landfill in Sumpter Township. The City of Ann Arbor pays even less for its combination of landfill disposal, recycling, and composting.

Were Detroit to shut down its incinerator in favor of landfill disposal, the City would probably receive bids even lower than SOCCRA’s because of its large volume of trash. Even if Detroit couldn’t beat SOCCRA’s price, and even if it was forced to pay off the remaining $400 million on the incinerator bonds, the City could possibly save $20 million per year. If the City added a comprehensive recycling program to the effort, the savings could reach as high as $25 million per year.

Cut Your Losses, Mr. Mayor

In January, community leaders and environmentalists from around the state spoke out against the facility at a Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) public hearing about the facility’s Renewable Operating Permit. Citing incomplete €les, inadequate public notice, and environmental justice concerns, person after person spoke up to demand that the Department deny the permit.

But even if MDEQ does grant the permit (there is no case where a Renewable Operating Permit has been denied), environmentalists and Detroit community leaders plan to continue their efforts to shut down the incinerator. “Incineration is not good for public health and it is not good for the city’s bottom line,” said Ed McArdle. “It is time to make Detroit an incinerator-free zone.”

The incinerator continues to pollute low-income neighborhoods and drain money out of city coffers. Now it’s time for Mayor Kilpatrick to cut the City’s losses on the plant – right here, right now.

back to top

 
Profile: Westland Activist Cheryl Graunstadt

By Monica Heger

How does one transform oneself from a mother of two to a mother for an entire community? Cheryl Graunstadt did just that. She is the mother of two daughters, works for an insurance agency, is an environmental activist, and is the only woman serving on the Westland City Council. Her story is similar to that of Erin Brockovich: a mother with no formal education, making an impact in her town and a difference in the lives of her children and many others.

In May 1991, Graunstadt received a letter from the principal stating that Cooper School, the school attended by her two daughters and approximately 300 other children, was built over a landfll. The letter claimed that investigations had been made and there was no danger. Graunstadt decided to show this letter to Joan Lintelman, a friend who was more involved with environmental issues, and the two of them went to the school to look at the property.

They discovered glass and metal coming out of the ground intermixed with the gravel and stone on the play-ground. Behind the property, they found something even more alarming: orange ooze coming out of the ground known as leachate.

Leachate occurs when rain soaks into the ground and mixes with chemicals. The Michigan DNR, which had been doing its own investigations, suggested that the school take action, and within days after the letter was sent out an 8' fence was erected around the playground. Given the school’s claim that there was no danger, this seemed like an extreme measure to Graunstadt and Lintelman, raising their suspicions.

That Monday, Graunstadt and Lintelman went to the Wayne County Health Department to find information on Cooper School. The file was 2" thick and contained information about cancer statistics and the rate of cancer in children exposed to certain chemicals and toxins.

Graunstadt could not believe it — it just seemed so unreal to her. “Of all the things I thought I had to worry about,” she said, “sending my children to a site of contamination was not one of them.” Graunstadt and Lintelman gathered information and made copies to bring to the upcoming PTA meeting.

At the meeting, Graunstadt faced new challenges and opposition. The meeting was packed with parents and even a camera crew. While she had some supporters, she was shocked to find she also had a lot of opposition from many of the parents. Graunstadt was accused of causing trouble by challenging the status quo, and people shouted out that she should just move if she didn’t like the school.

For someone who describes herself as being shy and reserved, speaking out was a difficult task. But, in the midst of the yelling and the cameras, Graunstadt was able to muster the courage to do it. “You find strength within you that you never thought you had,” she said. “I was like a mother bear fighting for my cubs.” Graunstadt and other concerned parents decided to form a group to protest the School Board’s lack of action concerning Cooper School.

The work of the group took over Graunstadt’s life and turned it upside down. There were numerous meetings, with people coming and going from her house. She photocopied the papers she had taken from the file at the Health Department for all interested parents of the group. The group made flyers, buttons, and T-shirts and even picketed the school board. This lasted all summer long.

Their efforts paid off: That September, a new round of testing was done, and the Board decided to move the children to an empty building across the street. Eventually, all 40 acres of Cooper School were fenced in, the school was shut down, and warning signs were posted.

The long-term effects of being exposed to the landfill pollution aren’t known, and many parents remain concerned. Graunstadt’s eldest daughter experienced hair loss in fourth grade, hives in sixth, and a seizure in high school. No doctor was able to explain the cause of these health problems.

A high percentage of children who attended Cooper School have learning disabilities. The state never did a health study, so there is no way to know if these incidents are directly related to attending a school built on a landfill, but parents can’t help but wonder.

After the Cooper School incident, Graunstadt became involved in other environmental issues, including fighting an incinerator built next to Federal Elementary School in Dearborn Heights. After her work on Cooper School, Graunstadt gained confidence and was not afraid to speak out. She began to attend City Council meetings and write letters to the local paper to express her concerns on environmental issues. In 2001, a friend suggested she run for City Council.

This shocked Graunstadt, who thought of herself as a reserved mother, with no interest in politics. However, through her experiences, Graunstadt had become a mother to more than just her daughters, but a mother to all the Cooper School children. She was active in her community, no longer afraid to challenge injustice, and able to see herself as someone who could make a difference. In 2001 she ran for City Council and received more votes than any other candidate in the city.

When asked what motivated her to become so involved with her community when she never had been before, Graunstadt’s response was that it was mostly for her two daughters: “I didn’t want my girls to be afraid to question things like I was.” In this time of apathy, she wanted to show the next generation that you should care about your environment and that one person can make a difference.

Monica Heger is a student in the University of Michigan School of Literature, Science, and the Arts.

back to top

 
Letters to the Editor: "The World After 9-11"

I recently read the December/January From the Ground Up. The articles surrounding September 11 are among the most thoughtful and heartfelt reflections I’ve encountered. It was both inspiring and humbling to read these essays. They are some of the €nest and most personal writing I’ve come across, and certainly reaffirmed the need to care for our planet and its people. I will be sharing this issue with family, friends, and clergy. Thanks SO MUCH for pulling this together!

Bryan Weinert
Ann Arbor

The December/January From the Ground Up is exceptionally good! We love the new layout. Thanks for an outstanding job.

William Frem
Cambridge, MA

As someone who relies on From the Ground Up for the latest local environmental news, I’m impressed by the latest issue, in form as well as substance. I look forward to your next issue.

Doug Cowherd
Ann Arbor

I really liked the latest From The Ground Up issue — it was terrific.

Janet Cohen
Ann Arbor

Hey, we just got the latest issue of From the Ground Up today. Looks great! I’ve never wanted to cuddle down with the Ecology Center newsletter before . . . but this one I just may!

Mary Jean Babic
Ann Arbor

Assistance from Jeff Gearhart

I want you to know how much my husband, Peter Ollila, and I appreciate your organization, specifically Jeff Gearhart’s efforts regarding GM’s most recent proposed permit in Lansing. We first had the pleasure of working with Jeff about four years ago, and we were impressed. At that time, our community was attempting to tie an odor abatement program for a GM plant to a multi-million-dollar tax abatement GM sought. Though some relief was obtained, the results were not what we wanted. Our community now has another chance to push for emission reductions. This process has been much easier with Jeff’s help and work.

In response to an inquiry I made today, as to why some states may allow less than acceptable standards, I was told by a DEQ staff person that it might have something to do with the fact that those states probably don’t have an organization like the Ecology Center. I believe this individual was telling me how grateful they are for your organization. I know we are; and we look forward to a resolution that provides for substantial emission reductions to our community. It is my hope that, with Jeff’s guidance, we will be successful.

Deb Mulcahey, Lansing

Editor’s Notes:

We want to thank all of you who wrote in appreciation of our last newsletter. There were too many to print here, but we appreciate your response.

Our printer apologizes for font problems in the December/January issue. This was due to a technical error.

back to top

Book Reviews: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles ... Bikes and Ferries, Too

Breaking Gridlock: Moving Toward Transportation That Works.
Jim Motavalli. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 2002

By Gregory V. Button

Many of us have our own homegrown theories about what is wrong with the trans-portation issues facing our sprawling cities and how we would rectify the problem if we were “king for a day.” Jim Motavalli, syndicated car columnist and editor of E: The Environmental Magazine, has written an insightful book that examines the transportation issues facing our nation’s major urban areas.

In Breaking Gridlock: Moving Toward Transportation That Works, Motavalli demonstrates just how complex the problems with our trans-portation systems really are and how unlikely it is that any one of us could single-handedly solve the problem. While he doesn’t provide us with a universal solution, he does review some of the approaches that hold promise.

Of course, as many of us realize, our cities were built around cars, and our nation’s dependence on cars is a major part of the problem. Motavalli notes fact that “a third of the average city’s land is devoted to serving the car, including roads, service stations, and parking lots.” Our driving habits are compounding the problem. In 1970, says Motavalli, “Americans drove a trillion miles per year; it’s been more than two trillion since the mid-1990s.” Nine out of every ten miles traveled happen in a car. Obviously, as the author and others point out, we can’t continue this dependence on automobiles.

Searching for solutions, Motavalli examines the different approaches taken by metropolitan areas in the United States and Europe, as well as alternative modes of transportation such as trains, planes, and ferries. The facts he uncovers are provocative and by no means pessimistic, although he quickly makes the reader aware that there aren’t any easy or immediate solutions to the problem.

Portland, one the cities Motavalli examines for its innovative approaches, is lauded as “the only U.S. city to come close to balancing investments between roads and public transit.” He praises its state-of-the-art public transportation, crediting it with making Portland one of the most “livable cities.”

However, Motavalli reminds the reader that, compared to most European cities, “Portland remains heavily auto-dependent.” Only six percent of its residents use public transportation. In Berlin, 40 percent of peak trips are on public transportation; in Stockholm, that figure is 70 percent.

New York, our most densely populated city, is the least car-dependent city in the U.S. Here’s why: 55 percent of the households have no car and 18 percent of all trips are taken on foot. Compare this with the city of Los Angeles, where 97 percent of travel is done by car. Southern California pays heavily for its automobile dependence: according to the Environmental Defense Fund, annual health-care costs of automobile-related smog and emissions in the region are $3.7 billion.

Perhaps second only to our romance for cars, Americans have embraced the airplane as a favored mode of travel: 10,000 commercial flights fly every day, and that number is expected to double by 2020. As air traffic increases, so does the resulting pollution. Motavalli cites an article by Gar Smith that claims that a jumbo jet consumes “526,344 gallons of air per second and in the first five seconds consumes as much oxygen as is produced by 49,000 acres of forest in a day.”

The airports surrounding our metropolitan regions also contribute to the problem. According to Environmental Health Perspectives,

Airports are known to be major sources of noise, water and air pollution. They pump carbon dioxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, as well as dump toxic chemicals — used to de-ice airplanes during winter storms — into waterways.

Breaking Gridlock will inform and arm anyone seriously interested in grappling with the tremendous transportation problems confronting our cities. The author is smart enough not to offer panaceas. Instead, he attempts to share valuable lessons learned by some communities and provides, if not a road map, an environmental compass for where we have to go from here.

back to top

 
Science for the People

By Mary Beth Doyle

ADHD Levels May Be Higher Than Normal

A study by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences finds that the prevalence of Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) may be higher than previously estimated. Researchers from the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill reported that when they queried parents in a “typical” county of rural and suburban homes (Johnston County, N.C.), the parents reported more than 15 percent of boys in grades one through five had been diagnosed with ADHD, and two-thirds of those were taking medication for the condition. Asking the parents was a key to the higher figures, the researchers thought, because school nurses might not be aware of children who are receiving medication treatment entirely at home.

“Treatment rates are usually viewed as abnormally high if they exceed the 3–5% prevalence estimate for ADHD cited in an American Psychiatric Association manual in 1994,” said the report’s authors. “Therefore, the national public health impact of ADHD may be greatly underestimated by both educators and public health officials.”

Some studies have suggested that environmental contamination may play a role in the development of ADHD.

Rowland, Andrew, et al. “Prevalence of Medication Treatment for Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder Among Elementary School Children in Johnston County, North Carolina.” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 2 (February 2002).

Exposure to PCBs After Birth May Affect Infant Development

Exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) after birth can hinder brain development, according to a study published in The Lancet. While earlier studies have suggested that prenatal exposure to PCBs may affect development, the study found exposure after birth may also have a detrimental effect.

The researchers tested 171 healthy babies and their mothers. Prenatal exposure was assessed by measuring PCB levels in umbilical cord blood; postnatal exposure was estimated by measuring PCBs in the mother’s breast milk and in the infants’ blood.

The study found that children whose mothers had the highest levels of PCBs in their breast milk were more likely to exhibit low levels of development, both physically and mentally. However, the adverse effect was less pronounced in children with a stimulating home environment.

Breast milk is still the best food for infants. Studies have shown that breastfeeding, even in a contaminated environment, has a positive impact on the development of children. Breast-feeding provides many physical and psychological benefits to mothers and babies not available to infants fed on formula milks. Indeed, breast milk contains substances that help the child develop a stronger immune system and other protections against environmental pollutants and pathogens.

Walkowiak,, J., et al. “Environmental Exposure to Polychlorinated Biphenyls and the Quality of the Home Environment: Effects on Psychodevelopment in Early Childhood.” Lancet 358, no. 9,293 (November 2001): 1,602–1,607.

Men With High Levels of PCBs More Likely to Father Boys

A Michigan State University study indicating that men with higher levels of PCBs in their bodies are more likely to father boys than girls is more evidence of the effects environmental contaminants can have on the human body.

The study used data from three separate studies in which PCB levels were measured in the bodies of men who ate fish taken from Lake Michigan. The researchers found that of the 208 children born to those men, more than 57 percent were boys. The researchers did not detect that the PCB levels of mothers affected the number of boys or girls.

“We do not wish to say that having a baby boy is bad, it’s just that there were more of them,” said Wilfried Karmaus, the MSU associate professor of epidemiology who directed the study. “A change in the proportion of boys to girls, however, indicates that environmental contaminants may play a role in human reproduction.”

Karmaus, Wilfried, et al. “Parental Concentration of Dichlorodiphenyl Dichloroethene and Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Michigan Fish Eaters and Sex Ratio of Offspring.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 44, no. 1 (January 2002): 8–13.

High Levels of Flame Retardant Found in Environment

Michigan State University researchers have found that Lake Michigan salmon have some of the highest levels of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) contamination. In individual fish, PBDE concentrations in the fish were highly correlated with the level of polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), leading the researchers to suggest that PBDEs are as prevalent as PCBs in the environment.

A second study has found that PBDE levels in North Americans appear to be doubling every two to five years. PBDE levels were measured in the breast milk from women in Denver and Austin. Researchers note that the levels of PBDEs were approaching levels of PCBs in breast milk.

PBDEs, commonly used as a flame retardant, have come under scrutiny recently because they are very persistent in the environment, and studies suggest that they may have many of the same adverse health effects as PCBs. Like PCBs, PBDEs have been found to interfere with the hormone system of laboratory animals. PCBs are no longer in production, but PBDEs are still produced and used in many consumer products. Exposure to PCBs and PCBEs is thought to be primarily through consumption of fatty animal foods such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs, and dairy products.

Manchester-Neesvig, John, et al. “Comparison of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Lake Michigan Salmonids.” Environmental Science and Technology 35, no. 6 (March 2001): 1,072–1,077.

Betts, K. “Rapidly Rising PBDE levels in North America.” Environmental Science and Technology 36, no. 12 (December 2001): 50A–52A.

back to top

 
At the Ecology Center

“Outstanding Environmentalists” Honored at Annual Meeting of the Ecology Center

Our annual meeting this year was held January 27 at Matthaei Botanical Gardens. Even though it was one of the most beautiful weekend days of the winter, we had a large turnout. Board President Margaret Weber honored board members Julie Griess, Jeannine Palms, and Mary Schroer for their contributions as their terms end and welcomed new board members Mary LaFrance, Alma Lowry, and Mike Wallad.

Also honored were Outstanding Environmentalists of the Year Karen Kavanaugh, Brian McKenna, and the Milan Area Concerned Citizens. In the words of Ecology Center Director Michael Gar€eld, the award recipients were chosen for their “exceptional efforts to protect the environment and the health and well-being of Michigan residents.”

Karen Kavanaugh

Planning director for the Southwest Detroit Business Association for almost two years, Karen Kavanaugh is co-chair of Communities for a Better Rail Alternative, a coalition of nearly 50 organizations and 800 individuals €ghting to stop the Michigan Department of Transportation’s planned expansion of Junction Rail Yard in Southwest Detroit. An outgrowth of NAFTA-based trade liberalization, the proposal would destroy occupied homes and local businesses in several neighborhoods and increase local truck traf€c by eight times over what it is now. She has led a powerful neighborhood movement to confront state of€cials, their consultants, and the railroad companies in public forums and private meetings.

Brian McKenna

For three years, Brian McKenna worked for the Ingham County Health Department, researching environmental health problems in the county. When his €nal report identi€ed serious health problems, county of€cials suppressed the report. Last year, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility published his report on its national website. As a result of Brian’s persistence and courage, the county’s attempt to cover up important health data was exposed. Brian continues to bring important issues in the Lansing area to light through his column in the alternative weekly newspaper, City Pulse.

Milan Area Concerned Citizens

In the Milan area, MACC successfully stopped General Motors and the Ann Arbor Railroad from constructing what would have been one of the country’s largest rail/car yards to store new vehicles before distribution. The project would have destroyed thousands of acres of the area’s €nest farmland. Members of MACC have also worked with other Milan-area environmental groups to address major groundwater, air pollution, and land preservation problems there. Aretta Schils accepted the award on behalf of MACC.

Jeff Surfus

Since 1997, Jeff Surfus, of Dexter, has led Michigan activists in opposing the shipment of waste into Michigan from Toronto, other parts of Canada, and other states. He has almost single-handedly raised the pro€le of this issue, and has successfully pressured City of Toronto of€cials to adopt a plan to create what would be North America’s best recycling program.

The awards ceremony was followed by presentations from two experts on alternative energy. The €rst speaker, Harvey Wasserman, is well known as senior advisor to Greenpeace USA and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. His most recent book is The Last Energy War: The Battle Over Utility Deregulation (Seven Stories Press, 2000). He spoke about the need for alternative energy and the dangers of nuclear power especially in light of world events since 9/11.

Harvey was followed by Steve Smiley, head of a 20-year old energy analysis €rm specializing in ef€ciency and renewable energy. His €rm provides analysis and design consulting services for wind power, passive and active solar, biogas, and other alternative energy systems. Steve drew on his considerable expertise to discuss the feasibility of wind power as a viable source of alternative energy.

Staff Profile: Jeff Gearhart

Editor’s Note: With this issue, we begin a series of pro€les of Ecology Center staff and board members. Our next issue will profile board president Margaret Weber.

Jeff Gearhart grew up on a farm in western Michigan. At the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and Environment, he earned a bachelor’s degree in environmental policy and a master’s in environmental advocacy. During his undergraduate years, he developed a strong commitment to social change issues, a commitment still central to his life and work.

After Jeff completed his studies, he moved to Iowa, where he gained valuable experience working with local farmers as a community organizer. Next, he worked on housing issues in southwest Michigan. He returned to Ann Arbor in 1994 and continued working on low-income housing & homelessness issues.

Jeff has been working with the Ecology Center since 1996. He currently directs our Auto Project Campaign, but, like all the staff, he does much more than his title implies. Along with Charles Grif€th, Jeff co-coordinates the national Clean Car Campaign (CCC), including maintaining the campaign’s website; he has primarily responsibility for the redesign of the Center’s new website as well. In addition to these tasks, he assists community members on a number of technical issues relating to air quality.

Currently, Jeff is very involved in the CCC’s mercury cleanup campaign and the controversy surrounding the proposed GM plant in East Lansing. In these campaigns, Jeff assumes many roles: community organizer, “lawyer,” environmentalist, and “engineer.” Peers around the state recognize his competence in technical areas such as permit process analysis, especially as it applies to toxic emissions and air pollution.

Ecology Center Director Michael Gar€eld gives Jeff principle credit for winning major air quality improvements at the Ford Rouge complex in Dearborn, the Holcim cement plant in Dundee, a General Motors plant in Lansing, and at other facilities. Says Michael, “Jeff works tirelessly with local, state and federal bureaucrats and community members to €ght what ares often odorous, invisible pollutants.” As the letter below testi€es, Jeff is keenly appreciated by community members with whom he works. This appreciation is matched by that of his fellow workers, who view his contributions as invaluable to the Center’s mission.

Check Out Our New Website!

Be sure and check out our new website: www.ecocenter.org, where you can do several new things. For example, you can make online donations to the Ecology Center with one push of the button through Helping.Org.

You can also check out our latest press releases and read up-to-date information on our current campaigns. For instance, now you can read for yourself the redacted FOIA documents on the MDEQ’s dioxin policy mentioned in this issue’s feature article.

There has never been a better, quicker way to find out what we are up to and how to become involved. You can now place yourself on our email alert list and take direct action on our campaigns just by going to our website.

The website will enable us to be in closer contact with our members and environmentalists around the state. In part, it will serve as our electronic newsletter. (Because of the time needed to produce, print, and mail From the Ground Up, it is difficult to rely solely on our newsletter to get you the latest information on an issue in a timely manner.)

Now we have another way of staying in touch. We like to think of it as the electronic part of our two-pronged communication campaign to stay in touch with our members. So keep in touch and turn to us on the web for the very latest information affecting you and your community.

Ecology Center Holds Workshop on Open Space Zoning

On January 30, more than 50 elected officials and planning commissioners from all parts of Washtenaw County braved the worst storm of winter to participate in an Ecology Center-sponsored workshop on open space zoning ordinances. Organized as a followup to our land use conference last fall, the event took on added importance in December after Governor Engler signed bipartisan legislation requiring townships to enact open space ordinances this year.

Although such ordinances can differ in the details, open space zoning (also known as conservation design) generally allows more houses on a site than traditional zoning. However, it requires that the houses be clustered and the site’s natural, undeveloped areas protected with a permanent conservation easement.

Open space zoning preserves natural areas while allowing developers to build more houses. Because the homes are clustered, each one’s cost for infrastructure (sewer service, electric lines, etc.) is lower than in traditional new subdivisions. And the nearby natural areas is a major selling point. For all these reasons, homebuilders often support open space zoning. That’s the case in our state: the Michigan Home Builders Association supported the recently enacted state legislation, as did environmental organizations such as the Michigan Environmental Council.

The January workshop featured Hamburg Township Supervisor Howard Dillman, Ann Arbor Township Trustee John Allison, and two home builders who’ve made extensive use of the technique: Bill Collins of Wexford Homes and Jim Haeussler of Peters Building Company.

Dillman described Hamburg’s ten-year experience with open space zoning, which has preserved more than 1,500 acres of natural areas. He emphasized the need to develop good maintenance programs for the protected lands.

Allison described Ann Arbor Township’s efforts to draft an open space zoning ordinance. Its Natural Features Committee deliberated the proposal for more than a year before referring it to the Planning Commission, which passed it unanimously on February 4. The new ordinance gives developers a choice between ordinary ten-acre-minimum plots and clustered 1/2- to 5-acre plots that preserve 65% of a subdivision’s space.

The workshop was cosponsored by the Home Builders Association of Washtenaw County. For more information, contact Michael Garfield (734/761-3186 x104 or michaelg@ecocenter.org).

New Hybrid and Fuel Cell Announcements at Detroit Auto Show

By Charles Griffith

Although the hype surrounding this year’s Detroit auto show would never suggest it, there was at least one important showing with relevance to those interested in buying a cleaner car in 2002. No, we’re not talking about GM’s new “Autonomy” fuel cell concept, conservatively projected to be ready for consumers by 2020. And no, we’re not talking about the companion announcement by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham that hailed the new “Freedom CAR” fuel cell research partnership.

Rather, we’re talking about Honda’s new 50-mpg gas-electric hybrid Civic, slated for showroom floors in early April. Building on the success of the two-seat Insight, the Civic hybrid will be the first popular mass-produced hybrid. This notable step brings the appeal of hybrids even more into the mainstream. With an expected price range of around $20,000, the Civic hybrid will cost about $2,000 more than the conventional high-end models. Honda is projecting sales of about 2,000 cars a month.

Ford also repeated promises to offer a hybrid-electric version of its popular small SUV, the Escape, in 2003. DaimlerChrysler says it will offer a hybrid in 2003 as well. Toyota plans to increase sales of its Prius hybrid by 40% and sell 300,000 hybrid vehicles per year worldwide by 2005.

While these new hybrid-electric offerings are good news, “fuel economy” fleetwide stands at a 20-year low, with truck sales now outpacing cars for the first time. Without new policies to increase overall fuel economy, our progress in bringing new hybrids to market may be offset by the introduction of still more gas guzzlers. The energy debate scheduled for the U.S. Senate this month will be a key opportunity to advance new fuel economy standards and provide incentives for advanced technologies such as hybrid-electric vehicles.

The fuel cell program the Energy Department announced in January may help in the future, but it will do nothing to counter the environmental impact of 150 million new automobiles sold over the next decade. The program it replaces, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), was also flawed, though it did at least have a performance target. During its eight-year history, the only companies to produce high-mileage hybrid vehicles for the U.S. market were ones that were excluded from the program. It is time for lawmakers, and the auto industry, to make commitments to near-term improvements in overall fuel economy.

For more information, visit the www.cleancarcampaign.org and see “What’s New.”

The Clean Car Campaign is a joint project of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, the Ecology Center, Environmental Defense, Great Lakes United, the Michigan Environmental Council, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

back to top

 
Events

Saturday, March 23, 8:30am–5pm.
Erosion Control Workshop. Hands-on workshop at the U of M’s Nichol’s Arboretum lead by Bob Grese and Don Gray. To register call the Nichol’s Arboretum, 734/998-9541.

April—All Month
Appointments for the Earth at your Aveda Salon (see ad on page 22).

Tuesday, April 2
David Morris, Vice President of the Institute for Local Reliance, presents a free public lecture from 4 to 5:30pm in the Moot Court Room of the Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University. For more information, call 527/353-9555.

Thursday, April 18, 9am–4pm
Second Annual Washtenaw Community College Earth Day Festival WCC Student Union Building, 4800 Huron River Dr., Ann Arbor.

Sunday, April 20
Native Landscape Workshop sponsored by the Natural Area Preservation Program, Parks Department, City of Ann Arbor. Topics include site assessment and preparation, seed
and plant selection, installation, and maintenance. Cost is $15. To register, call the Bryant Community Center at 734/994-2722. Limit 50 people.

Sunday, April 21, 1–5pm
Earth Day Festival. Free for all ages! Hosted by the Ecology Center, a member of the Environmental
Education Network of Washtenaw County, at Leslie Science Center. For more information, call the Center at 734/997-1553.

Sunday, April 28, 1pm
Matthei Botanical Garden Friends Spring Lecture, “Gardens of Renewal,” by David Michener, Ph.D. Admission $15. Reservations strongly suggested. Call 734/998-7061.

Sunday, June 9
EcoRide. Note: this is a change from the originally advertised date of June 2.

back to top

 
Wish List

Volunteers: We need lots of volunteers the day of EcoRide (June 9) to help with checkpoints, SAG, set-up, first aid, registration and other areas.
A few volunteers are needed Friday, June 7, and Saturday, June 8, to help pick up donations. In early April, we also need volunteers to help with community brochure and poster distribution. To sign up or get
more information, contact EcoRide Volunteer Coordinator Juli Pinsak (734/668-0010 or jpinsak@msn.com).
Wanted: A lockable metal cabinet with a workable lock; free-standing wooden shelves, and a foldable luggage cart.
Volunteer Needed: We need someone to do light cleaning at the Center. We will supply the vinegar, baking powder, and water to clean — you supply the energy! Approximately 2–4 hours per week. Contact Denise, (734) 761-3186 x110 or denisef@ecocenter.org.

back to top

 
Recycle Ann Arbor: Calculating Your Eco Footprint

By Adam Szuch

Quantifying One's Environmental Impact: The EcoFootprint

Environmentalists believe that we can lessen our our environmental impact by reducing dependence on fossil fuels, cutting household waste, and consuming fewer resources. But just how much of an effect do these actions have? Can we put a number on our environmental impacts? Is it possible to see whether our living choices are in proportion with global resource consumption and regeneration as well as waste generation and disposal?

The Ecological Footprint model attempts to answer these and other challenging questions as we search for a more sustainable future. The concept was introduced in 1994 by Mathis Wackernagel and William Reese. As they see it, their model is unique because it measures several kinds of environmental impacts: vehicle usage, food consumption, waste generated, etc.

According to Redefining Progress, a non-profit public policy and research organization based in San Francisco, the Ecological Footprint is based on two assumptions: (1) We can keep track of most of the resources we consume as well as many of the wastes we generate; and (2) we can measure resource consumption and disposal flows as they compare to biologically productive areas.

Redefining Progress defines the Ecological Footprint of anything from an individual to an entire nation:

The area of biologically productive land and water required to produce the resources consumed and to assimilate the wastes generated by that population using prevailing technology.

For most calculations, the amount of land required is measured in acres. While an Ecological Footprint can be calculated with various inputs, the ones most commonly considered are:

• fossil fuel use and production
• carbon dioxide production and assimilation
• waste assimilation
• built-up land
• land used for forestry or agriculture
• fisheries
• distribution of resources
• area efficiency
• population growth

The Footprint does not factor in damages from in areas such as ozone depletion, toxic waste, and greenhouse gasses other than carbon dioxide.

Just how big are some recent Ecological Footprints? Even though different calculation methods give different results, most methods arrive at similar figures. A study titled Ecological Footprint of Nations (available at www.ecouncil.ac.cr/rio/focus/report/english/footprint/) gives some alarming figures. Based on 1997 United Nations statistics, it compares the footprints of 52 nations worldwide and concludes that the average American requires approximately 30.8 acres of productive land to provide for his or her consumption. Compare this to the average German using only 14.9 acres and the world average of only 7.1 acres, and America seems to be a bit out of place.

To discuss these numbers in terms of sustainability, they must be compared to estimated productive land totals. According to the study, the U.S. has more abundant natural resources from which to draw (13.6 acres per person) than the world average (5.3 acres). Of course, U.S. citizens’ average use of 30.8 acres clearly shows that our country operates at an “ecological deficit.”

The study blames this deficit on two factors: imported ecological capacity and depletion of domestic resources. Wackernagel’s team estimates that, for the entire world to live at the current consumption rate of the U.S., more than four planets would be needed. Redefining Progress also suggests that the world as a whole is using up resources faster than they can be renewed and generating more waste than can be absorbed.

Such analyses can greatly assist planners and policy makers in evaluating sustainable practices and systems. On the individual level, footprinting offers an effective way to measure our environmental impact. And, it shows that we American citizens have our work cut out for us.

Even with comparatively “green” life choices, the results of Ecological Footprint calculators can be humbling. To calculate your footprint online, visit Real Progress (www.rprogress.org).

For practical suggestions on how to reduce your footprint, visit the Recycle Ann Arbor En-House at 2420 S. Industrial Hwy. The demonstration model home there features a room-sized display dedicated to the concept of Ecological Footprint.

back to top

From the Ground Up — March 2002
An online publication of the Ecology Center

Editor: Gregory V. Button

Take Action Donate Events About Membership Newsletters Press Publications Links Contact

117 N. Division St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1580 USA • phone 734·761·3186 • fax 734·663·2414 •