[Dioxin-l] Gore's '92 Promise on Incinerator Propels Ohio Demonstrators in '00

[Neil Tangri]

http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/011300wh-dem-gore-promise.html

January 13, 2000

          THE ELECTORATE

          Gore's '92 Promise on Incinerator Propels
          Ohio Demonstrators in '00

          By FRANCIS X. CLINES

               EAST LIVERPOOL, Ohio, Jan. 10 -- An old press release from
               Vice President-elect Al Gore, issued in the first flush of
victory in
          1992, is being preserved here like the Magna Carta. 

          And seven years after he issued that release pledging to block
the local
          hazardous-waste incinerator that has become a national environmental
          cause, the same determined protesters who believed Mr. Gore in 1992
          and have dogged him ever since -- staging protests and suffering
arrests
          -- are on his trail once more as he heads for Ohio's presidential
primary
          on March 7. 

                                "Maybe he's developed a bit of courage,"
                                said Terri Swearingen, a registered nurse
                                and barbed opponent of the toxic chemical
                                waste incinerator, which vents steadily into
                                the air, day after day, just 1,100 feet from
                                an elementary school attended by 400
                                children in this humble Ohio River Valley
                                town. 

                                "This is Gore's broken promise," said Ms.
          Swearingen, a who has been arrested nine times and who was
carried off
          from one sit-in inside the White House two months into the
Clinton-Gore
          administration, after she found the waste incinerator going into
operation
          despite campaign pledges. 

          "You promised!" she and her colleagues have shouted at the Vice
          President across Mr. Gore's seven years in office even as the
          administration insisted it discovered that it was legally unable
to block the
          plant's opening because in the final weeks of the Bush
administration
          approval was granted to test the plant's furnace. 

          "Read your book!" critics have shouted, reminding Mr. Gore, the
          environmentalist author, of his assertion that he is the
nonpareil political
          watchdog on the issue. 

          In response to questions, Mr. Gore's office said this week that "as
          promised, we looked exhaustively" at the issue and found the
initial test
          permit from the Bush administration "can't be revoked unless we can
          prove it violated health and safety standards." At least two
reviews could
          find no violations, said Melissa Bonney Ratcliff, a spokeswoman
for the
          vice president. 

          A month after the Clinton-Gore victory in 1992, Mr. Gore, a leading
          critic of incineration, promised that the new administration
would prevent
          the plant from opening until Congress investigated its safety and
how it
          had got federal approval. 

          "The very idea of putting it in a flood plain, you know, it's just
          unbelievable to me," candidate Gore had said of the incinerator
when he
          campaigned in July 1992 in nearby Weirton, W. Va. 

          "We'll be on your side for a change," he promised opponents. 

          In the third month of the new administration, the plant, operated by
          Waste Technologies Industries, was permitted to begin commercial
          operation. While Mr. Gore has maintained the incinerator could
not be
          blocked, environmentalists insist it could have been stopped if the
          Clinton-Gore team had resolved to do so after the election. 

          Ms. Swearingen and other opponents have been fighting the regional
          commercial incinerator, from proposal to construction, across the
past 20
          years, turning a mayor out of office here over the issue. In now
pointing
          to the Ohio primary, they are determined to show that a candidate's
          pledge that goes around, comes around. 

          "We are reminding Mr. Gore of his promise as he runs on his own,"
said
          Alonzo Spencer, a retired steel worker who is galvanizing his
Save Our
          County protest group once more at this fresh opportunity to
single out the
          incinerator. 

          In advance of the primary, a dozen organizations, including the
          environmental group Greenpeace and Ms. Swearingen's Tri-State
          Environmental Council, have requested a meeting about the
incinerator
          with Vice President Gore, promising there will be no new
          civil-disobedience disruptions, at least not "at or during this
meeting." 

          "We are now feeling that the health effects we first warned about
back
          then are starting to come true," Mr. Spencer said, referring to a
state
          health study in 1997 that reported "strikingly higher" cancer
mortality
          rates for East Liverpool than for the state and nation. 

          The local cancer mortality rate for the four years through 1995 was
          235.0 per 100,000, compared with 182.6 for the state and 172.2
for the
          nation. Mr. Spencer agrees the causes of cancer can be complex and
          long running, but he insists that opening the plant so close to a
school in a
          troubled region of old steel, foundry and pottery industries
"exacerbated
          an already high-risk situation." A detailed study has been
started to
          search for causal evidence beyond the data, with no definitive
tie yet
          reported to the incinerator. 

          The plant annually burns 63,000 tons of hazardous waste,
including lead,
          mercury and hundreds of other toxic chemicals. Gases and
particles from
          the smokestack, including dioxin, are supposed to be within
permissible
          federal limits, but opponents note that the state fined the plant
$126,000
          for violations of air monitoring requirements. 

          The plant's proximity to East Elementary School has been
underlined in
          various studies as a potentially risky situation. A state law
adopted soon
          after the incinerator began operating required at least 2,000
feet of
          separation between schools or homes and any new incinerators, almost
          double the safety margin here. 

          As the primary approaches, critics are emphasizing that the
incinerator
          has been operating on an interim basis ever since the initial
federal permit
          expired in 1995. So this is the time to press Mr. Gore over the
issue
          once more and try to embarrass him if necessary, according to the
          opposition, whose prowess is well tested. 

          "I've already talked about this with Bill Bradley," the tireless Ms.
          Swearingen said of the former New Jersey senator who is
challenging the
          vice president in the primary. "We are always looking for that
one person
          to take this seriously." 

          Rick Hind, legislative director for Greenpeace's campaign against
toxic
          wastes, speculated that Mr. Gore was "assuming the environmental
vote
          is in his pocket." 

          "We went from great hope to great disappointment," Mr. Hind said
of the
          Clinton-Gore team's handling of the East Liverpool issue, in
which, he
          said, they moved from opposition as candidates to their
administration's
          joining the company in defense of the plant in a subsequent
lawsuit. 

          Steady as the plume pouring from the incinerator stack, the
politics of the
          March 7 primary are being pursued by small-town environmentalists
with
          a memory for pledges past. 

          "This was their very first environmental promise," Ms. Swearingen
said,
          protecting that 1992 press release. "And it was their first promise
          broken."