Month: March 2010

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 3)

  • Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use, and hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could are linked to a variety of health problems. So why hasn’t the federal government banned them? (Photo courtesy of Reiner.Kraft)

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are in many of the products we use. They help slow the spread of fire. But some kinds of these chemicals are building up in people and in pets and wildlife. And hundreds of studies are suggesting the chemicals could be linked to problems with brain development, and thyroid and fertility problems. In the third part of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at why our federal government has not banned them:

In the U.S., chemicals are innocent until proven guilty.

Companies don’t have to prove chemicals are safe before putting them on the market. If government officials want to ban a chemical, they have to prove it’s harmful.

There are flame retardants called PBDEs – or polybrominated diphenyl ethers. There’s a good chance they’re in your couch or office chair or carpet padding. They’re toxic. Pretty much every American has some level of PBDEs in their body. The European Union has banned three kinds of PBDEs. Several U.S. states have banned them. But even people who want the federal government to ban them say we can’t.

“The EPA does not have the power or authority to ban these chemicals.”

Mike Shriberg is with the Ecology Center. It’s an environmental group.

“The last time EPA tried to take significant action against a chemical was on asbestos. A chemical that is widely known to cause cancer. And the agency’s actions were overturned in court essentially saying they lacked the authority to ban even this extremely well known hazardous chemical.”

Our nation’s chemical law is called the Toxic Substances Control Act. It’s supposed to give the Environmental Protection Agency power to regulate chemicals.

The EPA did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email statement, a spokesperson said the agency can ban chemicals under the Act. But it has to prove they present an unreasonable risk. And the spokesperson said quote,

“Flame retardants are particularly challenging to make this finding because their commercial benefit is they save lives in fire situations.”

Some people say the EPA’s hands are tied. Deborah Rice is a toxicologist with the Maine Center for Disease Control. She says the chemical industry made sure of that.

“This Toxic Substances Control Act was passed by Congress over 30 years ago and it had major input by the chemical industry and it hasn’t been reformed since because of major lobbying by the chemical industry. That’s what kept the U.S. unable to really protect the health of its citizens or the environment.”

Rice has direct experience with input by the chemical industry. In 2007, the EPA asked her to chair a panel to help set safe exposure levels for a PBDE flame retardant. The chemical industry felt Rice had expressed bias against the chemical. The industry asked the Bush Administration’s EPA to remove Rice from the panel. The EPA removed her.

To this date, there are no federal bans on any PBDE flame retardant.

The company that made penta-BDE and octa-BDE started voluntarily phasing them out in 2004. EPA just reached an agreement with the three big chemical companies to phase out deca-BDE in three years.

Critics of these kinds of agreements point out they’re just voluntary. The Ecology Center’s Mike Shriberg says the agreements are not binding.

“EPA is essentially forced to begging for a piece of paper that’s meaningless if not followed by the companies. That’s why we’re in this mess we’re in.”

Shriberg says the only way to fix things is to overhaul our nation’s chemical safety laws.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Energy Legislation Breeding Bipartisanship?

  • Representatives from both sides of the aisle are beginning to find some common ground on energy policy. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Members of Congress from fossil fuel states want to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Lester Graham reports
– it’s one of the few bi-partisan efforts in Washington, but it’s not the only one:

Related Links

Are Fire Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 2)

  • Fire retardant chemicals can be found in an array of household items, and the federal government doesn't require companies to reveal which chemicals are in their products. (Photo CC-licensed to Back_garage on Flickr)

You have flame retardant chemicals in your body. They’re toxic. Americans have the highest levels of anyone in the world. The chemicals are in the dust in our homes and offices and schools. And they’re showing up in our food. In the second of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at what these exposures might mean for our health:

Transcript

You have flame retardant chemicals in your body. They’re toxic. Americans have the highest levels of anyone in the world. The chemicals are in the dust in our homes and offices and schools. And they’re showing up in our food. In the second of our five part series… Rebecca Williams takes a look at what these exposures might mean for our health:

They’re called PBDEs. That’s polybrominated diphenyl ethers. They help keep foam and plastics from catching on fire.

They are absolutely everywhere.

They’re in your car. They’re in your couch, your office chair, your TV, your drapes, the padding beneath your carpet, your hair dryer, your cell phone. The problem is, they don’t stay put. They leach out of products and they get into us. They’re in dust and soil and the wastewater sludge that’s spread on farm fields.
The chemicals are in fish and meat and dairy. They’ve been found in the Arctic and Antarctic. They’re in peregrine falcons and killer whales and polar bears and salmon. They’re in cats and dogs.

Babies come into the world with flame retardant chemicals in their bodies.

The chemicals have also been turning up in breast milk.

Six years ago, Meredith Buhalis had her breast milk tested as part of a study of new moms. And PBDEs turned up.

“I had a brief moment of oh my gosh, ew, that’s terrible!”

Her levels were not much above the average American. And she says she kept nursing her baby because it was the best thing for her. But it did make her think.

“I guess I just thought proactively after that we need more legislation and research about what these chemicals do and how we can control the ways they get into our bodies.”

Scientists and doctors are worried because hundreds of peer-reviewed studies are suggesting links to problems with brain development, changes to thyroid systems, and fertility problems.

“If you’re looking at developmental exposure then these are very toxic chemicals.”

Linda Birnbaum is the director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. She studies the health effects of flame retardants. She says there are hundreds of studies in animals showing negative effects from PBDEs. Now, human studies are coming out.

“Depending how high they were exposed in utero we’re seeing associations with some lower IQ and some behavioral deficits. There are also some effects beginning to be reported on other reproductive endpoints in the human population. All of these kinds of effects have been reported in animal studies.”

Birnbaum says the average American has about 30 parts per billion of these flame retardants in his or her body. But some people have levels as high as 10-thousand parts per billion. Those are levels where in animal studies scientists are seeing problems.

One thing the experts say you should keep in mind is that just because you’re exposed to a chemical does not mean you’ll get sick and die.

Dr. Arnold Schecter studies our exposure to flame retardants. He’s a professor at the University of Texas School of Public Health.

“What we’re talking about is not something like cyanide where if you get some in your body you’re going to drop dead immediately. We’re talking about something more like asbestos or cigarette smoking where you have effects on a population basis. 80 % of lung cancers are from smoking but the majority of smokers are not going to get lung cancer so there’s some genetic roll of the dice.”

Dr. Schecter says you really should try to keep your levels as low as you can. But it can be really tough because these chemicals are everywhere. And despite government policies to reduce our exposures, there’s no evidence levels are going down.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Tapping Offshore Wind

  • Offshore wind farms have the potential to create jobs in struggling states like Michigan, but uncertainty in the permitting process continues to slow projects down.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

It’s been nine years since developers first proposed a wind farm off Cape Cod. You can now find offshore wind proposals in just about any state with a coastline. But these are still just proposals. Dustin Dwyer has a look at what needs to change before the U.S. can tap into its offshore wind potential:

Transcript

It’s been nine years since developers first proposed a wind farm off Cape Cod. You can now find offshore wind proposals in just about any state with a coastline. But these are still just proposals. Dustin Dwyer has a look at what needs to change before the U.S. can tap into its offshore wind potential.

One of the newest plans for offshore wind in the U.S. is in Michigan, a state that’s desperate for the kind of jobs that an offshore wind project could create.

But local landowners don’t want to have to look at the turbines – it’s the same problem Cape Wind confronted nine years ago. And the process for getting offshore wind projects approved remains murky.

Steve Warner is CEO of Scandia Wind, which is proposing the Michigan project. He says the response from state government so far has been confusing.

“In the absence of understanding the process and what it entails, people want to hesitate and we understand that.”

There is an effort underway in Michigan to clarify the permitting process for offshore wind. But as that effort drags in many states and at the federal level, developers are left waiting.

For The Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

Are Flame Retardants Putting Us at Risk? (Part 1)

  • PBDEs are used in a lot of our products, including couches, to make them resistant to flames. (Photo by Fastily from Wikimedia Commons)

Flame retardant chemicals are used in hundreds of products in our homes and offices and schools. The chemicals can slow the spread of fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals leach out of our couches, our TVs, our carpet padding and many other things in our homes. And they’re getting into our bodies. In the first of our five part series, Rebecca Williams tries to find out what’s in the products in her own home:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals are used in hundreds of products in our homes and offices and schools. The chemicals can slow the spread of fire. But certain kinds of these chemicals leach out of our couches, our TVs, our carpet padding and many other things in our homes. And they’re getting into our bodies. In the first of our five part series… Rebecca Williams tries to find out what’s in the products in her own home:

A few months ago, I never really thought about flame retardants. I knew some of these chemicals were probably in my house, but I kind of just shrugged it off.

But then I had a baby. And that made me want to take another look.

The chemicals I’m talking about are called PBDEs. That’s polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

Some of these PBDEs have been phased out. But there’s a good chance your couch and chairs and carpet padding still have these chemicals in them. You’re probably surrounded by PBDEs and you will be for a long time.

That worries some scientists and doctors. That’s because hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in animals are suggesting exposure to PBDEs might be linked to problems with brain development, changes to thyroid systems, and fertility problems. And recently, human studies are coming out and they’re showing some of the same things. Public health experts are especially worried about babies and young kids because they grow so fast… and they are constantly exposed to dust. That’s where PBDEs tend to collect.

The American Chemistry Council did not want to be recorded for this story. But in an email response to my questions, a spokesperson said:

“Flame retardants have been rigorously tested and have saved lives.”

Two of the big chemical companies also responded to me by email. Chemtura and ICL Industrial Products both say they stand by the safety of their flame retardant chemicals.

But many independent scientists and public health experts say it’s a good idea to reduce your exposure to PBDEs.

So all of this made me wonder. How can we know what’s in the stuff we buy? It seems like a simple question. But there are no labels at the store.

You can write to the companies that make your furniture and TV. But I wrote to a half dozen companies to ask them about flame retardants… and only heard back from one, Fisher-Price.

But I have a lot of stuff that’s not made by Fisher-Price. So… I thought I’d call in some experts. The guys at the Ecology Center test consumer products for chemicals. Jeff Gearhart volunteered to come up and test my home to see if we could find flame retardants.

(door opening sound)

“Hey, come on in!” “Hello!”

He brought along a device that looks like a little gun. It can tell you the chemical makeup of products.

“We’re going to look at baby products, toys, furniture, some of your flooring… these chemicals can be transported into your carpet, your child crawls on the carpet, they put their hand in their mouth or there’s just dust in the overall environment. So that’s the mechanism of how we get exposed to these chemicals.”

As Jeff went around my house… he found flame retardants in my TV, the padding under the carpet, three chairs, a car seat, a baby play mat, and our cable box. When PBDEs were phased out of furniture, a lot of companies replaced them with other chemicals.

I wanted to find out more about those chemicals. So I cut samples of foam from some things from my house… and sent them to Heather Stapleton. She’s a chemist at Duke University. The sample I sent her from my baby’s changing table pad totally stumped her.

“I was a little bit surprised honestly because we’ve seen most of the major chemical flame retardants in foam products. This one I’ve never seen before. You mentioned this was made in China. So it could be the Chinese companies are using something different than what we use in the United States.”

She couldn’t tell me whether or not it was safe.

She says it’s next to impossible to know what’s in the things you buy. That’s because the federal government doesn’t require companies to reveal the chemicals in their products… or require proof that the chemicals are safe.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

From Health Care to Climate

  • Congressional leaders are beginning to start thinking about a climate bill again.

Health care legislation has finally started
moving forward in Congress. Shawn Allee reports
the US Senate can now devote some attention to
its unfinished work on climate change:

Transcript

Health care legislation has finally started moving forward in Congress.

Shawn Allee reports the US Senate can now devote some attention to its unfinished work on climate change:

The climate-change bill got a cold reception last year, but Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman say they’re making headway lately.

Margaret Kriz Hobson tracks climate legislation for the National Journal.
She says the Senate got stuck negotiating a complex carbon trading scheme.
That would have required most industries to trade carbon pollution credits.

Kriz Hobson says the three senators are now focusing mostly on power companies.

“A lot more people are letting them in the door because the proposal that they’re bringing forward would include some benefits for nuclear power, oil drilling in the United States and for more modern technologies for capture and sequestration.”

That last technology would basically bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.

That could save money and jobs in states that burn or mine coal.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Renewing the Nuclear Past (Part 3)

  • Indian Point Nuclear Station, as seen from the opposite side of the Hudson River. A spent fuel and other systems have leaked tritium and other radionuclides into the groundwater below. (Photo by Shawn Allee

You might think a nuclear power station
would have the tightest pipes imaginable
to keep radioactive liquids from
contaminating water underground. But the
truth is, dozens of reactors have leaks,
and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising
questions about how nuclear power plants
are regulated:

Transcript

You might think a nuclear power station would have the tightest pipes imaginable to keep radioactive liquids from contaminating water underground.
But the truth is, dozens of reactors have spouted leaks, and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising questions about how nuclear power plants are regulated.

I meet anti-nuclear activist Susan Shapiro in some hills northwest of New York City.
We drive where we can see the Indian Point nuclear power station across the Hudson River.
Shapiro tells me it’s leaked radioactive water into the ground.

Shapiro: It’s not contained and they know that. In fact, their answer was to let it leak into the groundwater. For years it might have been leaking. We know it’s been leaking for the last five, because that’s when we found it.

And for Shapiro, things get worse.
We stop along the river.

Allee: What’s the significance of this place?

Shapiro: This is where they’re planning to put the desal plant.

Allee: What kind of plant?

Shapiro: Desalination plant for … they want to take the Hudson River water which is a briny water and desalinate it and give it to Rockland County people as their drinking water.

The water plant and the nuclear power plant have been filing important paperwork about how they’d use the river they share.

Shapiro: Neither one refers to the other. The desal plant doesn’t mention Indian Point, and Indian Point doesn’t mention the desal plant. And we’re looking at it … how can they not mention it?

I asked both the water company, United Water, and the US Nuclear Regulatory commission about this.
The water plant’s application was made after the Indian Point leaks were well-known.
But a spokesman says water tests show the Hudson’s water, before and after treatment, will be far below federal limits for pollutants, including radioactive ones from Indian Point.

Things are complicated on the Indian Point side, though.
To start, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to make clear, people shouldn’t worry.
Here’s NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

Burnell: By virtue of the vast quantities of water traveling through the Hudson, any isotopes that would make it to the river would automatically be diluted to several orders of magnitude, meaning they would be incapable of posing any public health risk.

The NRC is reviewing Indian Point’s operations, because the plant wants to run an additional twenty years beyond its current license.
The plant filed an environmental report to get permission.
But that filing does not mention the desalination plant, even though these filings are supposed to mention drinking water facilities.
The deputy head of the NRC’s re-licencing division says the agency’s “looking into that right now” – almost three years after the water company made its intentions clear.

Indian Point is just one nuclear plant that’s leaked radioactive water.
At least 27 reactors have leaked.
The NRC says “at least” 27 because the agency learns about leaks from companies that own nuclear power plants.
In some cases, they’re not found and reported for years.
Burnell says these kinds of leaks pose little health threat, so his agency doesn’t demand inch-by-inch inspections of every pipe and drain.

Burnell: The issue there returns to the limits of the NRC’s authority. We have the authority to ensure the plant is capable of shutting down safely. We do expect that the systems will remain whole and not leak. We do not, however, have the authority to enforce a standard that goes beyond what’s necessary to safely shut down the plant.

To recap … the federal government wants to stop leaks, but it won’t step in unless there’s potential for a massive accident, health threat or exorbitant clean up costs when a plant closes.

As for the nuclear power industry?
It says plant owners are trying to meet higher standards, but they’re self-imposed standards, and it doesn’t think regulators should change that.
Here’s Ralph Andersen, with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

Andersen: We’ve given it that enhanced priority, but to then say that the regulators should take that on, that’s a whole different reach, in my mind.

So, the NRC says it’s not going to change its rules on leaks because it feels those rules are effective now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

EPA Set to Act on Greenhouse Gases

  • The EPA is set to issue proposed rules for reducing greenhouse gases. The rules are likely to affect new coal burning power plants.

The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Transcript

The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

This week EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Congressional hearing only the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would have to get pollution permits at first.

Joe Koncelik is an environmental lawyer with the firm Frantz-Ward in Cleveland. He says even then not every big power plant and steel mill will have to get a permit:

“That’s triggered only if you are building a new plant or you make what’s considered a significant change to an existing plant.”

And if they’re required to get a permit it’s not clear what they’ll have to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Eric Schaeffer is a former EPA official and now heads up the Environmental Integrity Project.

“The standard is: best available technology. And I haven’t seen EPA’s definition of that yet.”

More than likely, the biggest emitters will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through using fossil fuels more efficiently or mixing in bio-fuels until ways are developed to capture emissions and store them underground.

For the Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Renewing the Nuclear Past (Part 2)

  • Cooling units at the Vermont Yankee power station. Radioactive tritium (an isotope of hydrogen) has leaked into the ground near the center of the plant. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Power companies hope to extend the working life of old nuclear reactors because it’s cheaper to run them than it is to build new reactors.
But old reactors require federal approval to renew their licenses.
For the past decade, power companies have been on a winning streak.
They’d gotten reactor licenses renewed every time they asked.
Shawn Allee reports one of the industry’s most recent bets went wrong:

Transcript

Power companies hope to extend the working life of old nuclear reactors because it’s cheaper to run them than it is to build new reactors.
But old reactors require federal approval to renew their licenses.
For the past decade, power companies have been on a winning streak.
They’d gotten reactor licenses renewed every time they asked.
Shawn Allee reports one of the industry’s most recent bets went wrong:

Vermont’s only nuclear reactor, Vermont Yankee, is likely to shut down in 2012.
The story of how that happened is unique in the nuclear biz.

Vermont Yankee’s license was set to expire in 2012 but eight years ago, a company called Entergy bought it anyway.

Entergy gambled the federal government would renew that license so Vermont Yankee could run another twenty years.

It seemed a safe bet, since the federal government never rejected a renewal application.

But Entergy also asked to expand Vermont Yankee, to produce more power.

That’s when Vermont’s state legislature stepped in.

The legislature said, if you want to expand, we want some say in whether you operate past 2012, regardless of what the federal government says.

No other state legislature has given itself this kind of authority.
This was an opening for anti-nuclear activists.

This video’s from a protest back in January.

Activists took it during their week long winter-time March to Vermont’s statehouse.

The protesters stopped for potlucks, speeches, and church songs.

Protester say they felt they were winning some support, but then they got an unexpected boost.

Here’s protester Bob Bady:

“We got a call that there was migrating plume of tritium under the plant and it was going to hit the press the next day.”

Bady says tritium is a kind of hydrogen that makes water radioactive.

In other words, Vermont Yankee was leaking radioactive water.

Protesters asked themselves, didn’t Entergy say these kinds of underground leaks couldn’t happen?

“The plant owner, Entergy, has incredibly low credibility particularly because they went before the legislature and vehemently denied there were even pipes underground, so that created a problem for them.”

The details are fuzzy, at least according to Entergy.

Here’s PR-guy Rob Williams.

“Clearly there was some kind of a miscommunication and then, uh, once we have a handle on it, we want to set the record straight.”

Entergy says its own investigation found employees did not lie about piping that could cause tritium leaks.

Vermont’s Attorney General is still determining that.

Regardless, some state senators said they felt they were lied to. Or Entergy did not know the plant could leak tritium. Either would be bad, so the state senate voted to shut the plant.

And that’s all Vermont law requires, so now Vermont Yankee’s slated to close in 2012.

But what happened with the tritium leaks?

PR-guy Rob Williams gives me a tour of Vermont Yankee.

From Entergy’s point of view, the system worked. It detected tritium in underground water.

“Right. Now, this is three wells we installed to specifically look for tritium. It gives you a good early warning that you’ve got a leak back in the piping.”

State health officials say tritium probably leaked near the center of the plant.

The state hasn’t found contaminated wells or other drinking water supplies.
Tritium is likely to move into the nearby Connecticut River, where it’ll be diluted.

As for the federal government, it’s unfazed.

The U-S Nuclear Regulatory Commission says Vermont Yankee leaked tritium before – several times.

At least 26 other reactors leaked tritium, too, but the NRC says the public’s safe.

In fact, the NRC has approved applications for license renewal at plants that had leaks just like Vermont Yankee’s.

The NRC is still reviewing that plant’s license renewal application … regardless of what the State of Vermont has to say about it.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Tomorrow, Shawn Allee looks at tritium leaks at one power plant that is across the river from a desalinization drinking water plant.

Related Links

Wind Energy Estimates Jump

  • The new estimates of wind power potential take into consideration taller and more efficient turbines. (Photo courtesy of the NREL

A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows that the United States has a lot of wind, and that wind could generate a lot of energy. Samara Freemark has the story:

Transcript

A study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory shows that the United States has a lot of wind – and that wind could generate a lot of energy. Samara Freemark has the story:

Researchers at the Lab estimated the total amount of wind power that could be generated in the United States at more than 10 times the total electricity we use today.

The figure comes to 37 million gigawatts of electricity per year.

That’s much higher than an estimate researchers put out in 1993.

Dennis Elliot is with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He says that’s largely due to turbine improvements.

“The turbines are much bigger. We’re looking at heights of 80 meters,
compared to the old technology had heights of about 50 meters above ground. The
higher you go up, the more energy is available in the wind. The wind speeds get
greater.”

Elliot says the biggest challenge now is building the infrastructure to tap that energy, and move it around the country.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links