Deodorant Maker Fouls the Air

  • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks, and they’re in a lot of every day products. (Photo courtesy of NinaHale CC-2.0)

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

Transcript

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

The makers of Axe body spray – popular among teenage boys – have been fined for causing environmental problems in California. Dimitri Stanich is spokesman for the California Air Resouces Board. He says California has specific low limits on how much air pollution can come from consumer products.

And if they get a tip that a product is over the limit – they head to the pharmacy.

“THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD HAS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT WILL BUY PRODUCTS OFF THE SHELF AND THEN TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB IN SACRAMENTO. TECHNICIANS THEN WILL PIERCE THE CANISTER AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF VOCS IN THERE.”

VOCs – that’s short for volatile organic compounds. VOCs come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks. And they’re in a lot of every day products: some aerosol sprays, most paints, even some cosmetics. Stanich says there are lots of reasons a manufacturer might use a volatile organic compound. In a product like Axe, he says the VOCs make it spray better.

“MOST OF OFTEN IT IS PART OF THE PROPELLENT USED TO FORCE THE PRODUCT OUT OF THE CANISTER AND INTO THE PRACTICAL PURPOSE THAT THE CONSUMER IS USING IT.”

And once those VOCs hit the air – from deodorants, tailpipes and smokestacks – they mix with the heat of the sun – and create ground level ozone. Pollution.

The multinational corporation, Unilever, owns the Axe brand. Stanich says that between 2006 and 2008, Unilever’s parent company, Conopco, sold more than 2.8 million units of Axe spray that failed to meet California’s clean air standards.

The state has fined Conopco 1.3 million dollars.

It’s all kind of a bummer. At least for some teenage girls.

Katie Schombeck and Julia Rombach say the boys locker room reeks of Axe. And they love it.

“YOU SMELL IT AND YOU’RE LIKE DRAWN TO IT, IT SMELLS SO GOOD.”

“I DO THAT ALL THE TIME. I REMEMBER HANGING OUT WITH GUYS, AND LIKE IF THEY SMELL GOOD I’LL BE LIKE ‘HEY COME HERE FOR A MINUTE’ AND SMELL THEIR SHOULDER AND BE LIKE ‘YOU SMELL GOOD.’”

“I’LL GIVE THEM A BIG HUG, JUST BECAUSE THEY SMELL GOOD.”

But these 16 years olds didn’t realize body spray could be bad for air quality.

“BUT IT NEVER REALLY DAWNED ON ME THAT AXE…I DON’T KNOW, YOU DON’T REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT.”

Compared to all those cars and trucks and smokestacks – it doesn’t seem like a little deodorant spray could cause that much of a problem. But Dimitri Stanich with the California Air Resources Board says all those little bits add up.

“WE SPRAY A LITTLE PERFUME HERE, WE SPRAY A LITTLE DEODORANT THERE, SOME WD-40 ON THE VEHICLES WE’RE WORKING ON. THE LIST GOES ON. EVERYTHING THAT’S A CONSUMER PRODUCT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO OZONE.”

Stanich says on peak ozone days, people have a harder time breathing, especially those with asthma.

California has a particularly bad ozone problem in its cities – and also has tougher clean air rules than most of the country.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to tighten federal air quality standards – to reduce ozone pollution everywhere else.

Julian Marshall is professor of environmental engineering at the University of Minnesota.
He says most health officials support tougher air standards.

But there are lots of ways to reduce exposure in your own home:

“BUYING LIMITED QUANTITIES OF PRODUCTS THAT EMIT VOCS, OR BUYING LOW VOC PRODUCTS. WHEN YOU GO TO BUY PAINTS FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE LOW VOC PAINTS.”

To reduce exposure, Marshall says get rid of old chemicals and those you don’t need.

In the meantime, California officials say Unilever has corrected the problems with Axe – and reduced the emissions from its spray can. Making a lot of teenage boys – and some of their girl – friends happy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Challenging the EPA Over CO2 Regs

  • Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:

The EPA says it has a duty to regulate greenhouse gasses to protect us from global warming.

The state of Texas, Virginia, and Alabama have filed legal challenges to try to stop the EPA. They say the coming regulations will be bad for the economy. And they call into question the science that EPA based its decision on.

Here’s the Texas attorney general – Greg Abbott:

“The information on which the EPA relies can neither confirm nor deny that there has been global warming, or that temperatures have risen.”

The EPA says it’s evaluated all the science available for the last ten years, and that the evidence is quote “compelling” that climate change is real – and that it’s a threat to human health and welfare.

Those three states challenging the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases are countered by sixteen other states supporting the EPA’s decision.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

  • In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made the unprecedented decision to deny a power company permits for a coal plant because of greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

Transcript

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

The Sunflower Electric Power Corporation had actually applied and been
approved for a permit to build a new coal plant in 2002. But, for whatever
reason, they let the permit expire. Seemed like no big deal at the time
– they figured they’d get another one whenever they turned in another
application.

Except that they didn’t. In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny the power company. Cindy Hertel is with
Sunflower.

“It would be like going for your drivers license, taking the drivers
test, passing it, then being denied your drivers license because you
don’t drive a Prius. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
And that’s what happened.”

Rod Bremby is the Secretary of Health and Environment in Kansas. He says
the state didn’t really change the rules on regulating CO2 because there
aren’t any rules on CO2. And since there’s no federal regulations,
Secretary Bremby instituted a state regulation. He said it would be
irresponsible not to regulate the gases causing climate change.

Stephanie Cole with the Sierra Club called it a watershed moment.

“We were excited, we were stunned – however, it wasn’t long after
that, legislators from Western Kansas started making comments that they
disapproved of Secretary Bremby’s decision and that they were going to
make legislative attempts to overturn the permit denial. So victory was
short-lived.”

Since then, the power company, Sunflower, has hired lobbyists. They’ve
helped legislators draft new bills to allow the coal-burning power plant.
The power company sued both the previous and current governor for civil
rights violations. For two years – nothing.

Then Kansas got a new governor – Mark Parkinson. Almost immediately
after he became governor last May, he cut a deal with Sunflower. Stop the
lawsuits. Build only one unit, not two or three. And, most importantly to
the Governor’s agenda, put in transmission lines to Colorado so that
Kansas can start exporting wind energy out of state.

Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. But it needs
infrastructure to get that wind-power to other states. And, in the
governor’s deal, power companies like Sunflower help build that
infrastructure.

Cole, with the Sierra Club, said the deal was very much a let-down.

“Because it is very troubling to many of us who have been involved in
this so long. It is such a disappointment.”

For a moment the battle seemed to be over. But, it wasn’t.

In July, Sunflower received a letter from the EPA asking them to submit a
new application for a permit. John Knodel is an environmental engineer
with the EPA.

“It’s not appropriate, in our mind, that they take an application that
was for three 700 MW units and simply say, ‘that was bigger, this project
is smaller.’ We say, ‘you have to go through a process and make it
very clear what this new project is all about.’”

Now that the EPA is stepping in, Sunflower & the Sierra Club are back to
square one.

The power company is expected to turn in its new application this fall.
The Sierra Club is expected to fight it. And Sunflower is expected to
fight back.

Cindy Hertel with Sunflower says the power company is just trying to keep
electricity bills low.

Hertel: “This is still in the best interest of our members.”

Browne: “This still makes sense economically?”

Hertel: “It still makes sense. What people need to know is that we are
cost biased, not fuel biased.”

Browne: “And, right now, for Sunflower, that means coal.”

But it might not be coal for very long.

The U.S. House passed a bill last winter that includes a hefty carbon tax
and incentives for renewable energy. A similar bill was recently
introduced in the Senate.

If it passes, Kansas might find its wind energy not only beats coal in
price, but wind-power could become the next big export for the state.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

Related Links

Styrene Industry Sues Over Cancer Listing

  • Styrene is one component in styrofoam containers (Photo by Renee Comet, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The styrene industry is suing to stop environmental officials from saying styrene could cause cancer and birth defects. Lester Graham reports:

Styrene is used in all kinds of products – containers like coffee cups, egg cartons, in construction, in cars.

The state of California wants to add it to a list of cancer-causing materials. The International Agency for Research on Cancer found styrene is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Joe Walker is a spokesman for the Styrene Information and Research Center.

“Styrene is not a carginogen. Any listing that would categorize it as such basically would be illegal and would be erroneous and would have the potential of alarming the public unnecessarily about products that are made from styrene.”

If the court does allow California to put styrene on its cancer list, the styrene industry has a year to prove it doesn’t belong on that list.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: Action Against Atrazine

  • One lawyer wants a class action suit against the manufacturer of Atrazine, an herbicide used on crops (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:

Transcript

Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:


Lester Graham: Mr. Tillery, what’s this lawsuit about, if the level is less than the 3-parts-per-billion the government says is safe?

Steve Tillery: Well, actually, at different times of the year, Atrazine does in fact exceed the federal standard. The federal government refers to MCL – maximum contaminant level – and that’s the maximum, they say, a chemical should exist in the water supply to be consumed by people in the community. The maximum contaminant level for Atrazine is 3-parts-per-billion. Many times, throughout the Spring, throughout Illinois and other Mid-Western cities, the levels grossly exceed 3-parts-per-billion. So what happens is that the cities, the water districts, are required to pay large amounts of money to filter the water so it is below that level. In addition, some have gone to the expense of completely cleaning it out of their water supplies. So that it doesn’t exist at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred for completely cleaning it out of their water supplies.

Graham: Scientists that worked, then, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association told me that during the application season, during the Spring, that they measured levels of Atrazine exceeding the safe drinking water levels in the rain on the East Coast from all of the application in the Midwest. Rather than just cleaning it up, is this not a problem of too much Atrazine – maybe we limit the amount?

Tillery: Well, the issue is whether or not it should be banned completely. The European Union has done exactly that. For all of the reasons that people look at – scientists look at – this chemical and point to the adverse health affects, changes to the environment, all of those reasons, the Europeans banned it some years ago.

Graham: The defense in most cases like this is: this is a regulated product, the label is the law, if it isn’t applied correctly, it’s the applicator – the farmer’s – fault; and if it is applied according to the label, the government says it’s safe.

Tillery: Yeah, we’re not safe. For two reasons. First of all, it’s not a problem with farmers. Farmers are doing exactly what is on the label. They are applying it precisely the way the manufacturer says it should be applied. So they’re not the issue. The problem is the manufacturer. To the extent that we rely on federal regulators to do the right thing, we are misdirected in this instance. For many years, the relationship between Syngenta – the principle manufacturer of this chemical – and the EPA has been under close scrutiny. And I’m hopeful that it’s reevaluated and examined under this new administration. Big corporations, in this case from Switzerland, who come here and sell this and make enormous profits in this country selling this chemical – 77 million pounds a year, average. When they make that money, and they cause taxpayers to incur $400 million a year in expense throughout the US to clean up their mess, they should be the ones that come back and reimburse them. We aren’t asking for anything else besides that. We are asking for compensation to these cities who’ve incurred this expense. The people who create the mess should pay for its cleanup. People should not be drinking water with Atrazine in it, at any level.

Graham: Steve Tillery is an attorney seeking class-action status trying to make the manufacturers of Atrazine pay to clean up the water their product contaminates. Thanks for your time.

Tillery: Thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.

Graham: I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Neighbors Take Dow Chemical to Court

  • A Dow Chemical sign next to a river in Michigan contaminated with dioxin. Homeowners downstream are still waiting for their case against Dow to be heard. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:

Transcript

The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:

A Dow chemical plant near the company’s headquarters in Michigan produced all kinds of products over decades, including Agent Orange. Dioxin polluted the Tittabawassee River and its flood plain. A group of 173 people have sued, after learning their property is contaminated. Many of these people have been involved in this litigation for six years. The courts still have not gotten around to their case. Attorney Theresa Golden took their case to the Michigan Supreme Court.

“The clients obviously are concerned and disappointed that it’s taken us long to get to this point.”

The group wants class action status, so every single homeowner does not have to take on the corporate giant. There are a couple thousand property downstream of this plant. And Dow does not like the idea of potentially having to pay every one of them.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Polar Bear Protection Spurs Lawsuits

  • The polar bear is now listed as a threatened species (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:

Transcript

The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:

In the announcement Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne tried to make it clear –
the listing doesn’t mean the government is regulating greenhouse gases. He says the
listing can’t be used to stop oil and gas drilling or to go after industries for releasing
carbon dioxide.

Reed Hopper is the principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation – a conservative
public interest group. He says he still expects lawsuits from environmentalists. And that
the Secretary can’t control how the courts will interpret the new listing.

“If the activists are able to use this as they intend, to challenge industrial activity in the
United States, the ultimate effect on the average person is going to be an increase in
energy costs, transportation, fuel, food and housing.”

Hopper says his group is planning to go forward with a lawsuit of their own – opposing the listing.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Government Drops Jaguar Recovery Plan

  • Jaguars are an endangered species in the U.S., but the federal government has decided that there are too few individual cats in the U.S. to focus a large recovery effort on them here. (Photo courtesy of USFWS)

In a rare move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it won’t try to
save an endangered animal. Rebecca Williams reports critics say the
government is giving up on the endangered jaguar:

Transcript

In a rare move, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it won’t try to
save an endangered animal. Rebecca Williams reports critics say the
government is giving up on the endangered jaguar:


The Fish and Wildlife Service says it won’t write a species recovery
plan for the jaguars that live near the U.S.-Mexico border. The agency
says there are not enough jaguars on the U.S. side to make a
difference. The agency says it’d be better to spend money on
larger populations of the cat in Mexico.


The Center for Biological Diversity is in an ongoing lawsuit with the
government about the jaguar. Michael Robinson is with the Center:


“It’s shocking that they’re writing off a U.S. species and stating
contrary to the law that they will not recover it.”


The cats roam back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico. Critics
believe the government scrapped the jaguar recovery plan because it
could interfere with a border fence being built between the two
countries.


The Fish and Wildlife Service says the fence was not a factor.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Factory Farms – Water Pollution

  • Hog manure being injected into the ground and tilled under. The manure fertilizes the crops, but if too much is applied it can foul up waterways. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Transcript

(sound of giant fans)


About a thousand cows are in this building, eating, lolling around, and waiting for the next round of milking.


There’s a sharp smell of manure hanging in the air. Big fans are blowing to keep the cows cool, and to keep the air circulated.


Stephan Vander Hoff runs this dairy along with his siblings. He says these big farms are good for consumers:


“We’ve got something here and we’ve been able to do it in such a way that we’re still producing at the same cost that we were fifteen years ago. It costs more now for a gallon of gas than a gallon of milk. And so, that’s something to be proud of.”


Vander Hoff’s dairy produces enough milk to fill seven tanker trucks everyday. They also produce a lot of waste. The cows in this building are penned in by metal gates. They can’t go outside. So the manure and urine that would normally pile up is washed away by water.


Tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater are sent to big lagoons outside. Eventually, the liquefied manure is spread onto nearby farm fields. It’s a challenge for these farmers to deal with these large pools of liquid manure. The farther they have to haul it, the more expensive it is for them. Almost all of them put the manure onto farm fields.


It’s good for the crops if it’s done right, but if too much manure is put on the land, it can wash into streams and creeks. In fact, this dairy has been cited by the state of Michigan for letting their manure get into nearby waterways.


(sound of roadway)


Lynn Henning keeps a close eye on Vander Hoff’s dairy.


(car door opening and closing)


She steps from her car with a digital camera, and a device that measures water quality.


(sound of crickets and walking through the brush)


She weaves her way down to the edge of this creek.


“This is the area where we got E. coli at 7.5 million.”


High E. coli levels mean the water might be polluted with dangerous pathogens. Lynn Henning is testing the creek today because she saw farmers spreading liquid manure on the fields yesterday. Henning is a farmer turned environmental activist. She works for the Sierra Club and drives all over the state taking water samples and pictures near big livestock farms.


Henning says she got involved because more of these large animal farms expanded into her community. She says when the farmers spread the liquid manure, it can make life in the country pretty difficult:


“The odor is horrendous when they’re applying –we have fly infestations–we have hydrogen sulfide in the air that nobody knows is there because you can’t always smell it. We have to live in fear that every glass of water that we drink is going to be contaminated at some point.”


Water contamination from manure is a big concern. The liquid manure can contain nasty pathogens and bacteria.


Joan Rose is a microbiologist at Michigan State University.


“If animal wastes are not treated properly and we have large concentrations of animal waste going onto land and then via rainfall or other runoff events entering into our water – there can be outbreaks associated with this practice.”


Rose tested water in this area and found high levels of cryptosporidium that likely came from cattle. Cryptosporidium is the same bug that killed people in Milwaukee back in 1993. Rose says livestock farmers need to think more about keeping these pathogens out of the water. But she says they don’t get much support from the state and researchers on how best to do that.


For now, the farmers have to come up with their own solutions.


(sound of treatment plant)


Three years ago, the state of Michigan sued Stephen Vander Hoff’s dairy for multiple waste violations. The Vander Hoff’s settled the case with the state and agreed to build a one million dollar treatment system. But Vander Hoff isn’t convinced that his dairy was at fault, and thinks that people’s concerns over his dairy are overblown:


“If we had an issue or had done something wrong the first people that want to correct it is us. We live in this area. So why would we do anything to harm it?”


Vander Hoff is upbeat about the new treatment system. He says it will save the dairy money in the long run.


The Sierra Club’s Lynn Henning says she’s skeptical of the new treatment plant. She’ll continue to take water samples and put pressure on these farms to handle their manure better. In the end, she doesn’t think these big farms have a place in agriculture. She’d rather see farms go back to the old style of dairying, where the cows are allowed to graze, and the number of animals isn’t so concentrated.


But farm researchers say because consumers demand cheap prices, these large farms are here to stay and there will be more of them. Because of this, the experts say we can expect more conflicts in rural America.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Refinery Pollution Back-Down

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:


The new permit gave BP’s Indiana refinery permission to dump more
pollutants into Lake Michigan. BP said it would need those higher
limits because of refinery expansion. Politicians, citizens and
environmentalists throughout the Great Lakes protested, often and
loudly.


In the end, BP backed off. The company says it will use its old permit
and seek a technological fix to limit pollution as it expands. Cameron
Davis of the Alliance for the Great Lakes says BP tried to play the
country’s needs for energy against the environment:


“It was amazing to see that debate somehow rear its head again this
time around and I think the results show most people just don’t buy it any
more.”


Davis says his group will keep pursuing a lawsuit it filed to challenge
the new permit, just in case BP doesn’t keep its word.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links