Your Drugs in Your Water

  • Pharmaceuticals and other toxins have been found in lakes like this one, Lake Champlain. (Photo by Kinna Ohman)

Less than ten years ago, the U.S. Geological Survey found household drugs and
chemicals in almost every body of water they sampled. Each year since then, at least twenty
studies come out showing these chemicals can affect the hormone systems of wildlife –
and some studies have begun to look at effects on humans. Kinna Ohman reports that,
despite all this, little has been done to address the issue:

Transcript

Less than ten years ago, the U.S. Geological Survey found household drugs and
chemicals in almost every body of water they sampled. Each year since then, at least twenty
studies come out showing these chemicals can affect the hormone systems of wildlife –
and some studies have begun to look at effects on humans. Kinna Ohman reports that,
despite all this, little has been done to address the issue:



Every major water body in the United States, whether it’s a river, lake, or wetland,
probably has at least one scientist keeping an eye on it. Lake Champlain is no exception.
This large lake, forming much of the border between Vermont and northern New York,
has its share of scientists… and Mary Watzin is one of them.


Watzin’s the director of the Rubenstein Ecosystem Science Laboratory in Burlington,
Vermont. She’s been studying how human pollution and activities impact the lake’s fish,
birds, and other water wildlife.


Watzin’s been around long enough to see quite a few of the big pollution problems resolved,
but you can’t help noticing some frustration when she talks about the latest issue:


“We’re cleaning up our act, at least with PCBs – we’re working on mercury – and
then there’s all this new generation stuff coming along.”


This new generation of pollutants includes the active parts of household chemicals and
drugs which have the potential to impact the hormone systems in wildlife. They’re in
detergents, cleaning products, and many types of drugs such as antidepressants, steroids,
and even birth control pills. Chris Hornback is with the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies:


“They’re coming from consumer products. In the case of pharmaceuticals, they’re
coming from drugs that our bodies aren’t completely metabolizing. Or, in some
cases, from unused pharmaceuticals that are being flushed down the toilet.”


And the problem is, once these drugs and chemicals leave our house, many of them aren’t
filtered out at wastewater treatment plants. Treatment plants were not designed to handle
these types of pollutants. So any lake or river which receives treated wastewater can also
receive a daily dose of these active chemicals.


Because these pollutants can number in the hundreds, just how to study them is under
debate. Mary Watzin says the old way just doesn’t work anymore:


“The classic way to examine one of these compounds is just to test it by itself. But
the fish aren’t exposed to these things by themselves, because they swim around in
the general milieu of everything that gets dumped out.”


But looking at how mixtures of household chemicals and drugs affect fish and other
wildlife can bring up more questions than answers. Because of this, Pat Phillips, a
hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey says we might want to concentrate on just
keeping these pollutants out of the environment:


“One of the things we see is that we see mixtures of many different compounds
coming into the wastewater treatment plants and coming into the environment.
And its very difficult to figure out what effect these mixtures have. But if we can
remove some of them, that makes a lot of sense.”


In the past, when the issue was industrial toxins, the solution was to control these toxins
at their source. This is because wastewater treatment plants weren’t made to deal with
industrial toxins in the same way they’re not made to deal with household drugs and
chemicals. But now, Chris Hornback says controlling this new generation of pollutants at
their source just isn’t practical:


“A lot of the substances that we’re talking about now including pharmaceuticals
and other emerging contaminants are coming from the households. So, those
sources are much harder to control. You can’t permit a household. A wastewater
treatment plant can’t control what a household discharges so that’s where public
outreach, and education, and pollution prevention efforts come into play.”


These efforts are really only starting. Some states have begun pharmaceutical take-back
programs to keep people from flushing unused medicines down the drain, but
participation is voluntary.


Everyone involved agrees that in order to solve this problem, it’s going to take people
thinking about what they’re sending down their drains. But just how to broach this
somewhat private topic is yet another question.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kinna Ohman.

Related Links

Carbon Dioxide Injection to Reduce Pollution?

Scientists are talking about a new way to address global warming. Their idea is to take carbon dioxide from coal-burning power plants and inject it deep into the earth. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell explains:

Transcript

Scientists are talking about a new way to address global warming. Their idea is to take carbon
dioxide from coal-burning power plants and inject it deep into the earth. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Annie Macdowell explains:


It’s called carbon sequestration. The idea is to use a chemical process to remove carbon dioxide
from power plant emissions and pressurize it into a liquid form. The liquid would then be injected
into saline aquifers up to ten thousand feet below the ground.


The government wants to create 4 to 10 regional partnerships to study the possibility of carbon
sequestration. One of the potential sites is in the Illinois Basin. The basin extends throughout three
quarters of Illinois, into Western Indiana and Western Kentucky.


Robert Finley is the director of the Center for Energy and Earth Resources at the Illinois State
Geological Survey. He says carbon sequestration could be a good transition for the country as it
moves away from using fossil fuels.


“It would allow us to use coal in a more environmentally responsible way while we look toward the
future with additional use of renewables and ultimately, perhaps, going to a hydrogen economy.”


Finley says at this point, sequestration doesn’t work with other pollutants found in power plant
emissions, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Annie MacDowell.

Air Pollution Officials Debate Clear Skies Initiative

An EPA study says that less than one percent of lakes in the Upper Midwest suffer from the effects of acid rain – down from three percent 20 years ago. Air pollution officials disagree on what to do next about the harmful precipitation. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

An EPA study says that less than one percent of lakes in the Upper Midwest suffer from the
effects of acid rain – down from three percent 20 years ago. Air pollution officials disagree on
what to do next about the harmful precipitation. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


The EPA credits the improvement in the health of lakes to a 1990 law that reduced sulphur
dioxide emissions, mainly from coal-burning power plants. Cutting SO2 pollution means several
things, including less disruption to the Lakes’ food chain. Now the EPA agrees with President
Bush’s call for Congress to pass his so-called Clear Skies Initiative. That plan aims for more
reductions in sulphur dioxide, as well as cuts in emissions of nitrogen oxides and mercury. But
several state air pollution regulators say the plan doesn’t go far enough. Lloyd Eagan is with the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.


“Basically my feeling is that the levels in the Clear Skies Initiative really offer too little reduction
and it comes too late.”


But the EPA calls the Clear Skies Initiative a market-based, workable approach to pollution
control.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck Quirmbach reporting.

Drivers Turn to Car Sharing

  • This map is used by car sharing members in Ottawa, Ontario. It shows the location of cars available for pick-up (Image courtesy of Vrtucar – Ottawa, Ontario).

    Want to know more about car sharing?


Cars are among the largest polluters in the world. They contribute to the smog that hangs over many large cities and they’re a major culprit in the creation of greenhouse gas emissions. But most of us are reluctant to give up our cars altogether. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, a growing number of North Americans are opting to share a car instead:

Transcript

Cars are among the largest polluters in the world. They contribute to the smog that hangs over
many large cities and they’re a major culprit in the creation of greenhouse gas emissions. But
most of us are reluctant to give up our cars altogether. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports, a growing number of North Americans are opting to share a car instead:


(sound of stroller)


Nathalie Buu is pushing a stroller past the shops in a trendy neighborhood in Canada’s capital,
Ottawa. She’s heading for a car which is parked about four blocks from her apartment. It’s a
Toyota Echo and she shares it with about 15 other people. When she gets to the parking lot, Buu
wheels the stroller over to a black box attached to the side of a building.


“So you take the, umm, open the lock box and the keys for the car are inside.”


(key noise)


Buu belongs to Vrtucar, a car-sharing company based in Ottawa. There are almost 200
members, and they share 11 cars. The cars are parked all over the downtown area.


Buu has two kids and a regular commute. Still, she and her husband decided they didn’t really
need a vehicle.


“When we had a car, we just found it more of a headache to have to think about repairing it or
bringing it for an oil change, and having had a car in a busy city like Montreal, we don’t really
agree with having cars in the city. It’s just too busy a place and you should be able to use public
transport, I think.”


Nowadays, Buu takes the bus to her job as a doctor at a local hospital. And when she needs to
use a car, she calls an 800 number to reserve one.


The decision to share a vehicle has been quickly gaining in popularity. Car sharing began in post
war Europe. The first North American company opened in Quebec in 1994.


Today, there are 29 companies in North America, most of them in bigger cities like New York,
Chicago and Toronto.


Susan Shaheen is a researcher at UC-Berkeley who studies car-sharing. She says companies tend
to spring up in places where owning a car has become a hassle.


“These organizations tend to thrive when driving disincentives exist such as high parking costs or
congestion. Alternative modes are easily accessible, such as transit and something we see quite
often in the early adoption of this type of service is some environmental consciousness.”


Concern about the environment was one of the main reasons Wilson Wood and his business
partner Chris Bradshaw started Vrtucar. They bought the first car in 2000. They hope to have
twenty by the end of next year. The weird thing is, Wood says they’re actually opposed to
driving.


“I can’t think of two worse guys to run a car business. You know, we hate cars. We believe the
hierarchy of transportation needs should be: your first choice is your foot, your second choice is
your bike, your third choice is your bus, and the last choice should be an automobile.”


But Wood says the reality is, sometimes you need a car. He finds most members use them for
longer trips within the city, where public transportation isn’t convenient. Not surprisingly, the
cars are especially in demand on evenings and weekends. But the company keeps them in
parking lots spaced just a half mile apart. So if the closest car isn’t available, another one is
nearby.


Nathalie Buu says she uses the car for big shopping trips or to attend meetings in the suburbs.
And she says she rarely has trouble getting one.


“I tend to be last minute and I’ll just call and say is the car available right now? And very often it
is. I’ve never had a problem that way, which has been great.”


Buu says car sharing is cheaper for them as well. They don’t have a car payment. They don’t pay
for parking, insurance, maintenance or gas on a car they’d only use a few times a month.


However, they do pay fees. It starts with a 500 dollar insurance deductible which is returned if
you leave the company. There’s also a monthly fee of either 10, 20 or 30 dollars, depending on
how often you drive. And you pay for time and distance, which averages about 15 dollars for a
three hour, 22-mile trip.


It’s cheaper than renting a car for the day. But still, 15 bucks may seem a bit pricey for 3 hours in
a car. Make this argument to Wilson Wood and he’ll pull out figures from the Canadian
Automobile Association. They estimate it costs about 5 thousand dollars a year to own a new car.
Plus, Wood argues, car share members use their cars more wisely.


“Our members are making more efficient and more environmentally intelligent choices because
they’re bundling their trips. They say, ‘oh geez, I know I’ve only got the car once this week and
I’m going to take it for 2 hours on Friday afternoon after work so I’m going to do this, this and
this.'”


(sound in car)


Not everyone joins just to save money.


Nathalie Buu says her choice was a more personal one.


“If everybody was doing this sort of thing, then we’d have less pollution in the cities. And if
you’re thinking about the future, not only your future but the future of our own kids and the air
they’re breathing and the life they’ll live, I think it’s important to think about that and not just our
immediate needs.”


But it’s not always easy. And Buu says that’s okay. Because she feels like she’s helping to create
the kind of environment that she’d like to live in.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Pay-Per-Mile Insurance a Fairer Option?

An environmental group is calling for a change in how we pay for car insurance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the group’s strategy to lower rates for people who drive their cars less:

Transcript

An environmental group is calling for a change in how we pay for car insurance. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on the group’s strategy to lower rates for
people who drive their cars less:


The group, Environmental Defense, wants it to work this way: if you don’t drive your car that
much because you’re taking the bike, or walking, or using mass transit, then you should be
allowed to pay for insurance based on the miles you drive. Michael Replogle is the
Transportation Director for Environmental Defense:


“Those of us who drive less are helping to protect the environment, but we’re paying a
disproportionate share for car insurance. We pay a much higher rate per mile than those who
drive more.


The flip side of it is, to work, everyone would have to be charged on a per mile basis.
Environmental Defense thinks that would be a step toward cutting down how much all of us
drive, burn up gasoline, and pollute. The group says it’s talking with a couple of insurance
companies that are studying the idea.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

New Air Regs to Allow More Pollution?

According to data from the EPA, air pollution from older, dirtier power plants leads to thousands of premature deaths each year. Now, environmental watchdog groups worry that recent changes to Clean Air Act regulations will allow these aging power plants to continue to pollute. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports:

Transcript

According to EPA estimates, air pollution from older, dirtier power plants leads to thousands of
premature deaths each year. Now, environmental watchdog groups worry that recent changes to
Clean Air Act regulations will allow these aging power plants to continue to pollute. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports:


Most of the coal-burning power plants in the Midwest are more than 25 years old.


Under EPA regulations, called New Source Review, these grandfathered power plants would
have to install modern pollution controls if they undergo any major upgrades.


Recently, the EPA relaxed standards on New Source Review regulations.


The EPA says the changes will cut through a lot of red tape and will provide flexibility for power
plants to improve and modernize their operations.


But environmentalists say the Bush Administration is catering to big business.


Howard, Lerner is Executive Director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He says the
changes to New Source Review regulations will let old power plants stay dirty.


“This is a break that’s being given by the Bush Administration for the coal industry, for the
utilities, the oil refineries and it comes down to a classic case of what’s good here for some of the
highly-polluting power plants is bad for the public when it comes to clean air and good health.”


Meanwhile, a group of Northeastern states that say they receive air pollution from Midwest
power plants plans to file suit challenging the changes.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Annie MacDowell.

Environmental Cloak and Dagger

Keeping track of polluters in a country as large as Canada poses a serious challenge. Truckloads of hazardous waste cross the border with the U.S. every day, logging companies work near protected wildlife, and smoke from factories fills the air; but the Canadian government has a new weapon in the fight against polluters. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on Canada’s growing team of environmental spies:

Transcript

Keeping track of polluters in a country as large as Canada poses a serious challenge. Truckloads
of hazardous waste cross the border with the U.S. every day. Logging companies work near
protected wildlife. And smoke from factories fills the air. But the Canadian government has a
new weapon in the fight against polluters. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly
reports on Canada’s growing team of environmental spies:


“We’re just coming up to this facility on the right-hand side here now.”


Brad May slows down and scans the area surrounding a squat concrete building. It’s owned by a

company that was once under suspicion for illegal dumping. We’ve come here so that May can give

a sense of what happens when he places a company under
surveillance.


“As you can see, its a fairly old factory in a fairly industrial area in the north of Toronto

that’s
involved in the recycling and reconditioning of containers used for paints and coatings and
lubricants and that sort of thing.”


May pulls into a nearby driveway obscured by weeds. As he sips a cup of coffee, he looks like a
typical investigator – right down to the khaki uniform. The guy in the back seat, however,

probably wouldn’t get a second look. He’s wearing jeans and
a plaid shirt. And he lets May do most of the talking. His name is Mark Pomeroy. And, not
surprisingly, he’s the spy. Out on surveillance, he doesn’t have much to say. But he does point

out an 18-wheeler that’s
parked a shipping container in front of the building.


“You’ll notice here you have a container and the container has various bunch of
numbers on it. That’s very good information. What shipping line did it arrive from, who’s hauling
it as far as the carrier is concerned and you can find out if the items they’re receiving would
indeed be something we’d be interested in looking at as far as a potential violation is

concerned.”


Pomeroy searches for trends in industries where there’s an incentive to pollute.

For instance, if the price of pork drops, he’ll watch for hog farmers looking for a cheap way to
dump their manure, or mechanics might be offering great deals on freon, a highly regulated

chemical that’s used in
old air conditioners. That could prompt a visit to some local garages in search of illegal

imports. A lot of times, Pomeroy teams up with customs officers, the police and

Environment Canada investigators.
He says his job is different than that of a typical officer. He tries to anticipate the next

wave of environmental crime.


“Whereas they might focus on one specific case, intelligence would look at that and say, you’re
dealing with this type of a problem, is that prevalent with these types of companies…which in turn would say, okay inspections, don’t just
focus on this particular company. Look at A,B,C,D companies also.”


Here in his office, Pomeroy locks the door before he settles into a comfortable chair.

There’s a bit of a James Bond feeling here.

Secrecy is highly valued.

There’s even white noise piped throughout the building, to reduce the chance of being overheard.

As he talks about whistleblowers and anonymous tips, it’s clear that Pomeroy loves his job.


“I like law enforcement. I find it kind of a stimulating challenge to see somebody who thinks
they’re so smart that they’re doing this and they’re getting away with it, and it’s very gratifying to
actually go after that type of a person, exposing them and if it’s a violation, prosecuting

them.”


Pomeroy is one of six environmental spies in Canada and part of the only environmental
intelligence unit in the world.

The unit was created in 1998 to improve enforcement of the new laws enacted under the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It’s a big job, but for Pomeroy, the best part is when he’s working in the field.
He cultivates informants – looking for internal whistle blowers and unhappy competitors. And
he’ll trail suspicious cars and conduct drive-bys on companies to gather information. Pomeroy
says his main goal is to find the big fish operating in the shadows of an industry.


“The big thing for an intelligence officer is to look at the unknown community. Are there people out there
who have never come forward and gone through the process of registering with us or gone
through the licensing or noticing permits? It’s up to me to see if they are actually out there

and
are they circumventing our regulations.”


But Pomeroy has been hampered by the fact that he’s the only environmental spy in the province
of Ontario.

That’s soon to change. He’ll be joined by a second spy as Environment Canada doubles the size
of its intelligence unit.

That’s welcome news for environmentalists like Jerry DeMarco. He’s the managing lawyer with
the Sierra Legal Defense Fund. And his group argues that the Canadian government is not
enforcing its own environmental laws.

The group filed a complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement. And an internal
government report backed up their claims.

DeMarco says the new officers are arriving at a crucial time.


“They need more resources for two distinct reasons. One is they haven’t had enough to enforce
the laws that do exist and also there’s been the passage of several new laws and regulations in

the
past few years that also require enforcement staff.”


For instance, Canada is adding new chemicals to its list of toxic substances. That’ll mean more
work for the investigators who track them.


Mark Pomeroy acknowledges it’s still a fledgling operation. And he’s spending much of his time
building trust – with industry sources, law enforcement, and even environmental groups,
but he’s confident that trust will translate into valuable information – which will make it

tougher
for companies that continue to break the law.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

EXTRACTING MERCURY FROM THE DENTIST’S OFFICE

  • Lorraine Kellerman operates the mercury separator in one dental office. Kellerman says it's easy and satisfying to recycle the mercury.

Health officials warn pregnant women and children to avoid eating certain kinds of fish. Mercury built up in the fish can damage the nervous system and impair children’s mental development. The National Academy of Sciences says at least 60,000 American children are born at risk for impaired development every year because their mothers were exposed to mercury. Mercury has been eliminated from paint, batteries, and other products. Now, some dentists are doing their part to reduce the mercury going into the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:

Transcript

Health officials warn pregnant women and children to avoid eating certain kinds of fish.
Mercury built up in the fish can damage the nervous system and impair children’s mental
development. The National Academy of Sciences says at least 60,000 American children
are born at risk for impaired development every year because their mothers were exposed
to mercury. Mercury has been eliminated from paint, batteries, and other products. Now,
some dentists are doing their part to reduce the mercury going into the environment. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:


Mercury is an essential part of dental amalgam, the silver stuff used to fill cavities. The
mercury keeps the amalgam soft until it’s pressed into the cavity, then it bonds to form a
very stable, durable filling. The problem is the small bits of amalgam that are left over
after the cavity is filled. The suction hose that cleans them out of your mouth generally
dumps them down the drain. So they can easily end up in a lake or river, where they can
be eaten by fish.


The average dental office creates about a half pound of waste mercury every year. Just a
tiny portion of that would be enough to warrant fish advisories.


“The amount that’s sewered from dental offices is probably the largest input to the sewer
system.”


Tim Tuominen is a pollution prevention specialist with the Western Lake Superior
Sanitary District in Duluth. He’s been working with dentists in the city for nearly ten
years to reduce the mercury they wash down the drain.


He started with the vacuum systems nearly all dentists already have. When the suction
hose whisks amalgam out of your mouth, the pieces are held in a container to keep them
from damaging the vacuum pump. Tuominen showed the dentists how to empty the
container and bring the contents to the district’s recycling program.


In the first two years, the amount of mercury coming into Duluth’s wastewater treatment
plant was cut in half, and it’s been reduced even further since then.


To cut down on mercury even more, Tuominen got a grant to buy more expensive
equipment that captures up to 99% of the amalgam. He offered the equipment free to any
dentist who would agree to use it.


“I’ll go in and install them, train the assistants and the dentists how they operate, that only
takes about half an hour, then after six months I show them how to manage the solids
particles that collect in them over that time period. So it’s really pretty simple.”


Most of the dental offices in Duluth have installed the systems, and Tuominen expects the
rest to follow suit.


Lorraine Kellerman operates the system in one dental office. Once a week she empties
the chair-side traps and puts the chunks of amalgam into a container for recycling. Then
she goes down to the basement where a tank, like an aquarium, collects the finer particles.
The heavy amalgam settles to the bottom of the tank.


“We just put the hose in the drain, turn the lever, and you just wait ’til the fluid runs out
and then you can come back down, it doesn’t take long, it only takes a few minutes
basically.”


Once a year the amalgam that collects at the bottom is cleaned out and recycled.


Kellerman’s boss is dentist Jim Westman.


“The beauty of this technology is in its simplicity. Gravity works, it’s simple, it’s very
inexpensive.”


Westman says the dentists in Duluth are happy to use the equipment. It costs about
$500, and the recycling charge is about $50 a year.


Westman is chair of the Minnesota Dental Association’s environmental committee. It’s
been working on a plan to help dentists around the state of Minnesota reduce their output
of mercury. Westman says they want to make it easy for dentists.


“No matter where someone has question in regards to what’s going to work in my
equipment, there’s so many variations from one office to the next, who are my resources
to call or handling, transport, process materials, it’s that who you going to call side of the
question that’s going to make a difference as we build a bigger program. ”


If the voluntary program catches on in Minnesota, it could spread to other states. Michael
Bender is director of the Mercury Policy Project, a national organization working to
reduce mercury in the environment. He says dentists around the country are beginning to
feel they should do their part.


“It’s part of the cost of doing business. It’s not going to break any dentist’s back
financially to cover the cost of doing whatever it takes to be a good business, responsible
to the community, responsible to the environment.”


In December, the Environmental Protection Agency is convening a meeting on dental
mercury. The agency will publish information on ways state and local governments can
keep dental mercury out of the environment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.

Meatpacker Pays for Pollution

The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The largest meatpacker in the world has agreed to pay millions of dollars in penalties because of pollution at its plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Iowa Beef Packers, known as IBP Incorporated, has agreed to pay more than four million dollars in penalties and make ten million dollars in pollution prevention improvements at several of its plants. That agreement settles a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Among a number of violations at several plants, the EPA had charged that IBP was releasing large quantities of ammonia into the Missouri River and one of its plants emitted 19 times the maximum amount of the pollutant, hydrogen sulfide, from its smokestacks. Besides paying the penalties, IBP will upgrade its wastewater treatment facilities and install required air pollution control equipment. In a release, IBP states that it doesn’t “agree with the nature and extend to the claims made in the federal government’s lawsuit.” but it’s glad to put the matter behind it. IBP was recently acquired by Tyson Foods. Government officials say with the settlement, they hope IBP will now be a better neighbor. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.