Tag: waters

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

Drugs in the Water

  • There is some confusion about what to do with unused medications (Photo source: Shorelander at Wikimedia Commons)

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

Transcript

The drugs we take are showing up in our drinking water, and they’re showing up in fish. The federal government’s now saying that in most cases, you should never flush unused drugs down the drain. There are safer ways to dispose of them. But even if you want to do the right thing, it’s not always easy. Rebecca Williams takes a look at what you should and should not do with your medications:

In the U.S., there are about 12,000 brand name and generic drugs on the market. And who knows how many over the counter drugs.

Scientists are finding many of these drugs in our water. Everything from caffeine, to allergy and anti-cancer drugs, to antidepressants.

Now, they’re finding these drugs at very low levels. But they’re pretty much everywhere.

An Associated Press investigation found trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water of more than 40 million Americans.

“You know, we don’t think it’s enough to cause public harm but honestly nobody’s sure.”

That’s Sahar Swidan. She’s a pharmacist.

Right now, Swidan’s going through a five foot tall box of prescription drugs that people have brought to her store in Ann Arbor, Michigan. They might be expired, or just not needed anymore.

(sound of pill bottle shaking)


“Asthma medications, growth hormones for patients – so really the gamut could be anything and everything.”

A disposal company picks up the drugs about once a month and incinerates them.

Swidan’s drug take-back program is pretty rare. Many pharmacies are not set up to collect unused drugs.

One reason is, it takes a lot of work. Swidan has to sort through the drugs and make sure there aren’t any controlled substances – things like narcotics. It’s illegal for pharmacies to take these back in most cases.

The Drug Enforcement Agency is talking about revising their disposal rules for controlled substances. But for now you usually have to get rid of them yourself. So, how do you do that?

You can dissolve pills or caplets in water, and mix in kitty litter or coffee grounds. That’s to make the stuff look gross and undesirable. Then dump it all into ziptop bags, wrap it up in duct tape, and throw it away.

But to make things more complicated, there’s still a short list of drugs that you’re supposed to flush down the drain. The Food and Drug Administration says the drugs on this list are too dangerous to toss in the trash.

Connie Jung is with the FDA’s pharmacy affairs department. She says the drug label will tell you if you’re supposed to flush them.

“For the small number of prescription drugs that have flushing recommendations they have these because the drugs are strong narcotic pain relievers or other controlled substances. These drugs can be dangerous to those who aren’t supposed to be taking them, particularly children or pets.”

Jung says the FDA is currently reviewing disposal methods for these kinds of drugs… because flushing them down the toilet is starting to raise some questions.

An even bigger problem is that most of the drug residues getting into our water are coming from drugs we take and excrete.

Bryan Brooks is a researcher at Baylor University. He recently found low levels of seven drugs in fish caught near wastewater treatment plants. He says these sewer plants just can’t filter out drugs.

“These wastewater treatment facilities were largely not designed to treat to really ultra low levels. Compounds like birth control medications can be active at low part per trillion levels.”

Right now Brooks is trying to sort out what effects drugs are having on fish.

Hormones like estrogen appear to be feminizing male fish. Antidepressants might change how fish behave. And no one’s sure how drugs might be affecting our drinking water.

Brooks says one thing that can be done at the treatment plant is adding reverse osmosis filters. But they’re expensive.

Brooks says there’s not much we can do about excreting drugs, but at the very least we shouldn’t be flushing drugs down the drain.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

New Rules for Cement Pollution

  • Cement kilns produce mercury, which gets into the fish we eat making it unsafe (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

After years of urging, the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing regulations to cut down on pollution from cement kilns. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

After years of urging the US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing regulations to cut down on pollution from cement kilns. Lester Graham reports:

Cement – the stuff used to make concrete – is made by baking limestone and other ingredients at really high temperatures in huge coal-burning ovens.

Burning the coal and baking the stone both release mercury. The mercury gets into the food chain and contaminates fish.

Mercury is a neuro-toxin, so eating contaminated fish can cause health problems, including IQ loss.

For 20 years Congress and the courts have been telling the EPA to do something about mercury pollution from cement kilns.

Jim Pew is a staff attorney with Earth Justice, an environmental group. It’s sued the EPA over the issue.

“The government response until now has not been to try to get mercury under control, since everybody agrees it’s a problem. The response has been to tell people ‘mercury is out there, so don’t eat the fish.’”

Under the EPA proposal, cement kilns would have to clean up the mercury and other pollution emitted from their smokestacks.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Who’s to Blame for the Dead Zone

  • It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the state of Massachusetts (Photo courtesy of NASA)

About 40% of the continental U-S drains into the Mississippi River. It sends water – and pollution – from across the country into the Gulf of Mexico. A new study shows just who the worst offenders are. Gabriel Spitzer has the story:

Transcript

About 40% of the continental U-S drains into the Mississippi River. It sends water – and pollution – from across the country into the Gulf of Mexico. A new study shows just who the worst offenders are. Gabriel Spitzer has the story:

All the pollution creates a dead zone in the Gulf nearly the size of New Jersey.

Nitrogen and Phosphorus pour in and fertilize big algae blooms.

When that stuff decays, it sucks oxygen out of the water, and makes it impossible for most fish to live there.

US Geological Survey researchers say most of the problem comes from farm runoff, but the single biggest source is sewage from Chicago.

Albert Ettinger with the Environmental and Law Policy Center says Chicago water managers have to catch up with their neighbors.

“They’re gonna have to look at treatment systems which take nitrogen out of the water, and bring phosphorus down to one milligram per liter. It’s done in Milwaukee, it’s done in Cleveland, it’s done in Detroit.”

Chicago’s Metropolitan Water Reclamation District say they haven’t had a chance to look closely at the study yet, so they don’t want to comment on it.

But they don’t like being singled out.

For The Environment Report, I’m Gabriel Spitzer.

Related Links

The Legacy of the Exxon Valdez

  • A NOAA scientist surveying an oiled beach to assess the depth of oil penetration soon after the spill (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

Twenty years ago this week, an oil tanker ran aground on a rocky reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. It’s considered to be perhaps the biggest ecological disaster in US history. Ann Dornfeld has this look at how oil spill prevention and preparedness have changed in the two decades since Valdez:

Transcript

Twenty years ago this week, an oil tanker ran aground on a rocky reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound. The Exxon Valdez spilled more than 11 million gallons of crude oil. It’s considered to be perhaps the biggest ecological disaster in US history. Ann Dornfeld has this look at how oil spill prevention and preparedness have changed in the two decades since Valdez:

The call came in just after midnight.

“Ah, evidently leaking some oil and we’re gonna be here for a while.”

Court records indicate Captain Joseph Hazelwood was likely drunk when the Exxon Valdez ran aground.

There was hardly any clean-up equipment on hand. No plan for action. The location was remote.

Oil polluted a stretch of Alaskan coastline the length of the entire west coast of the U.S. The oil killed fish, sea otters, harbor seals and an estimated quarter of a million birds. Today, there is still oil on some beaches.

Twenty years later, a cargo vessel has just reported a spill of 160
gallons of oil in Washington state’s Commencement Bay. Investigators
have filled the “Spill Situation Room” in the state Department of Ecology.

“Who’s responsible for actually maintaining
the bow thruster, when was the last time they performed maintenance on it?”

“You mean one of the staff on board?”

“Yeah.”

Spill Response Manager David Byers says coastal states learned a lesson from Exxon Valdez, and developed rapid response systems like this.

“We’ve got crews headed up in a helicopter to do on-
water observations, we’ve got response resources on the water headed out to do containment when we find the location of the oil.”

Byers says the state handles dozens of spills this size each year, making it somewhat of a well-oiled machine.

After the Exxon Valdez, the state of Washington put in place some tough prevention standards. But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state.

The court ruled the state was making safety demands of oil companies that only the federal government could make.

Mike Cooper is Chairman of the state’s Oil Spills Advisory Council. He says that ruling is one reason why small oil spills are common in Washington’s bays. He says other states have come up against the same restrictions.

“When the Massachusetts legislature passed strict laws,
the United States Coast Guard and the industry did the same thing that they did to the people of Washington state. They sued the people of the state of Massachusetts and said, ‘We’ll decide if industry has to pay.'”

The federal Oil Pollution Act did raise industry’s liability and the amount of federal money available in the event of a spill. It also requires oil tankers and barges in U.S. waters to be double-hulled by 2015. The Exxon Valdez’ single hull was easily gouged open when it ran aground.

Today, most U.S.-flagged tankers and barges are double-hulled. Most foreign tankers aren’t yet.

But there’s no law requiring a second hull on cargo ships. Bruce Wishart is Policy Director for People for Puget Sound. He says it’s cargo vessels that are most likely to spill oil.

“It’s commonly assumed that oil tankers pose the
single greatest threat in terms of an oil spill. There are actually many, many more cargo vessels plying our waters that pose a very significant risk simply because they carry a lot of fuel on board.”

In 2007, the cargo vessel Cosco Busan spilled 53,000 gallons of oil into San Francisco Bay. Thousands of birds died, including endangered species. A fully-loaded cargo ship can contain 40 times more oil than what leaked from the Cosco Busan.

So, while oil tankers have become safer in the two decades since the Exxon Valdez, the nation’s waterways still remain at risk of a major spill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

Farmers to Help With Flooding

  • Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

Transcript

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports that the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

The federal stimulus package has 145-million dollars to buy easements on farmland.

Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water.

Land that’s flooded within the last year or twice in the last decade is eligible.

Don Baloun is with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. He says farmers would eventually stop growing some crops and instead allow the planting of water-absorbing trees or grasses.

“If it has been obstructed and farmed let’s say with a dike or levee, we would breach that dike or levee and open up the floodplain, the field in particular, to store floodwaters and relieve the downstream damages.”

Baloun says allowing more water back into floodplains might reduce the threat of flooding to towns and cities along rivers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Something Fishy in the Water

  • A new study out of Baylor University finds our pharmaceuticals are getting into fish and other aquatic life (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

There’s something fishy with pharmaceuticals. Lester Graham reports researchers find the drugs we take end up in some fish:

Transcript

There’s something fishy with pharmaceuticals. Lester Graham reports researchers find the drugs we take end up in some fish:

If you’re a fish living anywhere near a wastewater treatment plant, you’re swimming in drugs.

A new study out of Baylor University finds our pharmaceuticals are getting into fish and other aquatic life.

Bryan Brooks is one of the researchers.

“In many cases we really don’t know the full potential effects of these kind of drugs on aquatic life.”

This is just the latest research that shows the stuff we take passes through us, and ends up in the water.

There’s not a lot you can do about that, but Brooks says at least don’t flush unused medications down the toilet.

“Perhaps the most appropriate way to dispose of unused medications is directly to landfill when it’s properly packaged.”

The FDA says, mix the drugs with something nasty like kitty litter or old coffee grounds so kids won’t be interested. Then put it all in a sealed bag or can with a lid so it doesn’t leak out of a garbage bag.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

That Big Dripping Sound

  • According to the EPA, US homes waste 1 trillion gallons each year from leaks (Photo courtesy of the EPA)

Today begins “Fix a Leak Week.” It’s probably not in your calendar. It’s a new effort from the US EPA to encourage people to take a closer look at their plumbing. Tamara Keith reports:

Transcript

Today begins “Fix a Leak Week.” It’s probably not in your calendar. It’s a new effort from the US EPA to encourage people to take a closer look at their plumbing. Tamara Keith reports:

(sound of dripping)

It turns out that drip drip drip of a leaky faucet can really add up.

(sound of toilet running)

A running toilet can waste up to 200 gallons a day.

Michael Shapiro heads the water division at the EPA.

“A typical home will leak up to 11,000 gallons a year. About the amount of water that will fit into a home swimming pool, for example.”

Most people can handle doing the repairs themselves. Jim Loviss is the plumbing manager at Strosneiders Hardware in Bethesda, Maryland.

“Sometimes it’s a washer, sometimes it’s a hose or a supply tube. Most times it’s simple. It’s being able to shut the water off and find out where the problem is and solve it.”

But, he’s not expecting a rush on washers and toilet flappers just because the EPA has declared it “Fix A Leak Week.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Money Back for Water Bottles

  • Nationally, we go through more than 30 billion non-carbonated drinks every year (Photo by Lester Graham)

Most states don’t have bottle deposit laws to encourage people to return their empties. Only eleven states do. Now, some are expanding their recycling programs to include bottled water. Sadie Babits reports the states know requiring a deposit for the bottles will keep them from ending up in landfills:

Transcript

Most states don’t have bottle deposit laws to encourage people to return their empties. Only eleven states do. Now, some are expanding their recycling programs to include bottled water. Sadie Babits reports the states know requiring a deposit for the bottles will keep them from ending up in landfills:

Every time Mary Nemmers buys a bottled beverage, she’s pays a five cent deposit at the register.

She wants to get that money back eventually. So she saves up her bottles and once a month brings them here to New Seasons Market in Portland, Oregon.

(sound of bottles being sorted)

Nemmers thinks this is a pretty convenient system. She gets to shop while a store employee sorts and hand counts her bottles.

Today Nemmers is getting nine dollars and change for her empties. While she’s glad to get that money back, she’s excited to learn that Oregon’s bottle deposit program has expanded.

“I just got some news that they’ll take back all the cans for deposits. Not just the ones that they sell. That started in January and that saves me an extra trip.”

That’s only part of the change. People in Oregon now also get five cents for every water and flavored water bottle they return to stores. That ends up being a lot of bottles.

Nationally, we go through more than 30 billion non-carbonated drinks every year. And that number is growing. Most of them end up in a landfill.

For Heather Schmidt, it makes sense to require a deposit for these bottles. She runs the sustainability program at New Seasons.

“We’re getting more back from our customers and that’s a good thing (chuckles). And we know that there’s quite a bit of water purchased, you know, and we’re selling it we want to take it back.”

Out of the eleven states that have bottle deposit programs, Oregon is one of the first to include bottles for water and other non-carbonated drinks.

Maine includes just about every beverage bottle. Connecticut adds bottled water to its program in April. New York and Massachusetts are debating similar expansions.

Mary Nemmers says it was about time that her state recognize that something needed to be done to make sure water bottles stay out of landfills.

“Because I do a lot of walking and I’ve seen lots and lots of water bottles thrown around and in trash cans. I assume that the expansion will reduce that and I’d like to see Oregon stay on the cutting edge of recycling.”

Not everyone is thrilled.

I spoke with the president of the Northwest Grocery Alliance who told me stores want recycling off their property.

A spokesman for the major food outlet Winco said the same thing. Stores say it’s messy to deal with “garbage” and stores have to dedicate staff time to recycling.

Heather Schmidt says at New Seasons Market, they don’t mind.

“Operationally, because we’ve increased the volume, it does mean we’ve had to add some staff labor to that to process but it’s something that we’re committed to.”

While most of the bottles are hand counted at New Seasons Market stores, large chain grocery stores use reverse vending machines.

I can stick a redeemable bottle into the machine. The machine checks to make sure it’s the right kind of bottle. Once it’s accepted, the bottle gets crushed and I get my five cents. Those crushed bottles, along with the plastic ones, end up here.

(sound of recycling plant)

We’re inside a glass and plastic bottle recycling plant. It’s a labyrinth of conveyer belts and equipment. The last drops of stale beer and old soda pop in the bottles make it smell sort of like your gym shoes meet the town dump.

Sadie: “Can we check out where the plastic bottles go?”

John: “Yes, We’ll go back this way.”

That’s John Anderson. He’s the President of the Oregon Beverage Recycling Cooperative.

“Now, the plastic, we have seen an increase, but we’re only two months into this expansion at this point and it’s a slower time of year for water and flavored water.”

We stop in front of three bales of recycled plastic that remind me of massive hay bales.

I can pick out the water bottles scrunched together with a lot of soda bottles. These plastic bales will be sold to manufacturers – mostly overseas – who will turn this plastic back into something useable.

Anderson says all of the glass though, stays local and gets turned back into beer bottles.

Bottle deposits work.

The states that have bottle deposit laws have dramatically high bottle recycling rates – as high as Michigan’s 97%.

But the U.S. average is below 40%. The rest of those bottles spend forever in a landfill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

The Energy Use of Bottled Water

  • All that energy goes into making the plastic bottles, treating the water, and, of course, shipping - sometimes from as far away as the South Pacific. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Bottled water burns up a lot of energy.

Rebecca Williams reports on a new study

that figured out how much:

Transcript

Bottled water burns up a lot of energy.

Rebecca Williams reports on a new study

that figured out how much:

Bottled water burns up a lot of energy.

Rebecca Williams reports on a new study

that figured out how much:

We Americans love our bottled water, for a lot of reasons. We actually drink more bottled water than beer.

And that bottled water uses lots of energy. As much as 2000 times more than tap water.

That’s from a new study in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

All that energy goes into making the plastic bottles, treating the water, and of course shipping. Sometimes from as far away as the South Pacific.

Peter Gleick is an author of the study. He says if you want to use less energy, tap water is the clear winner.

“Tap water may require a thousandth of the energy that it takes to bottle water. And the tap water in the United States is typically of very, very high quality, as high or higher than most of our bottled waters.”

He says buying local bottled water saves energy. So he says try to buy as close to home as you can.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links