The Clean Air Act says gasoline must contain additives to help it burn more cleanly. But the common additive MTBE is a proven environmental threat. And a new study says the alternatives could be just as dangerous. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corbin Sullivan reports:
Transcript
The Clean Air Act says gasoline must contain additives to help it burn more cleanly. But the
common additive MTBE is a proven environmental threat. And a new study says the alternatives
could be just as dangerous. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Corbin Sullivan reports:
Underground storage tanks at gas stations can leak. Fuel
additives like MTBE leak faster than the gas and can
cause groundwater pollution.
For that reason, seventeen states, including New York,
Michigan and Illinois have restricted or will restrict the use
of MTBE in gasoline.
That means other fuel additives intended to reduce air
pollution will have to be used instead.
Mel Suffet co-authored a new study published in the
journal Environmental Science and Technology.
He says some of the alternatives to MTBE can cause the
same problems.
They can be toxic and can make groundwater
undrinkable. Suffet says to solve the problem, leaks need
to be prevented.
“The first thing you have to do is develop a design of
underground fuel storage tanks to emphasize containment
leak detection and repair.”
Suffet says even modern tanks are prone to leaks. So he
says designers need to go back to the drawing board to
create a leak free tank.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Corbin
Sullivan.
The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
The new chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is introducing rules for reducing
mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. But environmentalists and others say the
rules actually rollback provisions in the Clean Air Act. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Julie Grant reports:
Mercury is toxic. It can cause brain damage, especially in young children and fetuses. Forty-
percent of the mercury in air pollution comes from power plants, but it’s never been regulated as
a pollutant. The EPA had planned reductions of 90-percent by 2007. But now, the Bush
administration plans reductions of only 70-percent by 2018.
EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt praises the plan as good for the environment and the economy.
Environmentalists and others say it’s a complete deception. To implement the new program, they
say the administration has downgraded mercury from the “hazardous pollutant” category. Leavitt
denies that:
“We are not changing the status of mercury at all. It is a dangerous toxin and our objective is to
reduce it in the most aggressive way we possibly can.”
The new rules regulating mercury go into effect next December. For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, I’m Julie Grant.
School buses might be considered one of the safest ways for kids to get to school, but research suggests the sooty diesel exhaust is also putting their health at risk. The Environmental Protection Agency is trying several demonstration projects to clean up school buses in some schools nationwide. Parents are also becoming part of a nationwide campaign to get buses to stop idling. (Photo by Erika Johnson)
In the last few years, researchers have discovered links between the exhaust fumes from diesel buses and rising asthma rates in children. Scientists and environmentalists have called on the government to crack down on diesel emissions from school buses. But as parents learn about the risk to their kids, they’re not waiting around for the government. They’re doing something right now to help reduce their kids’ exposure to the exhaust fumes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erika Johnson reports:
Transcript
In the last few years, researchers have discovered links between the exhaust fumes from diesel
buses and rising asthma rates in children. Scientists and environmentalists have called on the
government to crack down on diesel emissions from school buses. But as parents learn about the
risk to their kids, they’re not waiting around for the government. They’re doing something right
now to help reduce their kids’ exposure to the exhaust fumes. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Erika Johnson reports:
(sound of diesel school buses idling)
At the end of the school day, buses sit, often idling their engines, waiting for the dismissal bell
and the kids to get on. Not every school district uses diesel school buses, but many do.
And when their engines are left running, they constantly spew out a sooty diesel exhaust that’s
hard to avoid.
(sound of kids)
“It’s an unnatural smell, kind of like plastic…”
“Smells like a car…”
“…Plastic and gas.”
“It smells like gasoline…”
“…But it stinks…”
Kids don’t like the smell of the exhaust, and parents are finding that the diesel fumes are doing
more than just creating a nasty stench – it’s putting their kids’ health at risk.
Sally Cole-Misch says for a long time, she never thought much about it. The yellow buses were
just a part of the daily routine:
“Well, you know, you never think that when you take your child and put them on the bus and
wave goodbye, you think, oh, they’re safe, no problem. And I started noticing the buses at the
schools, how they did idle, and started thinking, this is important, this is something really we need
to be focusing on.”
Cole-Misch was concerned about her kid’s exposure to the exhaust fumes. But rather than simply
taking her kids off the school bus, she decided she wanted to do something for all of the children
in her community. So, she and other concerned parents began meeting with a local
environmental group. They came to the conclusion that the best way to get rid of the diesel
fumes was for bus drivers to turn off their engines while waiting for the kids. As part of their
anti-idling campaign, they’re pushing their school district in Bloomfield, Michigan, to have bus
engines turned off until the buses are loaded up and ready to leave for their routes. During cold
weather, bus drivers can keep warm inside the schools, and then heat up the buses as soon as the
kids get on.
Cole-Misch says as parents learn about the issue, they’re getting involved in the anti-idling
campaign:
“I think this is the type of issue that the solution is so easy, in that in most school districts all you
have to do is give the parents the information, and I think it’s something that they can easily act
on.”
And the Eastern Michigan Environmental Action Counsel, also known as EMEAC, is doing just
that. The group is providing information to parents and is promoting the idea to local school
board officials.
Libby Harris is Staff Attorney for EMEAC. She says getting the parents involved has made their
campaign successful:
“Without the parents there, the school officials are going to respond that it’s a good idea, but they
are faced with a tremendous number of requests for programs. Having the parents there is a
direct statement. ‘This is a health issue, I’m concerned about it, and I really want you to take this
seriously and to take steps.'”
Concern over the health effects of diesel exhaust stems from the rising asthma rates reported
among children. The Centers for Disease Control estimate that nearly 5 million children
nationwide have the disease. Although no one knows exactly what causes asthma, scientists say
many of its triggers are found in the air we breathe. Recent air toxics studies have shown that
particulate matter, the soot released from diesel trucks and buses, is a leading air pollutant.
Dr. Thomas Robbins is a Professor at the University of Michigan’s School of Public Health:
“It is quite possible that a substantial fraction of the total diesel exposure, even total particulate
exposure, a child is going to experience during the day could be associated with school buses, and
so it’s potentially quite an important problem.”
And the government is also doing something about this growing public health problem, and has
tried several demonstration projects. EPA’s Clean School Bus U.S.A. Program is supporting
sixteen school districts nationwide with a small grant to participate in projects, such as using
cleaner diesel fuels, and retrofitting school buses with pollution control devices. The ultimate
goal is that these projects will become models for states to follow:
Jeff Holmstead is head of EPA’s National Air Pollution Control Program. Holmstead says all
diesel engines are to be replaced or retrofitted by the year 2010. But he says even with the stricter
standards, it’ll take some time to replace the older buses with cleaner ones:
“One of the reasons for this program is because diesel engines have such a long lifetime, it will
take many years, probably out to 2020 and 2030 for the newer engines to replace the existing
fleet. And that will take a little time and we’re just trying to expedite that process, and make it
happen as quickly as we can.”
But the problem now is that there isn’t enough funding to support programs like this in schools
nationwide. That’s why many schools and environmental groups, such as EMEAC, have turned
to anti-idling campaigns. They’re working with what they do have – and that’s the support of
their local community – until they have the funding for larger scale programs. Anti-idling
campaigns are becoming a growing trend in schools nationwide, and some states such as
Minnesota and Connecticut already have anti-idling laws in place.
Libby Harris of EMEAC says the energy behind their campaign starts with the local community:
“Once EPA announced its Clean School Bus U.S.A. Program, we saw that the momentum was
there, that by working with other organizations and inviting parents and members of PTO’s and
school officials, we had a good chance of making a difference and reducing the exposure that kids
have to school bus exhaust. And to reduce the amount of idling is something that can be done
without any cost.”
Not only realizing that school bus diesel exhaust is putting their kids health at risk, but that they
can do something even without any funding at all, more parents such as Cole-Misch have decided
not to wait around for diesel engine phase-outs or government programs. Instead, they’re pushing
their school districts to start doing something right now about the diesel fumes their kids are
breathing. And they feel progress starts when the buses are turned off.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erika Johnson.
Lead is a toxic metal that has been linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurological impairment, even at low exposures. But a new study suggests that when high levels of another metal are present in the environment, it might reduce the amount of lead absorbed into the bloodstream. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erika Johnson has more:
Transcript
Lead is a toxic metal that has been linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and
neurological impairment, even at low exposures. But a new study suggests that when
high levels of another metal is present in the environment, it might reduce the amount of
lead absorbed into the bloodstream. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erika Johnson
has more:
The study published in the journal Nature compared lead levels for children living near
industrial and non-industrial sites. Researchers found that children exposed to high levels
of environmental zinc from a nearby smelter absorbed less lead.
Curtis Noonan is an epidemiologist with the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry. He co-authored the study.
“But I think it’s important to note also that in our study, high levels of environmental
zinc, while they may have altered the strength of the association between environmental
lead and blood lead, environmental zinc did not ultimately protect children from lead
exposure.”
Noonan says that because children are more susceptible to lead poisoning than adults,
parents should be aware of the risks of lead in the home, even when environmental zinc is
high.
Noonan says that future research should also take into account dietary exposures to zinc,
as well as a person’s overall nutritional status.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erika Johnson.
Power companies say there's no great demand
from consumers for alternative energy sources such as
wind-powered generators. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Many public power companies across the country have begun so-called “green power” programs. They offer customers energy produced from something other than coal, such as wind or water – if customers agree to pay higher rates. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports, many utilities are having a tough time getting people interested in green power:
Transcript
Many public power companies across the country have begun so-called “green power” programs.
They offer customers energy produced from something other than coal, such as wind or water, if
customers agree to pay higher rates. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner
reports, many utilities are having a tough time getting people interested in green power:
There are two-thousand public power utilities in the United States. They’re run by local
governments, and are essentially owned by their customers – instead of by investors. A handful of
public utilities have begun offering special “green power” programs. And some of them are working
quite well.
In Minnesota, Moorhead Public Service built a second wind turbine because its “Capture the Wind”
program has been so successful. But that’s not been the case for many municipal-owned utilities.
(power plant sound up/under)
The Board of Water and Light in Lansing, Michigan, is the largest public utility in the Great Lakes
region. It began buying green power two years ago – half of it is made from landfill gas, the rest is
hydro power produced at dams in northeast Michigan. Customers can get half their power from
those sources for an extra seven-dollars-and-fifty-cents a month.
But the program hasn’t been as popular as the utility had hoped. Spokesperson John Strickler says
only 700 of the company’s 100-thousand customers have signed up for it.
“We were a little bit surprised and a little bit disappointed that we didn’t have more
customers subscribe to that product.”
It’s a problem many power companies are having. Joe Nipper is with the American Public Power
Association. He says for one reason or another, people just don’t seem to be willing to pay more
for cleaner energy.
“For many folks the power bill is a significant part of their bills every month and they watch
that closely. I think maybe another part of it is despite the effort by Lansing and others to
make the public aware of the benefits of these programs, still, in all, in some cases, little is
understood about them.”
Some environmentalists say power companies need to tell people that burning coal in power plants
pollutes the air they breathe. And that green power doesn’t release harmful emissions. David Gard
is with the Michigan Environmental Council.
“People don’t understand generally that there is a very close connection between smog and
soot pollution that come mainly from power plants and very severe health impacts that we
end up paying for as a society in very major ways. We have lots of evidence that the kinds
of pollutants that come out of coal-fired power plants are causing childhood asthma,
mercury poisoning of fish, which are then eaten by people, and other kinds of diseases.”
Gard commends the Lansing Board of Water and Light for attempting to sell cleaner energy, but he
argues the green power program will never be successful the way it’s set up now. Gard says
instead of a voluntary program, all customers should share the cost of green power.
But the Board of Water and Light’s Nick Burwell says the utility won’t raise rates unilaterally for a
service people are not demanding.
“We basically have a dual role. One in providing electricity and the other in protecting our
owners and working for our owners. And basically whatever they want is what we will
provide. If out of the blue they were to suddenly say we want you to spend this much money
and become, oh I don’t know, some new technology and triple our bills, that would be great
with us because they own us. They drive what we do and the actions we take.”
And so far, rate payers have shown they’re not that interested in buying green power. Lansing
Board of Water and Light officials say they take their responsibility to the environment and to the
health of their customers very seriously. But they say unless more people become willing to pay for
cleaner energy, they likely won’t expand the program any further.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.
The United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers of America have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Labor Department. The unions want the federal department to set clean air standards inside factories. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:
Transcript
The United Auto Workers and United Steelworkers of America have filed a
lawsuit against the U.S. Labor Department. The unions want the federal
department to set clean air standards inside factories. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:
The Unions want a federal appeals court in Philadelphia to order the Labor
Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration otherwise known
as OSHA to issue new indoor clean air standards. The regulations would
reduce exposure to toxic metal working fluids used in building
automobiles, aircraft, and other products.
The UAW and the Steelworkers union say the current regulations instituted
in 1971 just aren’t stringent enough. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control
says there’s substantial evidence that the fluids can cause cancer of the
larynx, pancreas, skin and bladder.
The unions originally petitioned the Labor Department to change its
regulations back in 1993 but the agency has not explained its reasons for
refusing to make the changes.
The Labor Department says its highest priority is the health and well-being
of U.S. workers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jerome Vaughn in Detroit.
A new study indicates even when the EPA’s Air Quality Index is green, indicating ‘good’ air quality, the pollution in the air could trigger asthma problems for kids. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A new study indicates even when the EPA’s Air Quality Index is green, indicating
‘good’ air
quality, the pollution in the air could trigger asthma problems for kids. The Great
Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
This study by Yale University looked at children who had asthma and measured the
effects of air
pollution such as ozone.
Janneane Gent led the study.
“And what we found was that among the children who had the more severe asthma, for
every 50
parts per billion increase in the level of ozone, the likelihood that they would
wheeze was
increased by 35 percent. And the chance that they would experience chest tightness
was
increased by 47 percent.”
That 50 parts per billion of ozone is within the range that’s considered ‘good’ air
quality by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Gent says that means even on ‘yellow’ or
‘moderate’ air
quality days parents should make sure kids with asthma are kept indoors and their
activity levels
kept low to avoid triggering asthma attacks.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Recently, the Bush administration announced it will allow factories and power plants to make large upgrades without having to install anti-pollution technology. But that business incentive has state Environmental Protection Agencies worried about air quality. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton has this report:
Transcript
Recently, the Bush administration announced it will allow factories and power plants to make
large upgrades without having to install anti-pollution technology. But that business incentive
has state Environmental Protection Agencies worried about air quality. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Jenny Lawton has this report:
For the last 30 years, under the Clean Air Act, power plants and factories have been required to
install pollution control devices whenever they made major improvements to their infrastructure.
Under the new federal rule, a plant can make improvements worth up to 20-percent of its value
without installing smoke-stack scrubbers. The U.S. EPA says the Bush administration’s rule
means plants will be able to modernize.
But Illinois state EPA director Renee Cipriano says modernizing a plant doesn’t necessarily mean
it will be cleaner.
“The cost of a modification does not necessarily equal the impact to the environment. The two do
not equal each other.”
Cipriano says the change jeopardizes the standards set by the Clean Air Act. The Illinois EPA
and the state’s attorney general will file a petition to block the change. Twelve other states have
filed similar petitions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jenny Lawton.
The Bush administration is making it easier for coal-burning power plants to avoid upgrading to modern pollution prevention equipment. But in some cases the power companies are bowing to public pressure to reduce pollution anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration is making it easier for coal-burning power plants to avoid upgrading to
modern pollution prevention equipment. But in some cases the power companies are bowing to
public pressure to reduce pollution anyway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist
reports:
Elizabeth Dickinson didn’t get any kind of warning about air quality in her neighborhood. She
really didn’t need one. She says couldn’t avoid noticing the pollution in the air.
“A couple years ago, there was almost a week where the air quality in my neighborhood was so
bad that you literally couldn’t sleep. There was a burning back in my throat.”
Dickinson lives in Saint Paul, Minnesota, not too far from one of the oldest coal burning plants
operated by Minnesota’s leading supplier of electricity, Xcel Energy.
She and many other people have been actively working to pressure the company to address the air
quality problems they believe are caused by Xcel’s older plants.
And in a rare move among power companies, Xcel Energy is doing something. In May 2002, the
company put forth a voluntary proposal to convert its two oldest coal burning plants to natural
gas. The oldest plant, Riverside, lies in northeast Minneapolis.
(sound of power plant)
Since it opened in 1911, the Riverside plant has changed very little when it comes to emitting
pollutants. It was grandfathered in under the Clean Air Act of 1970 – which means the plant isn’t
subject to federal environmental mandates.
It didn’t have to install modern pollution control devices unless it upgraded the plant. And now,
under the Bush administration’s new rules, even upgrading it might not trigger the threshold that
would require it to reduce emissions.
“For a little bit over two years, one of the first things I was charged with was to look at all the
emissions in and around southeast Minneapolis and Riverside plant came back as a sore thumb
because of the glaring emissions.”
Justin Eibenholtz is the environmental coordinator for a Minneapolis neighborhood improvement
group. He says that’s why Excel’s decision to convert Riverside to natural gas is such a big deal.
Once it’s converted, the old plant will cut air pollutants by 99 percent. Mercury emissions will be
completely eliminated.
Neighborhood groups such as Eibenhotz’s and big environmental groups alike are praising
Excel’s decision. The Great Lakes Program Coordinator for the Sierra Club, Emily Green, says
the reduction in emissions will mean a better quality of life for residents who live in the Great
Lakes region. That’s because the mercury and other pollutants that were emitted from the plant
often ended up in the Great Lakes through a process called air deposition. That meant pollutants
got into the food chain and contaminated fish.
“The Great Lakes are like a giant bathtub with a very, very slow drain, so that what we put into
the Great Lakes stays there.”
Green says the pollutants don’t go away. They just end up contaminating the air and the water.
“We swim in them, we drink them, you know, the fish swim around in them, and so it’s very,
very important that we recognize, despite their size, how fragile the Great Lakes are.”
Besides polluting the lakes, the air pollution drifted for hundreds of miles, causing health
problems. The effects are already apparent. An independent report commissioned from the
Environmental Protection Agency says pollution from the oldest and dirtiest power plants kills
more than thirty thousand Americans each year – almost twice the number of people killed by
drunk driving and homicide combined.
While the natural gas conversion won’t reduce the level of mercury in the Great Lakes
immediately, it will mean it won’t add to the problem. It also means a more efficient use of a
fossil fuel.
Ron Ellsner is the project manager for Xcel’s proposal.
“The new combined cycles that we’re going to install are on the order of 30 percent more
efficient than what our current coal cycle is. They do that much better a job converting that
energy into fuel into electricity.”
It comes at a cost, though. Xcel estimates converting its Minneapolis and Saint Paul plants will
amount to one billion dollars. By Xcel’s estimate, it’ll be the most expensive power plant
conversion in the history of the United States, and the cost of the conversion will be passed on to
its customers.
That’s fine by Elizabeth Dickinson. She says she, and her neighbors, were paying for it in other
ways already, such as additional healthcare costs. Dickinson says the estimated extra 15 cents a
day for her power bill will be worth it.
“You know, these are the hidden costs of coal burning and they’re huge, and you know, they’re
usually left out of these equations and we’re saying they can’t be left out any longer, they just
can’t be, because it’s too high a cost for us as a society.”
Government regulators still have to approve the plan. Minnesota’s utilities commission is
holding a final round of public hearings before voting for or against Xcel’s proposal to convert to
natural gas.
If the conversion is approved, it will likely put pressure on other power companies in the Great
Lakes region to do the same.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ann Alquist.
A power company in the Great Lakes region is dramatically reducing pollution at two of its power plants. The move could prompt other power companies to do the same. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Transcript
A power company in the Great Lakes region is dramatically reducing pollution at two of
its power plants. The move could prompt other power companies to do the same. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Ann Alquist reports:
Minnesota’s largest supplier of electricity, Xcel Energy, has submitted a voluntary
proposal to convert its two oldest, and dirtiest, coal burning plants to natural gas. The
cost of the conversion – one billion dollars – will be passed on to Xcel’s customers.
It will mean a 99 percent reduction in emissions – and mercury emissions will be
eliminated. The plant itself will undergo some changes, with some of the taller structures
no longer marring the skyline.
Ron Ellsner is the project manager for Xcel’s proposal.
“Cleaning up some of the older equipment that will be abandoned, we hope it has a
positive impact on the landscape for our city and for our neighbors.”
If government regulators approve the proposal, it will likely put pressure on other power
companies in the Great Lakes region to do the same.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Ann Alquist.
