Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
The federal government is looking into whether natural gas drilling is contaminating drinking water. Before that study’s done, Congress might step in and tighten regulations now. Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
The federal government is looking into whether natural gas drilling is contaminating drinking water.
Shawn Allee reports, before that study’s done, Congress might step in and tighten regulations now.
Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface.
It’s called hydraulic fracturing.
There’s debate about whether the chemicals poison water that’s underground, too.
Amy Mall tracks this issue for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
She says Congress might regulate this drilling through the Safe Drinking Water Act.
“What the legislation would do is make sure there’s a minimal federal floor of protection. So if your state has strong regulations, probably nothing would change, but if your state does not have strong regulations and they’re too weak, then under this legislation, your state would have to raise their standards.”
The natural gas industry points out the U-S Environmental Protection Agency already studied drilling back in 2004, and Congress decided there was no need for regulation.
Congressional critics suspect that study was biased in favor of industry.
Two Supreme Court rulings have left landowners, regulators, and lower courts confused over what waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. (Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)
The water from this pipe flows directly into Cedar Lake in Michigan. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Closeup of the water coming out of the pipe. (Photo by Mark Brush)
This is the new storm drain that Sheila Fitzgibbons and her husband Richard Ellison say polluted the lake they used to train scuba divers in. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Cedar Lake was originally dug as a gravel pit. Freshwater springs feed the lake and divers say they used to be able to see up to 30 feet when they were underwater. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Fitzgibbons and Ellison say this lake used to flow cleanly and have fish in it. (Photo by Mark Brush)
The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:
Transcript
The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:
Sheila Fitzgibbons and her husband Richard Ellison were looking for a good spot to open up a scuba diving business. They found Cedar Lake in Michigan. Unlike the other lakes they looked at, this was crystal clear water.
“Ours always stayed clean and it took care of itself and aquatic plants were very healthy. We had a lot of nice fish in here – healthy fish that only go into clear water.”
They said they could take six scuba diving students underwater at a time – and have no problem keeping track of them because the water was so clear.
But that all changed in the spring of 2004. Richard Ellison was in the lake on a dive:
“We were with our students down on the bottom, doing skills and stuff with them, and all of the sudden it sort of looked like a big cloud come over, you know. And the next thing you know, it just turned dark and it was just all muddy. It looked like we were swimming in chocolate milk.”
Ellison and Fitzgibbons say the lake was never the same after that. They blamed the local government’s new storm drain. They said it dumped dirty water right into the lake. Local officials said it wasn’t their new drain, but a big rainstorm that was to blame.
Fitzgibbons and Ellison sued in federal court. They said the new drain violated the Clean Water Act. The local government argued, among other things, that the lake was not protected by the Clean Water Act. The case was dismissed – and Fitzgibbons and Ellison closed their dive shop.
Just what can or cannot be protected by the Clean Water Act used to be an easy question to answer. But two Supreme Court rulings – one in 2001 and one in 2006 – muddied the waters.
After the rulings, it wasn’t clear whether a lot of isolated lakes, wetlands and streams still were protected by the Clean Water Act.
Some developers and farmers saw the court rulings as a big win. They felt the government had been exercising too much power over waterways, limiting what they could build or do on their own property.
Jan Goldman-Carter is a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation. She says the people who enforce the nation’s water protection laws were left scratching their heads after the rulings:
“The confusion generated by these decisions has wrapped up the agencies, the courts, and even landowners and local governments with really not knowing when a water is protected or not. And that’s had the effect of actually, kind of, unraveling the fabric of the Clean Water Act, which really is our primary protection of our nation’s water supplies.”
Goldman Carter says – polluters are getting the signal. In many places – no one is watching:
“When the polluters recognize that basically the enforcers are not out there, and no one’s really in a position to deter their activities, it’s a lot cheaper for them to pollute than to follow the law.”
The New York Times recently reported that judgments against major polluters have fallen by almost half since the Supreme Court rulings.
In 2008 EPA officials said the rulings kept them from pursuing hundreds of water pollution enforcement cases. We asked for an interview with the EPA officials, but they would only answer questions by e-mail. They agreed the Supreme Court decisions do limit their ability to protect water quality.
The EPA is now calling on Congress to pass a new law. It’s called The Clean Water Restoration Act. The bill’s sponsors say they want to put back what was taken away by the Supreme Court.
The bill was introduced a year ago. It’s been stalled in Congress ever since.
The future site of Russell Biomass Power Plant is already used as storage space for chips that are sold to another biomass operation.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)
This is a section of the Quabbin Reservoir in western Massachusetts that's been cut recently.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)
Chris Matera is a critic of the burgeoning biomass industry in Massachusetts.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)
One of the many machines used by Russel Biomass to transport the tons of wood used daily to generate electricity(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)
Biomass power is the new-fangled alternative energy source that uses a pretty old technology: basically, you just burn plants, usually wood, for electrical power.
Many states are looking into biomass power because they have plenty of wood and sometimes wind or solar farms meet resistance from neighbors.
For a while, Massachussetts looked like it would give biomass power a big boost.
Shawn Allee found the state could change its mind:
Transcript
Biomass power is the new-fangled alternative energy source that uses a pretty old technology: basically, you just burn plants, usually wood, for electrical power.
Many states are looking into biomass power because they have plenty of wood and sometimes wind or solar farms meet resistance from neighbors.
For a while, Massachussetts looked like it would give biomass power a big boost.
Shawn Allee found the state could change its mind.
A guy named John Bos gives me a tour of an old lumber mill.
It’s in Western Massachussetts, in a town called Russell.
The mill’s almost in ruins.
“So you can see this … it looks like movie set out of a bad , bad-guy movie.”
“Definitely. Watch your footing there .. ”
This factory used to turn wood into lumber, charcoal and paper.
Bos’ brother and other investors want to give the place a new life … but wood will still play a key role.
“We are walking into the site of what will be Russell Biomass.”
The Russell biomass plant would be a power station that burns wood to generate electricity.
It’d burn through half a million tons of wood each year.
And if you think that’s a lot of trees going up in smoke, Bos says the plant will use mostly waste wood.
“Our wood will come from discarded pallets, stump removal from development. Road side trimming. Every year there’s road-side trimming to keep utility lines clear. There’s a lot of waste wood out there.”
This is controversial talk in Western Massachussetts.
Critics of biomass power don’t trust the idea that local supplies of “waste wood” will hold out since investors are planning five biomass power plants.
Chris Matera is one critic.
Matera shows me what he fears could happen if projects like Russell Biomass come through.
He takes me to forest that surrounds a long, thin reservoir.
The forest filters rainwater and keeps the reservoir clean and clear.
The reservoir happens to supply water to the Boston metro area.
Anyway, Matera shows me there’s logging here.
“We’re looking at big stumps and rutted out muddy areas on a steep slope that actually dr ain into the watershed eventually. It’s not gonna help the water quality. This is a place you’re not even allowed to cross-country ski to protect the watershed. A lot of places you’re not even allowed to hike.”
These trees were NOT cut for biomass power, but Matera fears new biomass plants will use up cheap waste wood …
Then, they’d resort to logging like this to keep producing electricity.
And the water quality in reservoirs, streams and rivers would suffer.
There’s been plenty of heat between biomass proponents and their critics.
One sticking point is whether Massachussetts should subsidize biomass power in the same way it does other renewable power sources, like wind and solar.
The state hired an outside consulting group called Manomet to help it decide.
“We’ve been asked by the state of Massachusetts to answer some basic fundamental questions about woody biomass energy.”
John Hagan is Manomet’s president.
Hagan’s supposed to answer whether there’s enough waste wood or any kind of wood to supply biomass plants planned for Massachussetts.
He says his group’s not entirely finished, but …
“I think if four, fifty megawatt plants went in, they’d almost certainly have to pull wood from beyond the boundaries of the State of Massachusetts.”
Hagan says this doesn’t necessarily mean forests in the state will suffer … his group’s not finished with its report, after all.
But he thinks it’s good Massaschussetts is questioning whether biomass deserves extra financial help.
Hagan says states are subsidizing biomass without thinking through all the effects … not just on local jobs … but also forests, and local air and water pollution.
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.
Indian Point Nuclear Station, as seen from the opposite side of the Hudson River. A spent fuel and other systems have leaked tritium and other radionuclides into the groundwater below. (Photo by Shawn Allee
You might think a nuclear power station
would have the tightest pipes imaginable
to keep radioactive liquids from
contaminating water underground. But the
truth is, dozens of reactors have leaks,
and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising
questions about how nuclear power plants
are regulated:
Transcript
You might think a nuclear power station would have the tightest pipes imaginable to keep radioactive liquids from contaminating water underground.
But the truth is, dozens of reactors have spouted leaks, and sometimes it took years to find them.
Shawn Allee found one leak is raising questions about how nuclear power plants are regulated.
I meet anti-nuclear activist Susan Shapiro in some hills northwest of New York City.
We drive where we can see the Indian Point nuclear power station across the Hudson River.
Shapiro tells me it’s leaked radioactive water into the ground.
Shapiro: It’s not contained and they know that. In fact, their answer was to let it leak into the groundwater. For years it might have been leaking. We know it’s been leaking for the last five, because that’s when we found it.
And for Shapiro, things get worse.
We stop along the river.
Allee: What’s the significance of this place?
Shapiro: This is where they’re planning to put the desal plant.
Allee: What kind of plant?
Shapiro: Desalination plant for … they want to take the Hudson River water which is a briny water and desalinate it and give it to Rockland County people as their drinking water.
The water plant and the nuclear power plant have been filing important paperwork about how they’d use the river they share.
Shapiro: Neither one refers to the other. The desal plant doesn’t mention Indian Point, and Indian Point doesn’t mention the desal plant. And we’re looking at it … how can they not mention it?
I asked both the water company, United Water, and the US Nuclear Regulatory commission about this.
The water plant’s application was made after the Indian Point leaks were well-known.
But a spokesman says water tests show the Hudson’s water, before and after treatment, will be far below federal limits for pollutants, including radioactive ones from Indian Point.
Things are complicated on the Indian Point side, though.
To start, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission wants to make clear, people shouldn’t worry.
Here’s NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.
Burnell: By virtue of the vast quantities of water traveling through the Hudson, any isotopes that would make it to the river would automatically be diluted to several orders of magnitude, meaning they would be incapable of posing any public health risk.
The NRC is reviewing Indian Point’s operations, because the plant wants to run an additional twenty years beyond its current license.
The plant filed an environmental report to get permission.
But that filing does not mention the desalination plant, even though these filings are supposed to mention drinking water facilities.
The deputy head of the NRC’s re-licencing division says the agency’s “looking into that right now” – almost three years after the water company made its intentions clear.
Indian Point is just one nuclear plant that’s leaked radioactive water.
At least 27 reactors have leaked.
The NRC says “at least” 27 because the agency learns about leaks from companies that own nuclear power plants.
In some cases, they’re not found and reported for years.
Burnell says these kinds of leaks pose little health threat, so his agency doesn’t demand inch-by-inch inspections of every pipe and drain.
Burnell: The issue there returns to the limits of the NRC’s authority. We have the authority to ensure the plant is capable of shutting down safely. We do expect that the systems will remain whole and not leak. We do not, however, have the authority to enforce a standard that goes beyond what’s necessary to safely shut down the plant.
To recap … the federal government wants to stop leaks, but it won’t step in unless there’s potential for a massive accident, health threat or exorbitant clean up costs when a plant closes.
As for the nuclear power industry?
It says plant owners are trying to meet higher standards, but they’re self-imposed standards, and it doesn’t think regulators should change that.
Here’s Ralph Andersen, with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.
Andersen: We’ve given it that enhanced priority, but to then say that the regulators should take that on, that’s a whole different reach, in my mind.
So, the NRC says it’s not going to change its rules on leaks because it feels those rules are effective now.
Healthy Reef Systems May Be a Thing of The Past(Photo courtesy of Mikael Häggström)
Some scientists think we might be headed for a mass extinction event
in the oceans. When carbon dioxide gets released into the atmosphere,
a lot of that CO2 soaks into the oceans. That makes the water more
acidic. When the pH gets too low, it dissolves the skeletons of
animals like coral and mussels. Ann Dornfeld reports:
Transcript
** The story as originally broadcast incorrectly referred to the publication as “Natural Geoscience.” It should be “Nature Geoscience.”
Some scientists think we might be headed for a mass extinction event
in the oceans. When carbon dioxide gets released into the atmosphere,
a lot of that CO2 soaks into the oceans. That makes the water more
acidic. It can dissolve the skeletons of
animals like coral and mussels. Ann Dornfeld reports:
Fifty-five million years ago, a mass extinction happened when the
oceans became too acidic.
Richard Feely is a chemical oceanographer for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. He says that today’s ocean acidification
is happening too quickly for many species to adjust.
“Over the last 200 years we’ve seen a 30-percent increase in acidity
of the oceans, and about six percent of that increase of acidity of
the oceans has been in the last 15 years.”
Researchers at the University of Bristol in England ran simulations of
the acidification processes 55 million years ago and today. They found
that acidification is happening ten times faster these days than it
did before the prehistoric mass extinction.
That could mean that if we don’t slow our release of CO2 into the
atmosphere, life in our oceans could crash within a century or two.
The study is published in the journal of Nature Geoscience.
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.
The EPA found that 44% of the nation's lakes ranked fair or poor.
(Photo by Randolph Femmer, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)
The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:
More than half the nation’s lakes are in good condition. That’s according to a nationwide survey just released by the EPA. But the agency found that 44% of lakes ranked only fair or poor.
The survey identified two major problems facing lakes. First, many of them are surrounded by development. And that can mean dirt and polluted water running off into the lakes.
And second, many lakes contained high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which can lead to harmful algae blooms.
Susan Holdsworth is with the EPA. She says those findings were concerning.
“These stressors are both widespread and pose a significant threat to the condition of our nation’s lakes.”
Holdsworth says the EPA will use the data to assess how well government programs are doing at protecting lakes. The results will also help set future EPA priorities.
In August, the EPA put air samplers outside of 63 schools in
22 states.
(Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
The US Environmental Protection Agency
is wrapping up a 60-day initiative
looking at toxic air pollution around
schools. They’re looking to gauge the
health effects linked to pollution exposure.
Many of the schools were chosen based
on how close they were to heavy industry.
Gigi Douban reports:
Transcript
The US Environmental Protection Agency
is wrapping up a 60-day initiative
looking at toxic air pollution around
schools. They’re looking to gauge the
health effects linked to pollution exposure.
Many of the schools were chosen based
on how close they were to heavy industry.
Gigi Douban reports:
It’s pretty much a given: put a school near heavy industry and an interstate, and those
kids are going to be breathing polluted air. What the EPA didn’t know was just how
polluted it would be. So the agency in August put air samplers outside of 63 schools in
22 states. One of those schools is Lewis Elementary in Birmingham, Alabama.
(sound of calling out names for carpool)
As he does every day, Richard Gooden is waiting in the carpool line to pick up his
granddaughter, who attends pre-K at the school. Not far away, near the basketball
court, there’s an air pollution monitor. Gooden, for one, was glad it was there. Living
up the hill from the American Cast Iron Pipe Company, he’s seen thick layers of dust
settle on his windows.
“I got a little white house with vinyl siding, and you can’t tell there’s vinyl hardly
because of the dirt coming from that pipe shop.”
Gooden has lived in that house for 43 years. His granddaughter spends most days
there, and he worries about her health and his own.
“I had a triple heart bypass a while back. I’m just wondering is that air completely
clean to breathe.”
The EPA plans to have some answers. In Birmingham, the Jefferson County Health
Department is collecting the data on the EPA’s behalf. Corey Masuca is the county’s
senior air pollution control engineer. He says they’re screening for about 100 different
pollutants.
“We looked for them, then, we found them.”
So far, he says, only three of those – benzene, manganese and acrolein – were found
at high levels. Most concerning, acrolein levels were more than 100 times higher than
what the government considers safe. Where does it come from?
“Pretty much any type of combustion source – whether it’s combustion coal, or
fuels from a plant, or fuel from a car. It even emanates from cigarette smoke, so it’s
fairly ubiquitous.”
But ubiquitous doesn’t mean safe. In fact, excess exposure to manganese can cause
brain damage. Acrolein can damage the lungs, and benzene is a carcinogen.
Masuca says the findings aren’t a major cause for concern. But Janice Nolen,
Assistant Vice-President for Policy and Advocacy at the American Lung Association,
disagrees.
“The fact that it’s in lots of places doesn’t mean it is not a big problem. It means
that we have a lot of things that we need to clean up.”
And when it comes to schools, she says, industrial pollution isn’t the whole picture.
Diesel buses drive right up to the school doors every day. Inside schools, poor
ventilation and even things like some glues can lead to health problems.
Yet there are definite links between these air toxins and heavy industry. So Masuca, of
the Jefferson County Health Department, says just knowing what’s out there is a huge
first step. Next they’ll come up with ways to reduce exposure. Things like having kids
stay indoors during recess on days when pollution levels seem to be highest.
Janice Nolen of the American Lung Association hopes monitoring will lead to stricter
controls on nearby industry. And maybe spark even a little bit of self-regulation.
“Letting people know about what’s in the air often raises public awareness and
causes industry to rethink what they’re doing and come up with less toxic ways to
produce their products.”
She says this research can galvanize communities into action. Most of the parents I
spoke with at Lewis Elementary didn’t know a thing about the EPA’s monitoring
program. But perhaps once the EPA gathers long-term data on schools across the
country in the months to come, that will change.
A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:
Transcript
If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:
I wanted to begin my tour with interviews at Dow’s chemical plant in Midland. That’s where dioxin and related compounds were created: the dioxins were by-products of chemical manufacturing.
After a month of calls and emails to Dow, a spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future – not the past. But the past is the reason there’s a problem now.
So, I start my tour a bit downstream.
Michelle Hurd Riddick picks me up near the plant. She’s with The Lone Tree Council, a Michigan environmental group. We follow the Tittabawassee River and the path dioxins took over time.
“This is Freeland Festival Park. Freeland is kind of like a bedroom community of Midland.“
Hurd Riddick says fishing is a huge past time in Michigan – but dioxin’s made it complicated.
Allee: “There’s a fish-advisory sign right there.“
Riddick: “Right. So, they’re telling you to not eat the fish.“
Actually, the signs tell you which fish to avoid, and how much to eat, or not. The US Environmental Protection agency worries dioxin causes cancer and diseases that affect immune, reproductive, and developmental systems.
“Pregnant women shouldn’t eat any, children under a certain age should only eat it once a month.“
Fish advisories cropped up in 1978. That’s after Dow warned Michigan and the federal government about dioxin in the Tittabawassee River. While the plant’s dioxin pollution is well below federal limits, the old dioxins are still around, and they’re not just in the river.
Allee: “Where we coming up here?“
Riddick: “This is Imerman Park, it’s on the Tittabawassee, too, and it’s very frequently flooded.“
Flood waters leave behind contaminated silt. Dioxin’s been found in the soil of yards and in parks like this. One worry is that kids would get exposed by getting dirt in their mouths.
Riddick: “Those are the hand washing sinks. They put the sinks there to use the hand-washing sink to wash their hands as a way to mitigate their exposure.“
Allee: “There’s the sign – contamination advisory: avoid contact with soil and river sediment. Please use soap and water to wash off soil and sediment.“
Other parks and some yards had soil scraped and removed. Dow cleaned up several dioxin hot-spots in recent years. Michigan and the US EPA want more of a top-to-bottom effort. That might include a sweep of fifty miles of river and part of the Great Lakes.
Riddick: “This is the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. As a child, I came up here a lot. I’m sure someplace I have a picture of me near these trees.“
Riddick’s middle-aged now. The dioxin was in rivers and Lake Huron before she was born. No one knew that far back. But residents did learn about the problem thirty years ago. Today Dow, the US EPA and Michigan are still debating a final solution.
“We’ve had many, many starts. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say this is how we’re going to achieve this cleanup, I’d be a wealthy woman.“
Hurd Riddick says the whole country should care about how this plays out.
Riddick: “People need to care about how this process because could play out in your community.“
Allee: “Maybe not dioxin but something else?“
Riddick: “You want to know that that the people your tax dollars are paying to protect you are the ones calling the shots.“
A final dioxin-clean up could take more than ten years. Michelle Hurd Riddick says she can wait that long – if it’s done right.
But she says it wouldn’t hurt if the clean-up got started now.
Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
