Processing tar sands crude creates more air pollution than normal. (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory)
American gasoline refineries are
expanding to process a dirtier kind
of oil. Shawn Allee reports
one company’s plans hit a snag:
Transcript
American gasoline refineries are
expanding to process a dirtier kind
of oil. Shawn Allee reports
one company’s plans hit a snag:
The BP fuel refinery in Northwest Indiana wants to process more Canadian tar sands oil.
Processing tar sands crude creates more air pollution than normal. The federal
government wants more air pollution figures from BP before signing off on an air
permit.
Groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council pressed the government to step in.
The NRDC’s Ann Alexander is glad BP’s tar sands project is getting scrutiny.
“If tar sands are going to be developed, we think it’s it’s critical they be developed in
a way that complies with the Clean Air Act, because the Clean Air Act is there to
make sure it’s not the community that pays for development of tar sands through
increased pollution and the health problems that result, but that it’s BP who pays
those costs.”
BP’s tar sands oil project in Indiana is just one of several going on in the Midwest.
In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
The Environmental Protection Agency
is holding up nearly 80 permit
applications for coal mining projects
because of concerns about about water
quality. Tamara Keith
reports this is creating a different
kind of concern in Appalachian coal
country:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
is holding up nearly 80 permit
applications for coal mining projects
because of concerns about about water
quality. Tamara Keith
reports this is creating a different
kind of concern in Appalachian coal
country:
The applications involve mountain top removal coal mining. Explosives are used to get at coal that’s close to the surface.
In the past, the mining companies have been allowed to fill in valleys with the leftover rock and dirt. But the EPA is concerned that streams are getting buried and polluted so the agency is now giving that practice a serious second look.
Carol Raulston is with the National Mining Association. She says holding up those permits have people in the mining towns of Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee worried about losing their jobs.
“You really can’t operate these mines and employ people at them unless you’re able to construct the fills and in many of these communities they are the sole employer.”
An EPA spokesperson says protecting drinking water and coal mining jobs are both important. The agency says both can be done.
Downstream view of Roberts Creek, IA, where USGS scientists conducted a study of the degradation of atrazine, a herbicide, in streams. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)
People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:
Transcript
People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:
Bob Denges is worried. His water is discolored. So he’s
called a water purification company to test it.
(sound of running water)
They’re running water in the basement utility sink. It’s kind
of orange-y looking. So, it’s an easy diagnosis: too much
iron.
“You can probably see in the toilet, upstairs just on the first
floor, that there’s some brownish, reddish discoloration
around the toilets.”
That’s not great. But at least you can tell when there’s iron
in the water. You cannot see or taste other water
contaminants such as weed killers like atrazine.
Tom Bruusema is the water filter expert at the National
Sanitation Foundation. They test and certify water filtration
devices. He says the first place you can check is your local
municipality – the folks that monitor water in your area.
“That would be the place to start. They are required, by
federal law, to measure a number of contaminants, produce
an annual report for their consumers.”
But recently an investigative report by the New York Times
revealed water contamination can spike in some places –
and local water officials might not even know about it.
That weed killer – atrazine – is applied on farm fields and, in a
lot of places, you also find a lot of atrazine in the water
during that time.
If you’re looking for it at the right time.
Sometimes it spikes for longer than a month. But some local
water officials only test for atrazine once a month, or only
once a year, and often it’s not during that peak application
season.
So people can’t really find out about atrazine levels for their
drinking water in those places.
Some water systems are spending lots of money to treat
drinking water to get atrazine levels down to what the federal
government considers safe levels.
But that might not be enough, according to some of the new
scientific evidence about atrazine.
Five studies published in peer-reviewed journals recently
have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of
atrazine in drinking water causes health problems. Even at
levels considered safe by federal standards, atrazine might
be associated with birth defects. Things like low birth
weights in newborns. Skull and facial malformations and
misshapen limbs.
Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued
atrazine’s manufacturers. They want to force the company
Syngenta and its partner Growmark to pay for removing the
chemical from drinking water.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in the lawsuit.
“Some of them have gone to the expense to cleaning it
completely out of their water supplies, so that it doesn’t exist
at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to
reimbursement of expenses for cleaning it completely out of
their water supplies.”
But, some water systems are not cleaning out atrazine
completely. And, as we mentioned, there are times when
some don’t know they exceed the federal safe drinking water
levels.
There is something pretty easy you can do if you’re worried
about your water.
Tom Bruusema of the National Sanitation Foundation says a
simple carbon filter can remove atrazine. Those are the
filters you can attach to the faucet or the pitchers you refill.
“So it’s a good investment. Certainly can help them if they
have those kinds of concerns, and particularly those living in
an area that’s known to have potential contaminants in the
water supply.”
But first people have to be aware of a possible problem.
And, too often, they are not.
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)
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Transcript
The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:
Central Michigan has a dubious distinction: The Environmental Protection Agency
claims that a flood plain there has some of the highest dioxin levels ever found in soil.
That dioxin came from a Dow chemical plant decades ago. The EPA and Dow just
concluded negotiations over a clean-up deal.
Wendy Carney is with the EPA’s regional Superfund cleanup office. Carney says the
deal is not done, though.
“This agreement doesn’t actually contain any cleanup options. It also doesn’t
address any cleanup levels for the site. That would be a part of things we would talk
about with the public in a public forum to get their feedback on those issues.”
Carney says the EPA could unveil its agreement with Dow in two weeks.
The EPA suspects dioxins cause cancer and other health problems.
The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Transcript
Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:
Industry does not pollute like it did in the 1960s or 70s. Today, regulators monitor most of those big factories.
Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.
“Big smokestack industries we have a fairly good eye on, but there are a lot of areas that we still don’t have a good handle on.”
Like small businesses which collectively can release a lot of toxins, and farms that use pesticides and fertilizers on millions acres.
Jennifer Sass is a Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says, under the Bush Administration, pollution monitoring of big industry was cut back. Sass says that monitoring needs to be restored and expanded to smaller sources.
“If we quit our monitoring programs, then we don’t really know. It’s a lot like putting our head in the sand.”
But many state agencies say they don’t have the resources to keep track of all those sources of pollution.
Shrimpers have seen their catches dwindle down from thousands of pounds of shrimp a day to very little due to the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Of course, the bigger the zone, the further out shrimpers have to send their boats. That means a lot of wasted time, fuel, and wages. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Every summer, thousands of
square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico die. The Dead Zone is
caused by pollution that flows
down the Mississippi River. It’s
runoff from factories, sewer
plants, and farms. And it causes
a lot of problems for fishermen
in the area. This year, the Dead
Zone is projected to be huge –
maybe the largest ever. Samara Freemark explains:
Transcript
Every summer, thousands of
square miles of the Gulf of
Mexico die. The Dead Zone is
caused by pollution that flows
down the Mississippi River. It’s
runoff from factories, sewer
plants, and farms. And it causes
a lot of problems for fishermen
in the area. This year, the Dead
Zone is projected to be huge –
maybe the largest ever. Samara Freemark explains:
Imagine for a moment you’re a shrimp fisherman. Every day you send out your fleet to the same waters you’ve fished for decades. And your boats pull in a lot of shrimp- thousands of pounds a day, millions a year. And then one day, a normal summer day, you send the boats out, and they come back empty.
“You go from about 5000 pounds to nothing. It’s dead. That’s why they call it the dead zone.”
That’s Dean Blanchard. He runs the largest shrimp company in America- Dean Blanchard Seafood.
Blanchard started seeing the dead zone about five years ago, but it’s not a new phenomenon. For a long time, nutrient fertilizer from upstream has run into the Mississippi River and from there, into the Gulf. It fertilizes big algae blooms– and when the algae decays, it sucks oxygen out of the water, making it impossible for fish to live there.
What’s new is how much fertilizer there is now.
“It’s not natural.”
Nancy Rabalais is a marine biologist at LUMCON. That’s Louisiana’s center for marine research. She says that over the past several decades there’s been a surge in fertilizer use in the Corn Belt states. That eventually ends up in the Gulf.
“We’re having 300 times more than we did in the 1950s. And it’s just over loaded the system.”
Rabalais predicts this year’s dead zone will be almost three times as big as it was twenty years ago – more than 8000 square miles.
Of course, the bigger the zone, the further out shrimpers like Dean Blanchard have to send their boats. That means a lot of wasted time, fuel, and wages.
And the zones might mean even bigger problems. Don Scavia is a professor at the School of Natural Resources at the University of Michigan.
“There’s a half a billion dollar shrimp industry in the gulf. And the shrimp depend on that habitat. And what we’re concerned about is that if the dead zone continues or even grows, that fishery may collapse.”
Congress is taking some measures to address the problem. Conservation programs in the Farm Bill work to reduce how much fertilizer farmers use, and how they apply it.
But there’s something else in the Farm Bill too – a lot of subsidy programs. Those pay for ethanol production. Which means more corn. Which means a lot more fertilizer.
“And what is debated every 5 years is how much funding will go into those conservation programs, relative to funding going into subsidy programs. And, by far, the subsidies win.” (laughs)
Scavia says for every $1 spent on conservation programs in the Corn Belt, $500 go to subsidizing crops.
Shrimper Dean Blanchard says he’s not sure how long he can live with that balance, especially as he watches the dead zone grow.
“How big is this thing going to get? If we kill the oceans we have problems. We have serious problems.”
But Don Scavia is hopeful. He says we know exactly how to reduce nutrient runoff – in fact, the basic programs are already in place. It’s just a matter of Congress choosing the right funding priorities.
More than half of the mercury switches still on the road are in GM’s cars. But, since filing for bankruptcy, GM stopped paying into the program. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The new General Motors, which recently emerged from bankruptcy, wants to create a clean, green image with its Chevy Volt electric car. But GM might have a bit of an environmental PR problem on its hands. Tamara Keith explains:
Transcript
The new General Motors, which recently emerged from bankruptcy, wants to create a clean, green image with its Chevy Volt electric car. But GM might have a bit of an environmental PR problem on its hands. Tamara Keith explains:
Automakers used to use mercury switches for lights and anti-lock brakes. But when old cars are scrapped and melted down, those parts turn into toxic air pollution.
So automakers and environmental groups created a program to recycle the mercury.
More than half of the mercury switches still on the road are in GM’s cars. But, since filing for bankruptcy, GM stopped paying into the program.
Rich Bell is president of the program, and he also works at Ford.
“None of our members are interested in paying for GM’s environmental legacy issues, and so we’re looking for a path forward, and we’re kind of in the midst of that now.”
In a statement, the new GM said those cars with mercury switches were made by the old GM.
The new GM that emerged from bankruptcy is not responsible for those old switches.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
Transcript
A new report in the journal Nature Reviews
Cancer looks at cancer in wildlife. Mark
Brush reports, the disease in animals is
sometimes caused by pollution:
The authors of this paper looked at a lot of research on cancer in wild animals. Some of these studies linked the cancer cases to pollution.
Beluga Whales along the Canadian Atlantic coast developed tumors after they came in contact with chemicals from aluminum smelters. And some fish and clam species have developed cancers after being exposed to pollution.
Denise McAloose is a veterinarian with the Wildlife Conservation Society. She’s the lead author of the paper.
“People should care about cancer in wildlife because, especially in those cancers that are driven by environmental factors, those environmental factors affect not only the animals, but people as well.”
For example, the people who worked in those aluminum smelters also had higher rates of cancer.
She says more research into the link between pollution and cancer in animals needs to be done. Because looking at how the disease affects wildlife might help us treat or prevent cancer in people.
Molly Aubuchon and Stefan Meyer survey their lawn. (Photo by Julie Grant)
There are some dead spots in the yard, but they don't want to use chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
They like to keep the yard natural and free from chemicals. (Photo by Julie Grant)
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Transcript
Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:
Molly Aubuchon and her husband Stefan Meyer aren’t sure
what they’re going to do. Their two little kids are running
around the yard. Stefan wants a lawn of thick, soft grass for
them to play on. But that’s not what he’s got.
Stefan: “As you can see, there’s no grass here.
I don’t know what some of this stuff is. Some kind of moss.
I think even the moss died, so now we have dead moss
that’s like yellow and brown.”
Molly: “It’s not attractive dead.”
Stefan: “No. I just think, when I’m out here cutting my grass,
I’m like, man, if I lived across the street, I’d be like, ‘hey look,
they’re cutting absolutely nothing again. They’re just running
that lawn mower over bare spots.’”
They see their neighbors, with those thick, green lawns,
spreading chemicals a few times a year. Molly and Stefan
don’t want to do that.
Molly: “Well, the fact that I’ve got kids running around here
all day. And the fact that it seeps into the water supply and
the rivers, that’s a concern to me.”
There are lots of people who are concerned about lawn
pollution. Lawns have gotten a bad wrap in some places –
because of the fertilizers and other chemicals people use on
them. In much of Canada, lawn chemicals have actually
been banned.
Lou DiGeranimo is General Manager of Water in Toronto.
He says lawn chemicals were damaging the water quality.
“People were over-fertilizing, they were using commercial
pesticides. That chemical ended up in the rivers and ended
up in the lake. We passed a bylaw that prohibited that.”
But some experts say the chemical bans in Canada are
extreme.
David Gardner is professor of turf grass at the Ohio State
University. He doesn’t think banning lawn chemical will do
anything to improve the environment.
“Based on the work that I have seen, based on the research
that has been conducted, I believe that if there is a unilateral
ban on the use of pesticides it will make absolutely no
impact on our environmental footprint.”
Gardner says compared to
other sources of pollution, like cars and over-use of
chemicals on farms, the impact of lawn care is miniscule.
Still, Gardner says people like Molly and Stefan can keep
nice lawns – without using a lot of chemicals.
He says you’ve got to cut the grass and water regularly.
He also recommends fertilizing lightly in the spring and more
heavily in the fall.
That’s what Gardner does at his house – and he uses only 6
to 8 ounces of herbicide a year.
“Putting it another way, if I were to go to a store and buy one
of those gallon jugs of ready-made herbicide, that would be
enough to last me for about 16 years.”
Gardner says the herbicide will hit its expiration date before
he has a chance to use it all.
But Molly and Stefan just aren’t sold. They don’t want to use
lawn chemicals just to appease the neighbors.
Stefan: “I just want to feel good about the way my yard
looks for my own satisfaction. I would like to cultivate some
grass that looks good, you know, with my hands.”
Besides, Stefan says, they don’t have the worst looking lawn
on the street and they’d just rather not add unnecessary
chemicals into the environment.
Stefan: “We don’t have the worst lawn on the street. Our
street is not that long. It’s only four blocks, five blocks long –
there’s a house down there and their yard looks worse than
ours.”
The Matson Line Container ship is unloaded at the Port of Oakland. It takes up to 48 hours and hundreds of trucks to unload the world's large container ships. Everything except the white cranes runs on diesel (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
Trucks shuttle shipping containers without destinations to the storage yard (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)
U.S. ports are among the biggest sources of air pollution in the cities they are in. Some
ports are making progress in cleaning up their emissions. But Lisa Ann Pinkerton
reports, critics say the pace is slow:
Transcript
U.S. ports are among the biggest sources of air pollution in the cities they are in. Some
ports are making progress in cleaning up their emissions. But Lisa Ann Pinkerton
reports, critics say the pace is slow:
The Matson Line cargo ship is laden with hundreds of shipping
containers and looks like a floating building, rather than a ship. It’s in
from a recent trek across the Pacific Ocean and it’s docked here at
the Port of Oakland.
It’s being unloaded one container at a time by a row of cranes
towering over the ship.
“And they’re either loading them on to a truck chassis to go directly out of the port, or
they’re going to store it in the yard, sort it out, put it on a rail car or send it out on the
regional freeways.”
That’s Richard Sincoff. He directs the environmental projects at the
Port of Oakland.
He says it can take crews 24 to 48 hours to fully unload just one ship,
and all that the activity creates a lot of the air pollution surrounding
West Oakland.
The trucks moving containers around the port run on diesel, and
recently, the port banned all pre 1994 trucks from shuttling shipping
containers.
Delphine Prevost, who manages truck programs at the port says goal
is to ensure the thousands trucks serving the port emit low levels of
diesel pollution.
“These are engine models we are talking about, and generally the older, the more
pollution it is. Just like anything else, trucks get cleaner as technology for truck engines
get cleaner.”
Since most of the truck drivers are independent contractors and can’t
always afford a brand new truck, the port has set up a grant program
to help them cover the costs.
Los Angeles has done this, too, and it is the biggest port in the
country. Since last fall, it’s removed forty-five hundred dirty trucks
from its operations.
David Abby says the region’s seen a nearly 35% improvement to the
local air quality and a reduction of 500 tones of nitrous oxide or NOX.
“And to put that into prospective, that 500 tons of NOX is like taking 1300 cars off the
road for a year.”
But truck exhaust represents only about 4% of all diesel emissions in
America’s ports. It’s ships that emit the most. They burn dirty bunker
fuel on their way in to the port. Then they’re docked, they keep
burning it for electricity.
James Cannon is with Energy Futures – an environmental advocacy
group. He says these big ships are just like a power plant on land.
But, because they are in the water, the US Clean Air Act doesn’t
apply.
“Because the power plant is just a few feet off the berth on the ship, it’s totally
unregulated and this has led to emissions that are literally thousands of times higher
than if it were just a few feet away.”
Cannon says ports are exploring ways to cut these emissions, but the
pace is slow. He says the most ideal solution is to allow the ships to
plug into the electrical grid while at berth. A few ships docking in the
Port of Long Beach can do this now.
These California ports are greening their operations, because state
law is pushing them. Cannon says America’s seven other ports have
much farther to go.
He says they should take advantage of the lower shipping activity
during this recession – and spend money to green up their
operations.
“Rather than endlessly expanding their container ports or endlessly expanding volume
they now have a chance to restructure their ports and put them on a cleaner basis.”
US EPA has pledged to regulate air within 230 miles of US Coasts by
2012.
If the agency stays true to its word, all of the nation’s ports will have
to green their operations eventually. Whether it will be as much as
California’s ports have done remains to be seen.
For The Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.
Processing tar sands crude creates more air pollution than normal. (Photo courtesy of Argonne National Laboratory)
