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.
A type of genetically engineered corn that was pulled from the market more than three years ago is still showing up in small amounts of the nation’s corn supply. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Transcript
A type of genetically engineered corn that was pulled from the market more than
three years ago is still showing up in small amounts of the nation’s corn supply.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Starlink corn was designed to be resistant to certain pests. But concerns over
possible health effects on humans led the government to limit its use to corn
grown for feeding livestock.
But when traces of Starlink were detected in taco shells in 2000, the genetically
modified corn was pulled from the market. Today, voluntary testing is conducted
by the USDA on growers who suspect their corn might be contaminated with
Starlink. Those tests have shown that Starlink is still present in trace amounts.
Rick Johns is an associate biology professor at Northern Illinois University. He
says it’s possible Starlink will be around for many years to come.
“Farmers aren’t necessarily good at keeping everything separate. The grain bins,
for example, are not well segregated – human food versus animal food – it’s all
together in one big bin. Even if you clean the bin out there’s lots of excess seeds
left inside of it. Similarly for the trucks, similarly for the grain elevators.”
A study by the Centers for Disease Control found no conclusive evidence of
allergic reaction to Starlink corn.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.
The EPA wants communities to do more to protect drinking water from a harmful microorganism. That could mean several changes for cities around the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The EPA wants communities to do more to protect
drinking water from a harmful microorganism. That could mean
several changes for cities around the Great Lakes. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Ten years ago, a Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee led to
the deaths of more than 100 people who had weakened immune
systems. The outbreak sickened 400,000 other people.
Since that time, Milwaukee has made 100 million dollars in water treatment plant
improvements. Milwaukee waterworks superintendent Carrie Lewis
says the EPA’s plan to make all drinking water treatment
systems monitor and guard against the microbe means some
cities face new construction at their water treatment buildings.
“Because one doesn’t easily add more barriers to
organisms like Cryptosporidium without adding more physical plant
to the water treatment plants.”
Lewis expects some cities to debate the cost and benefits of the
rule package.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck
Quirmbach reporting.
The first Native American tribe in the Midwest to seek a special air pollution protection for its reservation has run into some roadblocks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The first Native American tribe in the Midwest to seek
a special air pollution protection for its reservation has
run into some roadblocks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The Forest County Potawatomi tribe in Wisconsin has a tentative
air pollution deal with the state and the EPA. Under the plan, the
tribe’s reservation would be granted Class One Air Designation.
That top level protection would mean the Potawatomi could
challenge major new air pollution sources within 62 miles of its reservation.
Some of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan falls within that zone… and Michigan
is fighting the designation, citing states’ rights. Steven Rothblatt is with the EPA. He’s
moderating the dispute.
“I don’t think we have an absolute legal time frame that we have to act in
so many days or anything on this. So we’ve taken a position of really trying to work with the
parties to seek agreement.”
The Potawatomi say there’s increasing evidence that air pollution affects the tribe’s natural
resources… and they want to restrict it.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck Quirmbach in Milwaukee.
Some motorcycle riders are concerned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is unfairly targeting bikers with a proposal to reduce motorcycle emissions. Illustration courtesy of ABATE of Illinois.
The Environmental Protection Agency is considering new rules to reduce pollution from motorcycles. The EPA says street bikes pollute far more than cars or even SUVs:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is considering new rules to reduce
pollution from motorcycles. The EPA says street bikes pollute far more
than cars or even SUVs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
The EPA’s proposal would require new motorcycles to substantially
reduce exhaust emissions. The EPA says the average new motorcycle
pollutes 20 times more than the average new car. Don Zinger is with the
agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
“The motorcycle standards have been in place since 1980. In
other words, they have not been changed in 22 years now. So, we think it’s
appropriate to consider more stringent standards for motorcycles.”
Bikers are concerned that the emissions restrictions will affect the
performance of motorcycles. They also say the EPA is trying to take
away their right to change how their bikes sound. Many bikers feel the
rumble of their motorcycle is a statement of their individuality. EPA
officials say they just want the motorcycles to pollute less.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Some motorcycle riders are concerned that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is unfairly targeting bikers with a proposal to reduce motorcycle emissions. Illustration courtesy of ABATE of Illinois.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to clean up pollution from motorcycles. Motorcycle enthusiasts don’t want the government telling them how to operate their street bikes. It’s become a battle between bikers and bureaucrats. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to clean up pollution from
motorcycles. Motorcycle enthusiasts don’t want the government telling
them how to operate their street bikes. It’s become a battle between
bikers and bureaucrats. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham reports:
(pipe sound #1)
Bikers turn their heads when they hear a pair of exhaust pipes cackling
by. The sound catches their attention as much as the style and chrome on
the motorcycle. Bikers such as Neil Toepfer say making changes such as
with exhaust pipes are a part of the culture of motorcycle enthusiasts.
“That’s how we express ourselves, making changes on the bike that make
it even more fuel efficient or perform the way that we the rider want it to perform.”
And the sound of the bike is a big part of identity for many riders.
(pipe sound #2)
But motorcycle riders such as Toepfer say they’re concerned about an
Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would crack down on
motorcycle exhaust systems. Toepfer and others have gone so far as to
ride their bikes to Washington to let Congress know they oppose the
EPA messing around with their freedom to modify their bike pipes.
“The thing with the EPA… and I’m probably going to get
somebody’s nose out of joint when I say this… but the EPA is just a
government agency. They don’t answer to the people. They don’t listen to
the people. They’re bureaucrats that have their own agenda.”
Toepfer is being mild compared to what some other bikers are saying
about the EPA. There seems to be a bit of a culture clash. A poster on
the internet by one motorcycle riders association depicts a mock-up of
an assault rifle toting EPA official in riot gear. The caption reads “He’s
from the Government, but he’s not here to help.” It goes on to read “He’s
here to take your heritage. He’s here to take your freedom. He’s here to
take your motorcycle.”
Many bikers say they don’t understand why the EPA is going after their
motorcycle exhaust pipes…
(pipe sound #3)
Mike Hayworth is the owner of Watson’s Wheels of Madness, a custom
motorcycle shop in Alton, Illinois. He suspects the problem is either the
government bureaucrats don’t have enough to do… or do-gooders who
can’t mind their own business…
“These environmentalist people, they want to rule our lives
and they’re going to take and do whatever they can to say ‘We got to stop
this and we got to stop that.’ What kind of pollution does a motorcycle –
there’s not enough motorcycles in the United States to pollute anything.”
That same argument is being made in Washington, D.C. Thomas Wyld is
a lobbyist with Motorcycle Riders Foundation. He says a study by the
California Air Resources Board found that street bikes were only
responsible for six one-thousandth of a percent of all motor vehicle
emissions.
“And if you took that pollution inventory of motor vehicles and
made it equivalent of a 100-yard football field, street motorcycles would
occupy a quarter of an inch on that field.”
Wyld adds that motorcycles are fuel efficient, reduce traffic congestion,
and take up less parking space. Wyld says those are things the EPA
should be encouraging instead of pestering bikers with exhaust
emissions restrictions.
(pipe sound #4)
The EPA is a little baffled by all the noise about the emissions proposal.
Don Zinger is with the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
He says the bikers don’t understand the proposal…
“These new requirements will have absolutely no effect on
existing motorcycles.”
Zinger says any new restrictions on exhaust systems would only affect
new motorcycles that come off the assembly line after the restrictions are
implemented… probably four years from now.
And Zinger notes… motorcycles pollute a lot more than most people
realize.
“A typical motorcycle built today produces about 20 times as
much air pollution as a new car today over every mile that’s driven. 20
times. That’s pretty significant.”
So, the EPA says street motorcycles should be made to pollute less, as
the EPA has required many other types of vehicles to do.
Many bikers believe the EPA is targeting street motorcycle riders
because they’re a small segment of society with a reputation of being on
the wild side. EPA officials say bikers won’t notice a difference in the
sound or performance of the bikes under the proposed emissions
restrictions… but it will mean they’ll pollute less.
(bike pipes leaving the scene)
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were shipped across international borders, and they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:
Transcript
When NAFTA was passed in 1994, environmentalists feared catastrophic results. Polluting industries would move to Mexico, where environmental
protections hadn’t caught up with those in the U.S. and Canada. They were worried that air pollution would increase as more goods were
shipped across international borders. And they were concerned that shared resources like the Great Lakes might lose their protected status and become commodities subject to trade. Supporters of NAFTA argued that increased prosperity would lead to improved pollution technology and a strengthening of environmental protections. But eight years later, the effects of NAFTA on the environment appear to be mixed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Schaefer explains why:
Two years ago, a private Canadian company got permission from a provincial government to ship water from Lake Huron to water-starved countries in Southeast Asia. When the federal government got wind of the deal, the contract was revoked. But environmentalists feared that
another assault on Great Lakes water could arise under a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Chapter 11 is a clause that allows private foreign investors to sue local governments if they believe their trade rights have been violated. In the case of Great Lakes water, that could mean that trade laws could trump environmental regulations – and that businesses could overturn a government’s ability to protect natural resources and human health.
[ambient sound]
At a recent U.S./Canada law conference held in Cleveland, government officials, policymakers, and trade lawyers gathered to discuss the environmental consequences of Chapter 11 and other trade issues. In the
Great Lakes region, the sharpest impact may have been to air quality.
“Increased freight transportation
linked to NAFTA has led to significant air pollution at border crossings at both borders.”
Jannine Ferretti heads the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, an international agency established to address environmental concerns under NAFTA. She admits that as yet, there’s been only limited assessment of those impacts. But she says what data there is, shows it’s not all bad news.
“The Mexico steel, because of NAFTA’s investment provisions, actually enabled Mexico steel to upgrade its technology, making the sector actually in some ways cleaner than that of the United States and Canada. But what about the effects of trade rules on environmental policy? And this is where we go to NAFTA’s Chapter 11.”
(Frank Loy) “Chapter 11 is a chapter designed to protect investors from one NAFTA country that invested in another NAFTA country and it has led to a number of cases that have worried the environmental community.”
Frank Loy served as Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs under the Clinton administration. He says under Chapter 11, a number of private investors have successfully sued foreign governments for millions of dollars, contending that meeting local environmental regulations violated their rights under free trade laws.
“I would say the cases worry me a lot. My guess is
there already is a regulatory chill, a timidity on the part of governments
to take certain actions for fear of subjecting the state to liabilities.”
Part of that regulatory chill may derive from the concern that it’s not an open process. One of the sharpest criticisms of Chapter 11 is that the cases are heard and decided by a closed-door, three-person tribunal, with no mandate to hear testimony from third parties. So while the public has a hard time benefiting from NAFTA, companies have it relatively easy. In one of the first challenges under the provision, U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation won nearly 20-million dollars in damages from the Canadian government for its ban on a gasoline additive called MMT. Canada has since dropped the ban. Another case involved an Ohio company, S.D. Meyers, that treats the chemical compounds known as PCBs.
James McIlroy, a trade lawyer from Toronto, says the company wanted to import the waste from Canada, despite a Canadian prohibition.
“The government of Canada said we are prohibiting this for environmental reasons. But the real reason, when you really looked at it hard, the real reason was there was a PCB plant in Alberta in western Canada that the government of Canada wanted to promote.”
McIlroy is not alone when he says a number of Chapter 11 cases apparently based on environmental protection have proved on closer scrutiny to be a cover-up for government trade protection. While he doesn’t dismiss the environmental issues, he does caution against blowing them out of proportion.
“I think it’s fair to say, whether the cases are valid or not, there sure haven’t been a whole lot of them. And therefore this is not this huge, massive problem that people are talking about. And
we’ve had this what, since 1994, and you can count the number of cases on two
hands.”
Ohio Democrat Congressman Sherrod Brown voted against NAFTA. He disagrees with McIlroy’s assessment.
“Their arguments are specious. Perhaps in the opinion of trade lawyers, these challenges have served as a cloak for protectionism. But to trade lawyers, everything’s seen as a cloak for protectionism.”
Brown says while companies began making use of Chapter 11 only about four years ago, there have been plenty of other trade challenges to environmental laws.
“Time after time after time, both in NAFTA and every public health law challenge under the WTO, 33 straight times, public health laws, environmental laws, and food safety laws, every single time they’ve been struck down. That’s wrong, whenever a trade law can be used to undercut or repeal a democratically-attained rule or regulation.”
Both opponents and supporters agree it’s unlikely NAFTA will be revised anytime soon. But the precedents set under NAFTA could affect future trade agreements. Arguments on both sides of the issue will undoubtedly be aired again as Congress takes up approval of new fast track trade
legislation with similar investor protections this spring. Environmental groups believe equitable settlement of future trade challenges may have to rely on the strength of public opinion to sway government decisions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Schaefer in Cleveland.
For years, environmentalists, government workers, and others have been puzzled about why more farmers don’t make use of environmentally friendly land management practices. Now, researchers have found some of the reasons farmers persist in farming the way they do; and why they don’t listen to outside experts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:
Transcript
For years, environmentalists, government workers and others have been
puzzled about why more farmers don’t make use of environmentally friendly
land management practices. Now, researchers have found some of the reasons
farmers persist in farming the way they do and why they don’t listen to
outside experts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
(diner sounds)
When you walk into Fran and Marilyn’s diner you immediately smell bacon and
coffee. It’s still dark and this is the only storefront open this early in
the morning in Jerseyville, Illinois. Local merchants, blue-collar workers
and farmers meet here to catch up on the local gossip. This is a place where
most people wear jeans and work boots. Belts with big buckles are fitted
with leather holsters to hold pliers or side cutters. No one wears their cap
backward here.
As farmers ramble in, they eye the guy with the tie and microphone
suspiciously. After asking more than a dozen farmers over a three hour
period to talk, only one was willing to sit down with us.
That’s to be expected according to recent research on the behavior of
farmers. One of the major findings was that farmers don’t trust outsiders
very much. So, we came here to find if that was true.
Clayton Isringhausen farms land just outside of town. He agrees with the
researchers at the University of Illinois who found farmers for the most
part just want to be left alone.
“You know, that’s one of the reasons, probably, a lot of us do farm because we think we can make our own decisions and produce the products the way that we think is the best way to do it and we don’t want anyone trying to tell us anything different.”
Isringhausen says judging from his friends and neighbors, the researchers
were right when they found that farmers don’t trust outsiders… or at least
the organizations they represent… especially if they’re with government
regulators or environmental groups.
“I don’t think farmers distrust them because of the individual. They may distrust them because of who they’re involved with. ”
And the researchers found that distrust extends to just about anyone outside
of the farming community. The researchers say farmers tend to make decisions
based on their own experience, or on the advice of neighbors, or recommendations from the manager of the local grain elevator where they buy
feed, pesticides, and seed. Not because someone in a tie tells them what
they ought to do.
David Wilson is one of the University of Illinois researchers who questioned
hundreds of farmers about how they make decisions.
“Farmers are like many, many other people where they create in their own minds, in their own imaginings, a sense of villains and victims and salvationists to their way of life.”
And Wilson found most farmers see themselves as the victims… and government
agencies that interfere with their lifestyles, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency… as the villains. So when government programs or
environmental groups try to persuade farmers to stop using certain
pesticides that cause pollution problems, or to till the soil differently to
reduce erosion, or to stop using growth enhancing hormones in livestock,
farmers tend to get defensive.
(truck and grain elevator sounds)
Ted Stouffe farms 350 acres and also works at the grain elevator in Shipman,
Illinois. He says some environmental groups seem to be reasonable, but he
thinks others have hidden agendas.
“If they’re truly what they say they are, I have no problem with that. But I think that there’s somebody or something out there is trying to lead – excuse the expression – city people to believe that we’re creating a monster out here. And, whoever that is needs to be stopped, and they really don’t know the issue.”
Getting past that suspicion is difficult. Many environmental groups don’t
make a lot of progress in working with farmers. Chris Campany is with the
National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, a coalition of farm
organizations, environmental groups, and others. Campany says the trick is
to find farmers who are good stewards of the land, respected by
environmentalists and by farmers, and work with them to help find common
ground between the groups. He says the next step is getting rid of
pre-conceived notions and asking the important questions.
“Why’s the farmer doing what he or she is doing in the first place? What are they responding to? And what are some examples out there of alternative ways to do things that not only may be more environmentally sound, but may be more economically viable too?”
But the researchers at the University of Illinois found that economic
argument only goes so far. Again, David Wilson…
“Many outsiders have gone into the farming community and said ‘We can change these guys’ practices if we can make an economic appeal to them.’ But, it’s really much more complex than that because farmers don’t just think economically. Farmers think in ways that are highly personal to them.”
And until those outsiders understand that, the researchers say they won’t
have a whole lot of influence with farmers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
American Electric Power is working to stop blue clouds of sulfuric acid from descending on towns near the Ohio River. Ironically, the clouds are a by-product of a 200-million dollar system installed in May to help curb smog-producing emissions from the General James M. Gavin Power Plant. The search for a solution is being watched by other power plants in the U.S. that have to comply with stricter anti-smog regulations put in place by the federal government.
Blue clouds of sulfuric acid have descended upon towns in southeastern Ohio and West Virginia more than a dozen times since May. The clouds are from smoke stacks at American Electric Power’s General James M. Gavin plant in rural Cheshire, Ohio. It’s one of the largest coal-burning power plants in North America. The company blames a new 200 million dollar pollution control system for releasing more toxic emissions. If they’re right, other Midwestern power companies may face similar troubles when trying to comply with federal clean air laws. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Natalie Walston reports:
Transcript
Blue clouds of sulfuric acid have descended upon towns in south-eastern Ohio and West Virginia more than a dozen times since may. The clouds are from smoke stacks at American Electric Powers General John M. Gavin plant in rural Cheshire, Ohio. It’s one of the largest coal-burning power plants in North America. The company blames a new 200-million dollar pollution control system for releasing more toxic emissions. If they’re right, other midwestern power companies may face similar troubles when trying to comply with federal clean air laws. The great lakes radio consortium’s Natalie Walston reports.
The small, rundown airport in Mt. Pleasant sits on a flat part of the hills of West Virginia.
It’s surrounded by thick trees. Its rural enough here that it’s common to see wild turkeys dashing across the runways. One summer afternoon airport manager Ben Roush looked out his window. But instead of seeing a plane land … he saw thick smoke clinging to the tops of the trees.
“It looked like, uh, exhaust out of a car or something like that. It wasn’t black smoke it was blue. Very, very visible.”
After the smoke appeared, his phone began to ring.
“The fire department down here called up here and wanted to know if we had a fire up here because it was all in these … it settled to the ground. And, it was in those trees.”
The clouds contain high concentrations of sulfuric acid. That’s not normal … even this close to a power plant that burns coal with a high sulfur content. For years, most coal-burning power plants have had pollution control devices called “scrubbers” to deal with that sulfur. The scrubbers do just what the name implies – they scrub the air clean of sulfur dioxide as well as some other pollutants. But, they don’t do a good job in removing nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is blamed in part for causing acid rain and smog.
Paul Chodak is manager of American Electric Power’s Optimization Group. He says AEP installed a selective catalytic reduction system … or SCR … in an effort to remove nitrous oxide. Chodak says the SCR system is a relatively new technology. And, so far, it and the scrubber aren’t working well together. That’s because they are combining to make sulfuric acid, but in a different form. And that form then gets released into the air.
“The SO3 … or sulfuric acid is in very fine droplets … sub-micron size droplets. Very, very tiny. And they’re so small that they travel through the scrubber and they’re not removed. So, the scrubber works very well on the gas in removing SO2. However, it’s not very effective in removing SO3.”
Chodak says this is all because of an effort to reduce emissions that cause acid rain and smog in eastern seaboard states. But… as AEP scrambles to stop polluting the air hundreds of miles away … people who live beneath the smoke stacks claim their health is being sacrificed. They say that in the summer, when the sulfuric acid clouds move in it’s difficult to breathe.
(natural sound of NASCAR race and drunk people carrying on)
Gallipolis is a small city five miles south of the power plant. Today there’s a small crowd of people gathered at Sunny’s bar and grille. People here will only give their first names to an out of town reporter. A man named Steve is drinking a beer at a table with his sister. He says fallout from the plant makes the paint peel off cars.
“All that acid and stuff goes on these cars. They gotta repaint the cars … so you know it’s tearin’ us up. Our bodies. And, like I say, we worry about our kids and grandkids more. We’re old enough that it’s not gonna bother us no more.”
His sister Tammy drags slowly on a cigarette as Steve talks.
When he finishes, she jumps in to say that since the blue clouds started showing up, everyone in town has become sick.
“I have health problems. I cough all the time. Allergies all the time. Allergies to something’. Runny nose. Constantly. You know, I think everyone in town has health problems that live around here.”
But AEP claims the air is cleaner than it was before the SCR system was installed. Paul Chodak says the air turned blue this summer because the sulfuric acid reacted with sunlight on hot, humid days. He says people become scared because they could actually see what they were breathing.
“The hard thing for people to understand is that what is coming out of the stack is significantly cleaner than what was coming out before. This is an improvement from a pollution control perspective. However, it has created this local phenomena that is a problem. And, AEP is moving to address that and we will solve it.”
Sulfuric acid measurements taken by the company and examined by Ohio and U.S. EPA researchers meanwhile don’t show a major sulfuric acid problem. But there are no state standards in place in Ohio for levels of gaseous sulfuric acid in the air.
Kay Gilmer of the Ohio EPA says emissions from AEP have exceeded sulfuric acid standards set by other states. However, she says people near the plant stacks aren’t in immediate danger. But she hesitates to say the air is perfectly safe to breathe.
“We didn’t have anything that would um … that we would … that we looked at that was exceptionally high. But, that was, I don’t want to say that to say we’re not concerned with the problem.”
Meanwhile, people near the plant say they’re tired of having their health jeopardized so people far away from them can breathe easier. They are working with state environmental groups to possibly fight the power plant in court.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Natalie Walston.
Aerial view of industry along the Fox River. Photo by Great
Lakes United.
One of the rivers that flows into Lake Michigan is polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site…an environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up, and some environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
One of the rivers that flows into the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan) is
polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site –an
environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up. And some
environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
(Sound of fish splash)
It’s late at night. The moon’s out. And the fish are flopping on the Fox
River. In downtown Green Bay, Wisconsin, Robert Hageman and a few of his
friends have been fishing. A couple of the guys are bragging about the big
fish they caught. But they’re not taking any home with them tonight.
LG: “Had any luck?” RH: “Yeah, I caught 23 fish.”
LG: “And wwhat did you do with them? RH: “Let ’em right back.” LG: “why?” RH: “Because it’s dirty. Fox River’s dirty.”
LG: “What have you heard about the Fox River?” RH: “The fish ain’t good for you. They can’t hurt you, but they ain’t good for you.
(friends in background say “PCBs, man.”) “yeah.”
LG: “What do you know about PCBs?
RH: “I don’t know nothing about it. That’s why I ain’t eatin’ them.” (all laugh)
Hageman and his friends are right when they say there are PCBs in the Fox
River. But apparently they haven’t heard that eating fish from the river
probably can hurt you in the long run. There are 60-thousand pounds of
PCBs, or poly chlorinated byphenyls, in the 39 mile run of the Fox
River. Of that, 50-thousand pounds – that’s 25 tons – is in the sediment of
the last seven mile stretch just before the river flows into Green Bay and
on into the rest of Lake Michigan. It’s that final stretch where Hageman
and his friends have been fishing.
The Environmental Protection Agency says seven paper mills along the Fox
River are the likely polluters. The EPA says PCBs were produced as a
by-product of the paper manufacturing process, and from the 1950s to the 1970s
they were dumped into the river. Now, the agency intends to make those
mills pay for cleaning up the contaminants.
Dennis Hultgren works for Appleton Papers, and is a spokesperson for a group
that represents the seven companies. Hultgren says the paper mills want to
clean up the pollution. But they don’t want to pay more than they have to.
“What we want to do is make sure that the money that we do spend
is spent wisely and it does the most environmental good for the region. And
so, we have one chance to do it right and we want to do it right the first
time.”
The paper mills have been working closely with government agencies to try to
determine where the PCBs are concentrated and how best to clean up the
pollution. Some of the companies have spent millions of dollars on tests in
the river. Just recently, Hultgren’s firm offered 40-million dollars… ten-million dollars a year for four years… for data collection and preliminary clean-up tests. The government agencies praised the decision and some environmental groups voiced their approval. But a local grassroots group, the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, does not approve. Rebecca Katers is with the council and says it’s a delay tactic by the paper mill companies.
“It makes the company look generous. But, in fact, they should be doing this anyway. They should have done this ten years ago.”
Giving the money now, Katers says, only manages to delay legal action
against the company for four more years. Besides, she says, while
40-million dollars might seem like a lot of money, the estimated clean-up
could cost as much as 30 times that amount.
The Clean Water Action Council says this money and the government’s
willingness to accept it are representative of the cozy relationship the
companies seem to have with regulators. But Katers says the state and
federal agencies are forgetting about the people who live here. She
bristles when she hears the government agencies talk about how close they
are to the paper mills.
“They talked at the announcement about ongoing discussions they
have on a daily basis with the paper industries on this issue. But, they
haven’t met once face-to-face with the public. They haven’t held a public
discussion or debate on this issue.”
And it appears there won’t be many opportunities in the future. Although
the Fox River is not a Superfund site, the EPA is generally following the
process used for Superfund sites. The EPA says that means the public can
submit comments in writing. But there won’t be a lot of public discussion
until the EPA actually has a proposed plan. Katers thinks the people
should have a voice a lot earlier in the process.
But, the paper mills’ representative, Dennis Hultgren says it’s better to
let the experts work first.
“It’s complicated. For the normal citizen, it’s going to be very difficult to comment on it because they’re going to be looking at the technical merits
of their comments. And a general citizen, not having been involved, it’s going to be very difficult to have germane comments.”
The companies say they’ve been studying and testing and they’ve found
disturbing the sediment by trying to remove it proves that the PCBs should
be left in the sediment, allowed to slowly break down… a process called
natural recovery. And where there’s risk that sediment laden PCBs might
be disturbed by the river’s currents, engineered caps could be put in place.
The Clean Water Action Council says the paper mills tests were designed to
end up with that conclusion because that would be the cheaper way to deal
with the PCBs. The council wants the PCBs removed from the river and
disposed of safely… a much more expensive job.
The acting regional administrator for the USEPA, David Ullrich, says
there’ll likely be some combination of natural recovery, capping, and
removal. But, Ullrich says none of that will happen anytime soon. It’s a
big job, and it looks as though it will take up to ten years to deal with
the PCBs. And Ullrich says that’s just the beginning.
“The actual recovery of the resource, getting fish contaminant
levels down to acceptable levels and getting the PCB loadings to Green Bay
and out to Lake Michigan down, could take a longer period of time than that,
perhaps up to twenty years.”
And over that 20 year period, experts say that contamination will
naturally spread farther and farther into Green Bay and Lake Michigan.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
