Enviros and Coal-Fired Power

  • City Water Light and Power of Springfield, Illinois compromised with environmentalists to build a cleaner power plant and supplement supplies with wind energy rather than fight through the permitting process. (Photo by Lester Graham)

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants
on the drawing boards. Many of them won’t be built.
In some cases environmental groups will fight to
make sure they don’t get built. But, Lester
Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the
environmentalists nearby:

Transcript

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants on the drawing boards. Many of
them won’t be built. In some cases environmental groups will fight to make sure
they don’t get built. But, Lester Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the environmentalists nearby:


Usually, when a utility wants to build a new coal-burning power plant, the fight is on. The
utility is challenged by environmental groups every step of the permitting process.
Then, more times than not, the utility and the environmentalists take the fight to the
courts. It means years of delays and millions of dollars of legal bills, but that didn’t
happen here.


Construction workers are erecting the superstructure of a new 500-million dollar
coal-burning power plant. This power plant is scheduled to go online in two years.
When it’s complete, it’ll use the latest technology to reduce the nastiest pollutants
from its smokestack: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and mercury. And this power
plant is much more efficient.


Jay Bartlett is the chief utilities engineer with City Water Light and Power in
Springfield, Illinois. He says compared to the utility’s older power plants next door,
the new plant will burn about 20% less coal to produce the same amount of
electricity.


“It takes about 1.4 pounds of coal to make a kilowatt of electricity from that plant
over there. This plant will be in the .85 range.”


And that will mean electricity bills for ratepayers won’t have to go up. It also means
the net amount of greenhouse gases is reduced. That makes environmentalists
smile.


And that’s no accident. Jay Bartlett says after being contacted by the local Sierra Club,
the power company and the environmentalists decided to talk:


“It was our goal when we sat down with the Sierra Club, saying, ‘You know we can
fight this out and it will cost both sides lots and lots of money, but will anything good
come out of this in the end?’ And we both decided that something better could come
out of spending those dollars. And what that was investing in wind, investing in
better pollution control, products for this plant to make it as clean as it can possibly be
and move forward. ”


No one really thought this would happen. Not the utility, not the regulators, and not
the environmentalists.


(Sound of coffee shop)


At a downtown coffee shop, Will Reynolds still seems a little surprised. He’s with the
local Sierra Club chapter that worked with Springfield’s City Water Light and Power:


“Yeah, at the start of this I thought there was no chance for any kind of agreement or
compromise. But by the end of it, we had an agreement that reduced the CO2 to
Kyoto Treaty levels, we had a utility that was able to build a power plant to have a
stable, efficient power supply — which was what they were looking for as a small
municipal utility — and in the end, I think it was a win-win for everybody.”


What the two sides agreed to is this: the best off-the-shelf equipment to control
pollution better than the law requires, and to offset the CO2 produced by the plant,
the utility signed an agreement with an Iowa wind-power company to provide part of
Springfield’s electricity:


“Springfield is a small, pretty conservative town that just took a huge step forward
and showed what can be done realistically to reduce our global warming emissions.
And we were able to do it and still provide for our power, still have affordable, reliable
power for the entire city. So, if Springfield can do it, then other cities can do it.”


The state regulating agency, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
applauded the efforts. Illinois is a coal-producing state and has been encouraging
power companies to clean up their plants so that coal can still be used without as many
of the pollution worries. IEPA Director Doug Scott says the Springfield utility’s efforts
will be a model for other power companies:


“I mean, all of the things that they did and the things that they worked out with Sierra
Club, the extra reductions that they’re getting over and above what they would have
had to have done in a normal permitting sense. I mean, that they were looking at
trying to be good stewards of the environment as well as being responsive to their
ratepayers as well.”


And Scott says that’s key. Because it’s plentiful and domestic, coal is not going
away. Scott says this can work for not just municipal electric utilities, but private
power companies can keep shareholders happy, keep ratepayers happy and keep
the skies clearer by updating power plants to work more efficiently, seriously reduce
the emissions from coal, and do what they can to offset greenhouse gas emissions
until technology is found that can clean up CO2.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Epa to Regulate Mercury in Steel Industry

  • Cars to be recycled must have any mercury switches removed before they are melted, under new rules. (Photo by paytonc @ Flickr. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License)

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a new rule for steel
manufacturers could prevent the release of about five tons of mercury into
the air each year. Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says a new rule for steel
manufacturers could prevent the release of about five tons of mercury into
the air each year. Tracy Samilton reports:


Mercury switches are no longer made, but 35 million remain in older vehicles. Rick Otis with the U.S. EPA
says those vehicles will all be crushed and recycled by steel furnaces in about ten years, and that creates a
sense of urgency:


“Otherwise that mercury is going to be disseminated into the environment.”


Steelmakers agreed last year to voluntarily contract only with dismantlers who remove the switches. The
new rule makes it mandatory. But it could be tough to achieve the goal of an 80% recovery rate. Many auto
dismantlers operate on a shoe-string, with little money to train workers to remove the switches. Auto and
steelmakers have kicked in some money to pay dismantlers for each switch recovered. But environmental
groups say it’s not nearly enough.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Pushing Chemical Plants to Cut Mercury

Environmental groups say it would make financial sense for chemical
plants that emit a lot of mercury pollution to go mercury-free. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups say it would make financial sense for chemical
plants that emit a lot of mercury pollution to go mercury-free. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:


Environmentalists have been zeroing in on businesses that use mercury to make
chlorine for industrial processes. In many cases, the mercury escapes into the
atmosphere and eventually gets into the food chain. Some chlorine producers
have switched to mercury-free technology, but a report by the group Oceana
zeroes in on five US plants that haven’t made the change.


Oceana spokesperson Eric Uram admits going mercury-free can cost tens of
millions of dollars. But he says the firms can often save money on energy:


“Which they can either pass on to their shareholders or they can increase their
profitability.”


But the manager of one chlorine plant says the amount of money needed to
make the change has her corporate headquarters proceeding cautiously.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Report: Ethanol Not the Answer

  • As ethanol is becoming more common, the demand for corn is driving up prices for the grain. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Using corn to make fuel for cars and trucks will cause more pollution, higher food prices,
and will not greatly reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. That’s according to a
recent report by several environmental groups. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Using corn to make fuel for cars and trucks will cause more pollution, higher food prices,
and will not greatly reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. That’s according to a
recent report by several environmental groups. Mark Brush has more:


About 20% of this year’s crop in the US will go into making ethanol. That’s expected to jump to 27% next year. The push for more corn-based ethanol has already led to higher food prices. A new report
says if the ethanol trend continues unchecked – it will cause more fertilizer pollution in
water – and more air pollution from ethanol processing plants powered by coal and
natural gas.


Dulce Fernandez is with the Network for New Energy Solutions – one of the groups that
put out the report. She says ethanol is not the answer:


“I think everybody is looking for one great solution to solve all of these problems. But
nobody is thinking about the great potential that is out there to reduce demands.”


Fernandez says the best way to reduce demands is for the federal government to raise fuel
economy standards, instead of subsidizing corn-based ethanol.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Citizen Lawsuit Targets Foreign Ships

  • Ocean vessel loading grain at elevator in Superior, Wisconsin. Nine foreign ships have been identified in the lawsuit against international shipping companies. (Photo by Jerry Bielicki, USACOE)

For decades foreign ships have brought tiny stowaways – called invasive
species – into the United States. And once they get loose, they upend
ecosystems and cause billions of dollars in damage. The shipping
industry has yet to seriously address the problem, and now conservation
and environmental groups are suing the companies they say are most at
fault. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

For decades foreign ships have brought tiny stowaways – called invasive
species – into the United States. And once they get loose, they upend
ecosystems and cause billions of dollars in damage. The shipping
industry has yet to seriously address the problem, and now conservation
and environmental groups are suing the companies they say are most at
fault. Mark Brush has more:


In 1988, the now infamous zebra mussel slipped out of a ship’s ballast
tank near Detroit. It didn’t take long for it to spread, first
throughout the Great Lakes, then through the Ohio and Mississpi rivers,
then on to Alabama and Oklahoma, and now it’s as far west as Nevada.


The mussels clog up intake pipes at water and power plants and mess up
the food chain. In some places in the Great Lakes, they’ve severely
damaged the sport fishing industry.


And that’s the damage just one foreign pest can do. More than a
hundred have gotten in and more are on the way. The government has
done little to stop the spread of these pests from foreign ships. In
2005, a federal court in California ordered the EPA to set up a system.
The EPA appealed that ruling.


Andy Buchsbaum is the Director of the National Wildlife Federation’s
Great Lakes office. He says ballast water from foreign ships should be
regulated:


“The law is very clear. The Clean Water Act says you cannot discharge
pollution into navigable waters, like the Great Lakes, without first
obtaining a permit. Period. Any discharge without a permit
is illegal.”


So, instead of waiting for the EPA to act, several environmental and
conservation groups, including Buchsbaum’s group, say they are planning
to sue several shipping companies that operate ocean-going boats on the
Great Lakes. They’re targeting nine boats they feel are the biggest
violators.


Industry representatives have said that ballast water regulations would
hurt international shipping, but in the Great Lakes, it’s estimated
that ocean-going ships make up only 6% of the overall tonnage.


Joel Brammeier is with the Alliance for the Great Lakes, one of the
groups that intends to sue the ship owners. He says a few ocean-going
boats have caused a lot of damage:


“The cost savings that we’re seeing from allowing unregulated ocean
shipping on the Lakes pales compared to the economic burden that
invasive species are placing on the Lakes. That’s stunning. The
ocean-going shipping industry is actually bringing in less than the
region is losing because of the things that ocean going ships
unintentionally bring in.”


The environmental and conservation groups who intend to sue say there
are ballast water cleaning technologies available now. The National
Wildlife Federation’s Andy Buchsbaum says they’re willing to back off
their lawsuit if the ship owners promise to clean up their ballast
water:


“This legal action is not designed to shut down the shipping industry
in the Great Lakes. That is not our intention. Our intention is to
get these guys to comply with the Clean Water Act. And that means
putting on treatment technology and getting permits.”


The shipping industry says it needs more time. Steve Fisher is with
the American Great Lakes Ports Association. He concedes there are some
technologies to clean up ballast water:


“I’ll be very frank with you. There’s technologies out there that will
do something.”


(Brush:) “So, why not use those?”


“Because a ship owner needs to know how high the bar is before he jumps
over it.”


In other words the ship owners won’t clean up their ballast water until
the federal government tells them how clean is clean, and so far, the
federal government hasn’t done that.


The EPA and the shipping industry say they’re working on the decades
old problem, but the groups that intend to sue say they’re not moving
fast enough. More invasive species are getting in. They’re hoping the threat of a
lawsuit will help force more action sooner.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

After a Decade, Epa Looks at Pesticides

The US Environmental Protection Agency plans to begin testing
hundreds of pesticides to see if they disrupt human hormones. Tracy
Samilton reports that environmental groups aren’t satisfied with the
plan. They say the research is too little, too late:

Transcript

The US Environmental Protection Agency plans to begin testing
hundreds of pesticides to see if they disrupt human hormones. Tracy
Samilton reports that environmental groups aren’t satisfied with the
plan. They say the research is too little, too late:


Ten years ago, the EPA was directed by Congress to test pesticides to
see if they interfere with human hormones which control everything from
metabolism to reproduction. Now the EPA says it will take two more
years before it will start studying a short list of 73 pesticides.


The agency will eventually test all 700 or so pesticides on the market.
The Natural Resources Defense Council says the testing could eventually
lead to banning some harmful pesticides. But the environmental group
says the EPA dragged its feet on the study for far too long. And the
NRDC complains the short list includes chemicals already known to
disrupt hormones.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Ballast Law Battle Builds

  • Foreign ships like this one from Cypress are known as "Salties." They account for about 5% of ship traffic on the Great Lakes. If a salty dumps its ballast water in a Michigan port, they first have to show the state that they've sanitized the water. International shipping agencies have sued the state over this law. (Photo by Mark Brush)

The fight over foreign invasive pests in cargo ships is heating up. Mark Brush
reports environmental and conservation groups are going to court to defend
one of the toughest ballast water laws in the country:

Transcript

The fight over foreign invasive pests in cargo ships is heating up. Mark Brush
reports environmental and conservation groups are going to court to defend
one of the toughest ballast water laws in the country:


It’s been estimated that invasive species in the Great Lakes do billions of dollars in
damage every year. To stop foreign pests from getting into its waters, the state of
Michigan passed a law that affects all ocean-going ships stopping in
its ports. It requires them to sanitize their ballast to eliminate
invasive species that stow away in it.


International shipping agencies sued the state. They say Michigan’s
law will hurt interstate commerce.


Andy Buchsbaum is the director of the National Wildlife Federation’s
Great Lakes office. It’s one of the groups defending the ballast water
law. He says the international shipping industry might have opened
itself up to counter litigation:


“They fired the first shot – the ocean going shipping industry fired
the first shot, but it’s only the first shot. And I think you’re going
to see an awful lot of action that follows through on this. They’re
going to regret that they filed this lawsuit.”


A hearing on Michigan’s Ballast Water law is scheduled to take place
this May.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

New Air Standards Tough on Particulates

Environmental and health groups from around the country are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for its new air quality rules. Dustin Dwyer has more:

Transcript

Environmental and health groups from around the country are criticizing the
Environmental Protection Agency for its new air quality rules. Dustin Dwyer has more:


The new standard for short-term exposure to particulate matter, or soot, has been cut in
half. The standard on long-term exposure was left unchanged. EPA administrator
Stephen Johnson says it’s the most health-protective standard in the nation’s history:


“These are significant, significant steps to improve the quality of our air.”


Environmental groups, including the Sierra Club have criticized the new rules, and Paul
Billings of the American Lung Association also says the new soot standards do not go far
enough:


“They quite simply fail to protect public health.”


Huge areas of the country already failed to meet the previous standards on soot. Now,
another 32 counties are out of compliance. It’s up to the states to force smokestack
industries to reduce soot pollution within the next 10 years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

Related Links

The HIDDEN COSTS OF &Quot;JUNK" MAIL

  • Mixed paper (including "junk" mail) gets trucked to recycling facilities like this one for recycling. First, it's unloaded in big piles, then pulled up a conveyor belt for sorting. (Photo courtesy of the City of Ann Arbor)

If it seems like your mailbox is stuffed with more shiny credit card offers and catalogs than ever before, you’re right. The U.S. Postal Service says the volume of advertising mail outpaced first class mail for the first time last year. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports… city waste managers and environmental groups are concerned that all that mail is going to add up to a lot more waste:

Transcript

If it seems like your mailbox is stuffed with more shiny credit card offers
and catalogs than ever before, you’re right. The U.S. Postal Service says
the volume of advertising mail outpaced first class mail for the first time
last year. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams reports… city waste managers and
environmental groups are concerned that all that mail is going to add up to
a lot more waste:


(Sound of squeaky mailbox opening)


Maybe it’s just me, but it seems like no one sends me letters anymore.
Which means my mailbox is all coupons and catalogs and pizza ads. That’s
not all bad, but honestly, most of it goes right to the shredder.


(Sound of shredder)


According to the Environmental Protection Agency, that’s a pretty common
reaction. The EPA points to one study showing that 44 percent of advertising mail
is thrown away without being opened or read.


And there’s a lot coming in. Last year, marketers and non-profit groups sent
about 101 billion pieces of mail. That’s billion with a “B.”


You might call this junk mail, but people in the business have a more
affectionate name for it: direct mail.


Pat Kachura is with the Direct Marketing Association. She says direct mail
yields a very high return on investment.


“Marketers yield about a 7 dollar return on investment for every dollar
spent on catalog marketing, and about 15, almost 16 dollars return for every
dollar spent on non-catalog direct mail marketing.”


The Association’s annual report says those hefty returns are based on an
average of just 2.7 percent of people responding to the ads they get in the
mail. Last year, that meant more than 600 billion dollars in sales.


So, it’s profitable for marketers to fill up your mailbox.


But critics say there are hidden costs that marketers aren’t paying. Some
of those costs also arrive in your mailbox in the form of a bill from your
city for solid waste disposal or recycling.


(Sound of paper pouring into bunker from conveyor belt)


If your city accepts mixed paper for recycling, your junk mail comes to a
facility like this one where it’s sorted and packaged into giant bales
weighing one ton each.


Bryan Weinert is the solid waste coordinator for the city of Ann Arbor,
Michigan.


“We end up getting about $70 a ton back in the value of the junk mail that’s
recycled. But remember it’s costing the city roughly $125 a ton or so to
pick it up.”


Weinert says his city is lucky because it has double the nation’s average
recycling rate. He says communities that don’t have a recycling program
bear even higher costs to dispose of mixed paper.


In this case, the bales of paper get made into Kellogg’s cereal boxes.


Tom Watson is with the National Waste Prevention Coalition. He says it’s
good when there’s a local market for recycled junk mail, but much of it
actually gets sent overseas.


“The unwanted mail, the mixed paper, generally has a very low value, that is often
shipped to China and it comes back to us in the kind of mottled packaging found on
the products that we buy from China. So, it comes full circle but it’s not
very efficient, all the costs of the transportation and recycling.”


Watson says it’d be much more efficient to cut back on all that mail in the
first place.


The Direct Marketing Association does offer an opt-out service. The group
says their members aren’t allowed to send any new mailings to people who
sign up. The fastest way to sign up is online, but you have to pay a $5
charge.


Tom Watson with the National Waste Prevention Coalition says that charge
might put people off. He says he’d like to see a national Do Not Mail list.
One that isn’t controlled by the industry.


“It’s very common in other countries, you can’t send mail to someone unless
they say in advance, yes I want to receive that mail from you.”


You might expect that the folks at the Direct Marketing Association aren’t
fans of the Do Not Mail list idea, but they’re not the only ones.


“What is our position on that? (laughs) I wouldn’t like that to occur.”


George Hurst is the brand manager of direct mail for the Postal Service.
It’s his job to get direct mailers to send more mail. That’s because it’s
the second largest source of revenue for the Postal Service, in the tens of
billions of dollars.


Hurst says new laws aren’t needed. Instead, he says marketers just need to
know their audiences.


“The ones that don’t do it too well, and just blanket the earth with a message,
God bless ’em, we love the postage. But you gotta know that if you’re
talking to someone who is say, 100 miles away, about coming to your
dry cleaners, you’re probably missing the mark.”


But critics say consumers deserve to have more say over the mail they bring
into their homes. They say marketers make so much money from the mail they
send… that for that small chance you might be interested in a coupon book or
sale notice, you shouldn’t have to pay the cost to throw it away or recycle
it.


For the GLRC, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Return of the Toxic Algae

A new report says the Great Lakes are being threatened by toxic algae growth. The blue-green algae is reappearing despite efforts in the 1970’s to combat the problem. The GLRC’s Laleah Fernandez reports:

Transcript

A new report says the Great Lakes are being threatened by toxic algae
growth. The blue-green algae is reappearing despite efforts in the
1970’s to combat the problem. The GLRC’s Laleah Fernandez reports:


Environmental groups say phosphorus pollution is causing the growth of
blue-green algae, which can kill fish and plants in the lakes. Phosphorus gets in the lakes
when lawn or farm fertilizers run off into waterways and because dishwashing detergent
still contains phosphates.


Hugh McDiarmid is with the Michigan Environmental Council, which released
the report. He says invasive species, such as zebra mussels, also promote
the growth of the toxic algae:


“They filter the water and make it clearer, which would seem on the surface
to be a good thing, but allows sunlight to reach deeper into the water
column and allows algae, therefore, to grow much deeper in the water than it
had before the mussels arrived.”


McDiarmid says shallow lakes such as Lakes Erie and St. Clair are especially
vulnerable because the algae on the bottom of the lakes is closer to sunlight.


For the GLRC, I’m Laleah Fernandez.

Related Links