A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that after a
typical painting project – there’s about ten percent of the paint
leftover. Mark Brush reports on an effort to set up collection centers
for unused paint:
Transcript
A new study by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that after a
typical painting project – there’s about ten percent of the paint
leftover. Mark Brush reports on an effort to set up collection centers
for unused paint:
Like a lot of people, I’ve got all these old paint cans down in my
basement.
(Sound of paint cans clinking)
I’m planning to take most of them to a nearby collection center, but
many cities don’t have a collection center. So, of the 65 million
gallons of leftover paint around the country, a lot of it gets dumped.
Scott Cassell is the executive director of the Product Stewardship
Institute:
“This paint is going into our waterways, it’s polluting the
environment, it’s wasting resources so we need to mine for titanium
dioxide and other ingredients in the paint again. I think if people
understood that, they would be more than willing to pay a nominal fee
for the proper management of this product.”
Cassell’s group wants a fee to be tacked on to every can of paint. He
says this so-called “eco fee” will help pay for a national paint
collection program. Many paint manufacturers say they favor the plan.
Lawn mowers pollute a lot more than cars. Proposed EPA rules will require small engine makers to reduce polluting emissions. It's been estimated that these changes will add about $25 to the price of a typical lawn mower. (Photo by Lester Graham)
In the next few years, lawnmowers, weed whackers and many boat engines
might cost a little more… but they’ll pollute less. Mark Brush
reports the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule
aimed at cutting air pollution from these small engines:
Transcript
In the next few years, lawnmowers, weed whackers and many boat engines
might cost a little more… but they’ll pollute less. Mark Brush
reports the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule
aimed at cutting air pollution from these small engines:
Today’s lawnmowers and boat engines put out a lot more air pollution than
your car. That’s because your car has a catalytic converter that burns
up a lot of harmful chemicals.
The EPA says that to meet its new rule, many small engine makers will
eventually add catalytic converters to their equipment. In the past,
small engine makers have complained that adding catalytic converters
will increase the risk of fire.
John Millett is a spokesman with the EPA. He says the EPA studied the
safety issue before drafting the proposed rule:
“We found no increase of risk of fire. In fact, several of the experts
that we consulted actually suggested that because of reducing the
amount of fumes that would escape from these engines we would actually
see improved safety.”
If the rule is approved, it’s estimated that consumers would pay around
$300 more for a new boat engine, and around $25 more for a new lawn
mower.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants wood-burning
furnaces to be cleaned up. But many cities aren’t waiting for the EPA
to act. They’re calling the furnaces a menace to public health.
Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wants wood-burning
furnaces to be cleaned up. But many cities aren’t waiting for the EPA
to act. They’re calling the furnaces a menace to public health.
Tracy Samilton reports:
More people are buying wood-burning furnaces to avoid high utility
bills. But some of the wood burners can release black, stinky smoke,
especially if the owners use scrap wood. Many cities have passed
ordinances banning the furnaces in response to neighborhood complaints.
Bob McCann is a spokesman for Michigan’s Department of Environmental
Quality. He says the soot from woodburners can cause asthma attacks
and other health problems.
“This is not a factory with a smokestack miles away. This is a
smokestack, obviously a much smaller, right in someone’s neighborhood.”
About 70% of the companies that make wood-burning furnaces are expected
to voluntarily retrofit their products with technology to reduce
emissions. But the more polluting furnaces will remain on the market,
usually at a lower cost.
Power plants take in a lot of cooling water. Fish and other aquatic life are sucked into intake pipes and die. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Politicians extended Daylight Saving Time to save energy, but critics say it’s not worked other places. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Hundreds of electric power plants might have to find alternate
methods of cooling in the future. As Tracy Samilton reports, a federal
appeals court judge says the plants are killing too many fish:
Transcript
Hundreds of electric power plants might have to find alternate
methods of cooling in the future. As Tracy Samilton reports, a federal
appeals court judge says the plants are killing too many fish:
For electric power plants located near water, it’s cheap and efficient
to run lots of water through the plants for cooling. But untold
numbers of fish and other aquatic life are killed in the process.
Eddie Scher is a spokesman for the environmental group Waterkeeper
Alliance. He says overall, the industry might kill a trillion fish or
more each year.
“It’s funny that we sit around and talk about other
problems with our fisheries – there are other problems with our
fisheries – but – this is big one!”
A federal appeals court recently ordered the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to change its rules regarding cooling systems, and to
place fish first and costs to the industry second. The electric power
industry says new cooling systems could cost millions per plant, and
instead, they should be allowed to restock fish to replace the ones
they’ve killed.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule regulating
mercury emissions from cement kilns is being challenged by both sides.
As Tracy Samilton reports, the cement industry says the rule goes too
far. Environmentalists say it doesn’t go far enough:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule regulating
mercury emissions from cement kilns is being challenged by both sides.
As Tracy Samilton reports, the cement industry says the rule goes too
far. Environmentalists say it doesn’t go far enough:
The rule regulates mercury emissions from new cement kilns only. The
EPA doesn’t think cement kilns are that big of a factor in mercury
pollution, but the EPA’s estimate is based on voluntary disclosure by
kiln operators. Some kilns were found to be emitting ten times what
they’d been claiming.
EarthJustice Attorney James Pew says he’s skeptical that the mercury
emissions are as low as the EPA thinks they are:
“There’s strong reason to believe that it’s a lot worse than that, in
fact it could be off by an order of magnitude.”
Meanwhile, the cement industry is challenging the EPA’s requirement
that new kilns install mercury-scrubbing technology. Industry officials
say more study is needed to show that it works.
If you don't recycle, the bin can make a handy shelf. Cities are trying to get people who don't recycle much or at all... to get into the habit by offering them incentives.
Recycling can have some economic benefits. But as a country, we’re
just not doing that much of it. The US Environmental Protection
Agency says the national recycling rate has been hovering around 30%
for several years now. Rebecca Williams reports some cities
are trying to get people to recycle more… by paying them to recycle:
Transcript
Recycling can have some economic benefits. But as a country, we’re
just not doing that much of it. The US Environmental Protection
Agency says the national recycling rate has been hovering around 30%
for several years now. Rebecca Williams reports some cities
are trying to get people to recycle more… by paying them to recycle:
It’s not easy getting someone to admit they don’t recycle. But I was
over at my friend Andrea’s house for dinner, and she confessed.
(Sound of Andrea opening a can of beans)
“Normally I would take this can and throw it away in the garbage and
never look at it again. I don’t really like cleaning garbage to throw
it away.”
Now in her defense, she doesn’t really produce that much trash to begin
with. Maybe just one small bag a week.
Andrea says it just feels like too much work to recycle. Taking the
labels off, cleaning out the cans, walking down four flights of stairs.
Though they’re indoors and carpeted.
(Sound of garage door opening)
Right now she’s using her recycle bin as a shelf. She’s got some books
and a quart of oil sitting on it.
If Andrea did recycle, she’d have to drag her bin out to the curb from
the garage. About oh, three feet or so.
“In the mornings I run pretty late so just taking the garbage out and
lugging it down the stairs along with my bags for work is quite a hassle in
and of itself and I’m proud of myself for doing that, so… (laughs).”
Now… my friend can’t be the only one out there who doesn’t recycle.
A recent survey found that 28 states reported a decrease in their
recycling rates since 2001.
That’s not good news for cities, because cities can benefit from
recycling. If they can divert enough recyclables from the waste
stream, they can avoid some of the high costs of disposing waste in
landfills.
But even if you have trucks that drive around and pick up people’s cans
and newspapers from their curbs, there’s no guarantee they’ll put them
out there for you.
Unless, of course, you offer them a reward.
Some cities on the East Coast are paying people to recycle. They’re
using a company called RecycleBank.
With RecycleBank, you get a recycling container with a tracking chip
embedded in it. You can toss all your cans and newspapers and bottles
into that one container… so, none of that annoying sorting.
Ron Gonen is the company’s co-founder.
“There’s a mechanical arm on the truck that picks up your container,
reads the chip, identifies that your household recycled and how much
your household recycled. The amount that your household recycled is
translated into RecycleBank dollars.”
Those RecycleBank dollars can be cashed in as coupons to shop at more
than 300 stores.
“We really look at it from the lens of the recycling industry and that if
your household recycles you’re actually creating value, and some of
that value should be passed back to you.”
Gonen says each family can earn up to $400 a year. He says people are
so into it, they’re even bringing stuff from work to recycle at home.
And he says recycling rates have tripled or even quadrupled in
neighborhoods using RecycleBank.
But some cities have found incentives only work up to a point. So
they’re making it against the law not to recycle. Seattle, for
example, won’t pick up your trash if there’s stuff in it that could be
recycled.
Timothy Croll is Seattle’s Solid Waste Director. He says trash
collectors aren’t going through trash cans, but they are peeking in.
“It’s not like we’re taking these things into an MRI or anything like
that it’s just what the garbage collector can see at the top when they
open the lid.”
Croll says the law works. He says only a few trash cans have been left
behind with a note. And Seattle did try incentives first. The city
charges residents less for trash collection if they use a teeny little
trash can and recycle a lot more. Croll says that’s been pretty
successful. But he says the city wanted to push for even more
recycling… so, they made it a law.
“Some tools work better for some people than others. For some people
it might be they know it’s the right thing to do, but their lives are
busy, and unless you give them one more reason they’re just not going
to get over that threshold and do it. It’s like yeah I know, I know I
should floss too, you know?”
Croll says it’s up to cities to first make recycling convenient… And
then try sweetening the deal.
You know, my non-recycling friend DOES recycle her soda cans. She
lives in Michigan, so she gets 10 cents back for each one. It’s enough
of an incentive that she’s saving bags of cans at work and stashing
cans in every corner under her kitchen sink.
Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:
Transcript
Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:
Rob Zimmerman admits there are plenty of jokes about toilets, but the
water engineer for the Kohler Corporation takes the bathroom commode
very seriously.
“I’ve heard people say that the toilet is kind of the foundation of
modern civilization… that modern sanitation allowed for the growth of
cities and allowed for the decline of infectious diseases.”
And now Zimmerman has a handle on a new role for toilets: saving water.
Studies have shown that toilets can account for up to 30% of
a household’s water use. Water prices are going up and in some fast-
growing communities water supplies are growing more scarce.
So, the EPA created a voluntary program it calls Water Sense. It aims
to get toilets to use 20% less water than the newer toilets you’ve
probably seen that were mandated back in the 1990’s. This new
generation of toilets goes from 1.6 gallons per flush to about 1.3
gallons, and still meets performance guidelines for producing a clean
bowl.
(Sound of flushing)
Kohler and other toilet makers are trying various ways to get to 1.3
gallons. After looking at a 1.6 gallon model, Rob Zimmerman lifts the
tank lid on a 1.3:
“What you see that’s different here… is remember the other one had
that red flapper? This canister here, that lifts straight up when you flush
it, so all the water can move from all different directions and go down
down the valve. It’s a bigger rush and so the actual time that this
flushes is a little bit shorter than the other one.”
Zimmerman says other higher efficiency models use what’s called a dual-
flush system that sends away one amount of water for liquid waste and
another for solids, with an average of 1.3 gallons.
Another type is the so-called pressure assist, a louder system that
compresses air to force the smaller volume of water out quickly.
Under its new Water Sense Certification program, the EPA has put out
final specifications for the 1.3 models.
Kohler is getting ready to submit six toilet models for certification,
which the EPA compares to its Energy Star program for things like
computers. EPA Water Administrator Benjamin Grumbles says the public
can be confident about a third party certification system the EPA has
created:
“The agency working with the scientific community and with independent
testing organizations want to make sure that consumers, when they see that
Water Sense label, they will be able to have confidence that the
product will perform well, and it will lead to increased savings. Not
just in terms of water, but also reduce the water bill and reduce the
energy bill as well.”
But it may take a while to build that confidence. At a home remodeling
show, bathroom fixtures store owner Rich Libbey said he’s seen low-flow
toilets elsewhere that have not worked properly.
“Some of the Carribean Islands that are desert islands flush on a
European quart of water, but they don’t clean the bowl. So, later on in
the evenings, for example at a bar or resort, the toilet gets kind of
gamey.”
But Libbey says he’s willing to give companies like Kohler the benefit
of the doubt of reliably getting to 1.3 gallons per flush. Like most
high-efficiency energy-saving systems, the up-front costs are a little
higher.
The Kohler Corporation says its new high-efficiency toilets might cost
an extra fifty dollars to buy, but estimates the financial payback of
using less water could come in just a couple years.
DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:
Transcript
DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:
The chemical’s called PFOA or p-foah. An EPA science advisory board
has suggested that PFOA might cause cancer.
The EPA says it’s still deciding whether PFOA poses a significant
health risk. By 2015, the agency wants DuPont to eliminate any chance
of PFOA getting into the environment.
DuPont says it can do that. David Boothe is a global business manager
for DuPont:
“PFOA is present in the blood of the general population and that raises
questions that need to be answered. It’s important to note, though,
that DuPont believes that there are no human health effects known to be
caused by PFOA even though study of the chemical continues.”
Some environmental health activists worry that PFOA fumes emitted when
Teflon pans overheat might be more toxic than anyone is willing to
admit.
Environmental groups are back in
court to challenge the use of the main pesticide
used in growing cherries and apples. Bob Allen
reports the environmentalists had set aside their
lawsuit while waiting for EPA to issue new rules
for applying the chemical during a phase-out period:
Transcript
Environmental groups are back in
court to challenge the use of the main pesticide
used in growing cherries and apples. Bob Allen
reports the environmentalists had set aside their
lawsuit while waiting for EPA to issue new rules
for applying the chemical during a phase-out period:
Azinphos-Methyl or AZM is a highly toxic chemical that
affects the nervous system. Last November, EPA released
stricter rules for applying it and they gave apple and
cherry growers another six years to phase it out.
Environmental groups say that’s much too long, and they’ve
taken up their suit again.
Shelley Davis is with Farmworker Justice. She says EPA was
supposed to weigh the cost to growers against the health
risks to workers and their families.
“The problem here is that EPA didn’t do that. All it did
was total up the financial benefit to the growers. And
that’s what we said to the court is not a fair deal.”
Regulators say growers need more time to learn to use
alternative pesticides.
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
When you make aluminum for vehicles, there’s a leftover
sludge that can include some toxic chemicals. The EPA wants
to loosen regulations on that sludge.
It says that could encourage more auto manufacturers to use
aluminum instead of steel in vehicle bodies, and since
aluminum is lighter than steel, those vehicles would burn
less gas. Don McKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists
says he’s not sure it’s a good idea:
“Aluminum can help to get us more efficient vehicles. But we
shouldn’t need to be changing the rules around aluminum
production to get aluminum into vehicles.”
McKenzie says if the government imposed stricter fuel
economy standards, and kept the rules on aluminum sludge in
place, more automakers would be forced to use aluminum
anyway.
For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.
The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.
The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:
“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”
Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.
