EPA Coal Ash Plan Criticized

  • The new coal ash clean-up project will take four years and cost 268-million dollars. (Photo courtesy of Brian Stansberry)

More than a year ago – when an earthen wall broke at a power plant in Tennessee, 500-million gallons of toxic coal ash and water were spilled. If you compare it to other environmental tragedies – it was 50 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Half of the coal ash spill’s been cleaned up, but crews are still working to get the rest of it. And as Tanya Ott reports there are concerns about a new plan to deal with the ash:

Transcript

More than a year ago – when an earthen wall broke at a power plant in Tennessee – 500-million gallons of toxic coal ash and water were spilled. If you compare it to other environmental tragedies – it was 50 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill. Half of the coal ash spill’s been cleaned up, but crews are still working to get the rest of it. And as Tanya Ott reports there are concerns about a new plan to deal with the ash:

The plan comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency. Clean-up crews would scoop up the ash and put it in the same pit it came from… but the pit’s been reinforced with concrete. What the plan doesn’t call for, though, is a liner to make sure no metals leach into groundwater. Tennessee law and even the EPA’s new proposed coal ash rules require liners.

Craig Zeller is the project manager for the EPA. He says because this pit isn’t new – or expanding – it doesn’t have to comply with the rules. Plus, he says, water testing in the area shows there’s no problem with leaching.

“If, in the future it does show that we need to add a groundwater mediation piece to this, we will!”

Adding a liner after-the-fact could be difficult and expensive. The new clean-up project will take four years and cost 268-million dollars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Climate and Energy Bill

  • The Senate's climate and energy bill was supposed to be introduced last April. It's release was delayed when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham withdrew his support. (Photo courtesy of The Architect of the Capitol)

The Senate is releasing their version of a climate and energy bill. And as Mark Brush reports, some political insiders are saying it’s now or never for action on energy and climate:

Transcript

The Senate is releasing their version of a climate and energy bill. And as Mark Brush reports, some political insiders are saying it’s now or never for action on energy and climate:

Most environmental groups argue that the Gulf Oil spill highlights the need to pass sweeping new energy legislation. And some political observers say Democrats will never have a bigger majority in the Senate than they do now.

So now might be the time for quick passage of the Kerry-Lieberman bill.
But a few others say there’s no need to rush things.
A climate and energy bill should be good policy first.

Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group Clean Air Watch:

“There appears to be this real race to get something done before this window closes. The best kind of public policy is not always carved out under those circumstances.”

O’Donnell says the conventional wisdom that there will be no better time than now could be wrong.

He believes there will be other opportunities to pass climate change legislation in the future.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

EPA Set to Act on Greenhouse Gases

  • The EPA is set to issue proposed rules for reducing greenhouse gases. The rules are likely to affect new coal burning power plants.

The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

Transcript

The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:

This week EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Congressional hearing only the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would have to get pollution permits at first.

Joe Koncelik is an environmental lawyer with the firm Frantz-Ward in Cleveland. He says even then not every big power plant and steel mill will have to get a permit:

“That’s triggered only if you are building a new plant or you make what’s considered a significant change to an existing plant.”

And if they’re required to get a permit it’s not clear what they’ll have to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Eric Schaeffer is a former EPA official and now heads up the Environmental Integrity Project.

“The standard is: best available technology. And I haven’t seen EPA’s definition of that yet.”

More than likely, the biggest emitters will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through using fossil fuels more efficiently or mixing in bio-fuels until ways are developed to capture emissions and store them underground.

For the Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Groups Challenge EPA Regs

  • Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

The Environmental Protection
Agency’s position on greenhouse
gases is being challenged in
court. The EPA says it needs
to regulate gases, such as carbon
dioxide, to protect human health
and welfare. Mark Brush reports
several trade associations want
to stop the EPA:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency’s position on greenhouse gases is being challenged in court. The EPA says it needs to regulate gases such as carbon dioxide to protect human health and welfare. Mark Brush reports… several trade associations want to stop the EPA:

The legal challenges are coming from several groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders. There are some groups that question the science behind the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases. But others are staying away from that controversial position.

Lisa Chai is with the National Association of Home Builders.

“We definitely are not taking a stance on the science. Our concern is that the Clean Air Act and existing statutes should not be used to regulate greenhouse gases because they are just not suited for them.”

Chai says her group worries that EPA regulations would trigger an expensive permitting process for multi-unit and even some single family homes. The EPA says it intends to only regulate the biggest sources of greenhouse gases – things such as large power plants, industries, and refineries.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Obama Slow on Endangered Species?

  • The Piping Plover is on the Endangered Species List.Critics say there's not enough being done to protect endangered species. (Photo courtesy of the USFWS)

An environmental group is threatening to sue the US government for dragging its feet on endangered species protection. Samara Freemark has the story:

Transcript

An environmental group is threatening to sue the US government for dragging its feet on endangered species protection. Samara Freemark has the story.

The Center for Biological Diversity says the government has missed deadlines to rule on whether 100 44 species belong on the endangered species list.

The Center says they’ll sue the Obama administration if the government doesn’t pick up the pace.

Noah Greenwald is with the Center. He says that under the Clin-ton administration, about 65 species were listed as ‘endangered’ every year. That slowed dramatically under Bush and Obama.

The Obama administration doesn’t share the ideological opposition that the Bush administration had to protecting endangered species. But on the other hand, the Obama administration hasn’t made the Endangered Species Act a priority.

So far, the Obama administration has only placed two species on the Endangered Species List. Without protection, some species are in danger of being wiped out.

For the Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Big Oil Attacks Senator Graham

  • Republican Senator Lindsey Graham from South Carolina (Photo courtesy of Senator Graham)

Tackling a climate change bill is the next big issue for Congress. And special interest groups are going on the offensive. Mark Brush reports big oil is going after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate change bill:

Transcript

Tackling a climate change bill is the next big issue for Congress. And special interest groups are going on the offensive. Mark Brush reports big oil is going after Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for working with Democrats on a climate change bill:

This ad comes from the American Energy Alliance – a group backed by oil and natural gas companies.

“There are some scary stories coming out of Washington. The latest is Senator Lindsey Graham’s support for a new national energy tax called cap and trade.”

But by working with democrats on a climate bill, Senator Graham says his main goal is to make the country more energy independent.

There are people coming to his defense.
They like the fact that he’s sitting down with the other party.

Michael Couick is the President of the Electric Cooperatives of South Carolina.

“I think we’ve got to get smart folks in Congress to talk to each other, reason together. Otherwise we’re not going to be able to solve a problem, that if we don’t do anything by default we’ve got an energy policy that will not work for the long term.”

Some in the Republican Party say Senator Graham is selling out.
He was recently called a traitor at a town hall meeting in South Carolina.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

House Gives Cash for Clunkers Green Light

  • It is hoped that the "Cash for Clunkers" bill will stimulate fledgling car sales (Photo by Samara Freemark)

The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:

Transcript

The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:

If you have a car or truck that gets 18 miles per gallon or less, under this bill, you’d get to trade it in for a more fuel efficient car or truck. The old car would get scrapped.

You’d get a voucher for several thousand dollars. Old gas guzzlers would get taken off the road.

But Ann Mesnikoff points out: in the House bill you could trade in an old SUV that gets, say, 14 miles per gallon… for a new SUV that gets just two miles per gallon more.

She directs Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign.

“The key things to change in the cash for clunkers program are to ensure that taxpayer dollars are going to buy vehicles that have at least better than average fuel economy. Not those that can’t even meet today’s fuel economy standards.”

Congress is also going to have to figure out how to pay for the bill. It’s expected to cost about 4 billion dollars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

New Rule for Renewables

  • More bio-fuels, like ethanol from corn, will be blended into petroleum (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:

Transcript

The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:

The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, says this will mean blending more bio-fuels into petroleum.

“Under the proposed rule, the total volume of renewable fuel ramps up to a maximum of 36-billion gallons by 2022.”

But, for the first time, renewable fuels also will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Bob Dinneen heads up the ethanol trade-group, the Renewable Fuels Association.

He says the carbon footprint of ethanol is 61% smaller than petroleum. But the government wants to include indirect effects – such as reduced corn exports leading other countries to slash and burn rain forest to grow corn.

“We believe when that is better understood, ethanol is going to continue to demonstrate significant carbon benefits.”

The government will hear about their concerns and others during a 60-day comment period.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: Action Against Atrazine

  • One lawyer wants a class action suit against the manufacturer of Atrazine, an herbicide used on crops (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:

Transcript

Atrazine is a weed killer. It’s
used by farmers in several crops,
basically because the herbicide is
relatively cheap and effective.
When Atrazine is used in the spring,
it sometimes ends up getting in
water – and in some cases at levels
above the government’s drinking water
standard – the maximum contaminant
level of three parts-per-billion.
Steve Tillery is an attorney in a
lawsuit against the manufacturer of
Atrazine – Syngenta – and Synenta’s
partner, Growmark. Tillery represents
water suppliers and he’s seeking class-
action status to represent all water
suppliers who’ve had to deal with Atrazine
contamination. Lester Graham talked to
him about the lawsuit:


Lester Graham: Mr. Tillery, what’s this lawsuit about, if the level is less than the 3-parts-per-billion the government says is safe?

Steve Tillery: Well, actually, at different times of the year, Atrazine does in fact exceed the federal standard. The federal government refers to MCL – maximum contaminant level – and that’s the maximum, they say, a chemical should exist in the water supply to be consumed by people in the community. The maximum contaminant level for Atrazine is 3-parts-per-billion. Many times, throughout the Spring, throughout Illinois and other Mid-Western cities, the levels grossly exceed 3-parts-per-billion. So what happens is that the cities, the water districts, are required to pay large amounts of money to filter the water so it is below that level. In addition, some have gone to the expense of completely cleaning it out of their water supplies. So that it doesn’t exist at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to reimbursement for the expenses that they have incurred for completely cleaning it out of their water supplies.

Graham: Scientists that worked, then, for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association told me that during the application season, during the Spring, that they measured levels of Atrazine exceeding the safe drinking water levels in the rain on the East Coast from all of the application in the Midwest. Rather than just cleaning it up, is this not a problem of too much Atrazine – maybe we limit the amount?

Tillery: Well, the issue is whether or not it should be banned completely. The European Union has done exactly that. For all of the reasons that people look at – scientists look at – this chemical and point to the adverse health affects, changes to the environment, all of those reasons, the Europeans banned it some years ago.

Graham: The defense in most cases like this is: this is a regulated product, the label is the law, if it isn’t applied correctly, it’s the applicator – the farmer’s – fault; and if it is applied according to the label, the government says it’s safe.

Tillery: Yeah, we’re not safe. For two reasons. First of all, it’s not a problem with farmers. Farmers are doing exactly what is on the label. They are applying it precisely the way the manufacturer says it should be applied. So they’re not the issue. The problem is the manufacturer. To the extent that we rely on federal regulators to do the right thing, we are misdirected in this instance. For many years, the relationship between Syngenta – the principle manufacturer of this chemical – and the EPA has been under close scrutiny. And I’m hopeful that it’s reevaluated and examined under this new administration. Big corporations, in this case from Switzerland, who come here and sell this and make enormous profits in this country selling this chemical – 77 million pounds a year, average. When they make that money, and they cause taxpayers to incur $400 million a year in expense throughout the US to clean up their mess, they should be the ones that come back and reimburse them. We aren’t asking for anything else besides that. We are asking for compensation to these cities who’ve incurred this expense. The people who create the mess should pay for its cleanup. People should not be drinking water with Atrazine in it, at any level.

Graham: Steve Tillery is an attorney seeking class-action status trying to make the manufacturers of Atrazine pay to clean up the water their product contaminates. Thanks for your time.

Tillery: Thank you for allowing me to come here and speak.

Graham: I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Gasoline Goes Low-Carbon

  • Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)

How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:

Transcript

How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:

Today almost everything that goes into your car’s gas tank started as oil. But in the future it could be very different.

“The fuels that we will be moving towards are electricity, biofuels and hydrogen mostly.”

Daniel Sperling is a member of the California Air Resources Board which voted in the new rule.

Sperling says the goal is to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. That could mean oil companies might even have to buy credits from power companies for electric cars.

“You start transforming the oil industry, getting off of oil. I mean that’s what we talk about and this is a policy that will actually do it.”

The California rule even looks at how much greenhouse gas pollution goes into making corn ethanol.

Oil companies say fuel prices will definitely go up in California.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links