Tag: polluter

Preview: The Trail of Dioxin and Dow

  • A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

Transcript

If you learned your town was polluted
with toxic waste, you’d just want to
get it cleaned up. That’s not how things
have worked out with dioxin contamination
in central Michigan. Dioxin’s been a problem
for at least 30 years, but the Dow Chemical
Company, the federal government, and
the state of Michigan are just now hashing
out final cleanup plans. We had Shawn
Allee tour the area to see the
extent of the problem and what’s at stake
for the rest of us:

I wanted to begin my tour with interviews at Dow’s chemical plant in Midland. That’s where dioxin and related compounds were created: the dioxins were by-products of chemical manufacturing.

After a month of calls and emails to Dow, a spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future – not the past. But the past is the reason there’s a problem now.

So, I start my tour a bit downstream.

Michelle Hurd Riddick picks me up near the plant. She’s with The Lone Tree Council, a Michigan environmental group. We follow the Tittabawassee River and the path dioxins took over time.

“This is Freeland Festival Park. Freeland is kind of like a bedroom community of Midland.“

Hurd Riddick says fishing is a huge past time in Michigan – but dioxin’s made it complicated.

Allee: “There’s a fish-advisory sign right there.“

Riddick: “Right. So, they’re telling you to not eat the fish.“

Actually, the signs tell you which fish to avoid, and how much to eat, or not. The US Environmental Protection agency worries dioxin causes cancer and diseases that affect immune, reproductive, and developmental systems.

“Pregnant women shouldn’t eat any, children under a certain age should only eat it once a month.“

Fish advisories cropped up in 1978. That’s after Dow warned Michigan and the federal government about dioxin in the Tittabawassee River. While the plant’s dioxin pollution is well below federal limits, the old dioxins are still around, and they’re not just in the river.

Allee: “Where we coming up here?“

Riddick: “This is Imerman Park, it’s on the Tittabawassee, too, and it’s very frequently flooded.“

Flood waters leave behind contaminated silt. Dioxin’s been found in the soil of yards and in parks like this. One worry is that kids would get exposed by getting dirt in their mouths.

Riddick: “Those are the hand washing sinks. They put the sinks there to use the hand-washing sink to wash their hands as a way to mitigate their exposure.“

Allee: “There’s the sign – contamination advisory: avoid contact with soil and river sediment. Please use soap and water to wash off soil and sediment.“

Other parks and some yards had soil scraped and removed. Dow cleaned up several dioxin hot-spots in recent years. Michigan and the US EPA want more of a top-to-bottom effort. That might include a sweep of fifty miles of river and part of the Great Lakes.

Riddick: “This is the Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron. As a child, I came up here a lot. I’m sure someplace I have a picture of me near these trees.“

Riddick’s middle-aged now. The dioxin was in rivers and Lake Huron before she was born. No one knew that far back. But residents did learn about the problem thirty years ago. Today Dow, the US EPA and Michigan are still debating a final solution.

“We’ve had many, many starts. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say this is how we’re going to achieve this cleanup, I’d be a wealthy woman.“

Hurd Riddick says the whole country should care about how this plays out.

Riddick: “People need to care about how this process because could play out in your community.“

Allee: “Maybe not dioxin but something else?“

Riddick: “You want to know that that the people your tax dollars are paying to protect you are the ones calling the shots.“

A final dioxin-clean up could take more than ten years. Michelle Hurd Riddick says she can wait that long – if it’s done right.

But she says it wouldn’t hurt if the clean-up got started now.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Dioxin Deal One Step Closer

  • A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:

Transcript

The federal government and a major
chemical company have reached an
initial agreement about cleaning
up one of the nation’s largest dioxin
pollution sites. But, Shawn Allee reports, the public will
have to wait a bit to examine the
fine print:

Central Michigan has a dubious distinction: The Environmental Protection Agency
claims that a flood plain there has some of the highest dioxin levels ever found in soil.

That dioxin came from a Dow chemical plant decades ago. The EPA and Dow just
concluded negotiations over a clean-up deal.

Wendy Carney is with the EPA’s regional Superfund cleanup office. Carney says the
deal is not done, though.

“This agreement doesn’t actually contain any cleanup options. It also doesn’t
address any cleanup levels for the site. That would be a part of things we would talk
about with the public in a public forum to get their feedback on those issues.”

Carney says the EPA could unveil its agreement with Dow in two weeks.

The EPA suspects dioxins cause cancer and other health problems.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Who’s Monitoring Pollution?

  • The famous photo of the Cuyahoga River fire that appeared in Time Magazine. The photo is not of the 1969 blaze, but rather of another fire on the river in 1952. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:

Transcript

Federal and state governments have cut
back on monitoring some big sources of
pollution, and small sources are rarely
monitored. Lester Graham reports it’s a
problem that’s even tougher when state
budgets are cut:

Industry does not pollute like it did in the 1960s or 70s. Today, regulators monitor most of those big factories.

Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan.

“Big smokestack industries we have a fairly good eye on, but there are a lot of areas that we still don’t have a good handle on.”

Like small businesses which collectively can release a lot of toxins, and farms that use pesticides and fertilizers on millions acres.

Jennifer Sass is a Scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says, under the Bush Administration, pollution monitoring of big industry was cut back. Sass says that monitoring needs to be restored and expanded to smaller sources.

“If we quit our monitoring programs, then we don’t really know. It’s a lot like putting our head in the sand.”

But many state agencies say they don’t have the resources to keep track of all those sources of pollution.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Polluters Pay Less Under Bush

  • A new report concludes that under the Bush Administration, polluters are less likely to be taken to court. (Photo by Shealah Craighead, courtesy of the White House)

The Bush Administration is not punishing polluters as much. That’s according to a new
report issued by a group of former Environmental Protection Agency attorneys. Mark
Brush reports:

Transcript

The Bush Administration is not punishing polluters as much. That’s according to a new
report issued by a group of former Environmental Protection Agency attorneys. Mark
Brush reports:


The report concludes that under the Bush Administration, polluters are less likely to be
taken to court. They’re less likely to be investigated. And they’re less likely to pay civil
or criminal penalties when compared to the Clinton Administration. Eric Schaeffer is the
director of the Environmental Integrity Project, the group that released the report. As an
example of lax enforcement, he says the EPA often takes no action when power
companies pollute:


“I think power plants routinely violate particulate matter standards. They exceed opacity
requirements. They are even in some cases blowing stack tests, which are really hard to
fail, and you just don’t see much response.”


An EPA spokesman says they’re committed to holding polluters accountable. As proof,
he says they’ve reached a record number of settlements in the last three years that force
companies to clean up.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Monitoring the Air Around Mega-Farms

The Environmental Protection Agency says it will start monitoring the air around some large livestock farms this winter. The EPA says it will help them develop better air quality standards for these farms. But critics say the project is too soft on polluters. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says it will start monitoring the air around some
large livestock farms this winter. The EPA says it will help them develop better air
quality standards for these farms. But critics say the project is too soft on polluters. The
GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:


Thousands of farms have agreed to be a part of a voluntary air pollution monitoring
project. Big hog, poultry, and dairy operations produce a lot of manure. The manure
releases gases that can cause health problems. As part of the agreement with the EPA,
the farms will be immune from most federal lawsuits while the monitoring is done.


Jon Scholl is with the EPA. He says this voluntary approach will bring more farms into
compliance faster than direct enforcement:


“We have 2,568 agreements covering 6,267 farms that have a written agreement with the
agency that they’re going to come into compliance with applicable air quality laws, and
we think that’s significant and certainly much better than taking it on a case by case
basis.”


Critics of the voluntary project say there is enough evidence now to force these large
farms to comply with air quality laws. They say the Bush Administration lacks the
political will to do so.


For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Hidden Costs of Invasives

  • Foreign ships like this one from Cypress are known as "Salties" around the Great Lakes. These ships are responsible for bringing aquatic invasive species into the Lakes, and we're all paying a price. (Photo by Mark Brush)

In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?

Transcript

Today we begin an extensive series called “Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.” The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is our guide through this series:


In looking at these threats to the Great Lakes, almost everyone we surveyed agreed the worst threat was alien invasive species. Shipping goods in and out of the Great Lakes has helped build the major cities on the Lakes. But shipping from foreign ports has brought in unwanted pests. Zebra mussels are probably the most infamous, but there are more than 160 aquatic species that have invaded the Lakes and changed them, almost always for the worse. So why can’t we keep them out?


Well, let’s say I import widgets.


(Sound of widgets dropping into a cup)


I’ve been getting widgets from somewhere in Asia, but I found out I could get widgets from an eastern European company for a dollar-a-widget cheaper. The factory there can ship them directly to my warehouse in Great Lakes City, USA by ship across the Atlantic and into the Great Lakes.


Pretty good deal. I get good widgets, the shipping costs are cheaper, my profits go up, and it means cheaper widgets at the retail level. Everybody wins, right?


Well, the ship that brought the widgets also brought an alien invasive species that stowed away in the ship’s ballast. A critter that’s native to eastern European waters is now wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes ecosystem.


Aquatic alien invasive species that have invaded the Great Lakes now cost the economy an estimated five billion dollars a year. Five billion dollars of what’s considered biological pollution.


So, who’s paying the price?


Cameron Davis is with the environmental group Alliance for the Great Lakes.


“Unfortunately, in most instances, who pays for those hiddens costs are you and me. We pay for our water agencies to have to clean zebra mussels out of their pipes, we pay our agencies through taxes to have to keep Asian Carp out of the Chicago River, we pay through our taxes in any number of ways to try to fight these invaders.”


So right now, taxpayers and utility ratepayers – even those who never bought a widget and never will – are paying the price. Davis says that’s just not right.


“One of the things we need to do is make sure that those ships are paying full cost for everything that they bring, not just the widgets, but the stowaways like the zebra mussels, things like that that they have on board.”


So, why target the ships?


Dennis Schornack chairs the U.S. Sector of the International Joint Commission. The IJC is a bi-national agency that monitors a water quality agreement between the U.S. and Canada. Schornack says that’s the way it usually works: the polluters pay.


“The cost of the impact of these unwanted creatures is something that’s not baked into the price charged for the widgets. So, somewhere that external cost needs to be captured back into the price. The ship owners themselves are the likely target to pay for this through a permitting fee which, of course, they will pass on to their customers, the people who made the widgets.”


So all of us who buy widgets end up paying a little more, but paying permits and fees could cost shippers more than they can afford. George Kuper is with the Council of Great Lakes Industries. Kuper says he understands the first impulse is to make the shippers pay.


“The problem with that, of course, is the shippers were already close to non-economic as a method of transportation, which puts us right up against an environmental challenge because shipping is by far the most environmentally un-intrusive method of moving large amounts of materials.”


Kuper says using other methods of transportation such as trains or trucks to move that cargo from East Coast ports might burn more fuel and cause more pollution.


But of all the shipping on the Great Lakes, only six percent of the tonnage is carried on ocean-going vessels. The rest is transported on Great Lakes carriers that never leave the lakes and don’t bring in new invasives. So, the question is this: is that six percent of cargo worth the damage that aquatic invasive species cost each year.


Many experts say there is a fairly simple answer to all of this. Technology is available for cargo ships to eliminate invasives from their ballast tanks. Requiring those ships to use that technology would likely add some to the cost of every widget, but supporters of the idea say it would greatly reduce the environmental cost to the Lakes.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Vice Presidential Profile: John Edwards

  • Many environmental groups say that Edwards is doing a great job of supporting environmental issues, but some are arguing that his voting record says otherwise. (Photo by Dave Scull, courtesy of johnkerry.com)

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Here’s a look at Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards:

Transcript

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not
spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the
presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks
the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Heres’a look at Democratic vice presidential
candidate John Edwards:


Senator Edwards thinks the Bush campaign is vulnerable on environmental issues. When asked about
his positions on the environment, he often begins by talking about the things he feels are at risk
under Bush administration.


“Over and over and over, whether it has to do with protecting our air, protecting our water,
whether we’re going to become energy independent in this country, protecting our natural
resources, making sure that we protect our lands, our national forests – all these issues
that are so important – making sure we don’t drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all these
things are important because we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren
to leave this planet better than the way we found it. And that’s what we’ll do when John Kerry’s
our President.”


Although John Kerry has not spent a lot of time talking about the environment himself, Senator
Edwards knows that over 20 years in the U.S. Senate Kerry has a lifetime approval rating from the
League of Conservation Voters of 92 percent. The average Democrat has an approval rating of 70
percent… the average Republican an approval rating of 13 percent.”


Betsey Loyless is the League of Conservation Voters vice president of policy. She says
Edwards’ own record on the environment is not nearly as extensive.


“Senator Edwards has a short record on the environment because he’s been in the Senate only
one term, but his record has been, I think, has been quite good for a one-term senator. And,
he has been a leader on clean air issues. This administration, the Bush administration, had
pushed to weaken Clean Air Act standards as they apply to these old grandfathered power plants
that are the biggest of polluters. Senator Edwards led the charge to tell the Bush administration
to stop that policy on behalf of power plant operators and utilities.”


Senator Edwards did not get that job done. The Bush policy to allow power plants to make
improvements without updating pollution control equipment was put into place.


John Edwards talks about that losing battle while he’s on the campaign trail. He says he –
at least – wanted studies to see if the experts thought the changes in the regulations on the
old coal-fired power plants would affect human health.


“I mean, the laws had been there for 25 years. Can’t we take six months to figure out if you
change them what it’s going to do to people? And they refused to do it. Here’s why: they know
the answer. They know exactly. They were for it because the big energy companies are for it.
It’s just no more complicated than that. And so, that’s one example of the fight.”


Senator Edwards’ fight hasn’t been going on very long. Before his election to the U.S. Senate,
he held no legislative seat.


Jack Betts is an editorial writer and columnist for the Charlotte Observer. He’s followed
Edwards’ political career for the last few years. Betts says the environmental groups in
Edwards’ home state of North Carolina seem to approve of the senator’s positions.


“John Edwards in his Senate campaign six years ago was identified as the more likely
to be a strong advocate for the environment. And I think that helped him to election then.
And I don’t think he’s done anything to reverse those expectations about how he would stand
on the environment in the future.”


Senator Edwards’ critics say really it’s hard to say how he’d stand on any issue. They point to
his voting record for the last couple of years, noting that he was often absent. He’s missed
votes while on the road campaigning to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee… and now
campaigning as vice presidential candidate. But the environmental groups seem confident
that as vice president, John Edwards would fully support what they would expect to be a
pro-environment Kerry administration.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links