Oil Spill Cleanup Seeks Volunteers

  • Until they work out the logistic challenges that go along with hosting out-of-town volunteers, organizations are looking for people who are locally based, who are easily within driving distance and may be able to contribute a day’s worth of work.(Photo courtesy of the NOAA)

No one really knows how many thousands of barrels of oil have gushed from the British Petroleum pipeline on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. But, the environmental damage is expected to be astounding. Lester Graham reports… Gulf Coast groups are preparing for the worst.

Transcript

No one really knows how many thousands of barrels of oil have gushed from the British Petroleum pipeline on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. But, the environmental damage is expected to be astounding. Lester Graham reports… Gulf Coast groups are preparing for the worst.

The Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana is a consortium of environmental groups trying to coordinate volunteers to help clean up the environmental damage to hit the coast.

Steven Peyronnin is Executive Director of the group.

“There is the potential that we may need volunteers for extended periods of time–for weeks, but certainly there are challenges to arranging logistical and housing support for that. So, in the interim we are looking for people who are locally based, who are easily within driving distance and may be able to contribute a day’s worth of work.”

Right now they’re in need of people with HazMat training, but anyone can register to volunteer. The website is crcl.org.

You can also volunteer for clean-up at volunteerlouisiana.gov.

They’ll likely be looking for volunteers for months.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Shareholders Press Big Oil for Risk Information

  • The major risks with tar sand include dealing with pollution, and with lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:

Transcript

Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:

Tar sands are kind of like they sound: they’re sand or clay soaked in oil. Canada’s tar sands are the second largest oil reserves in the world, so oil companies are all over them. But it’s a dirtier source of oil.

Several investors groups have filed shareholder resolutions with BP, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil. They want companies to reveal the risks to stockholders of getting oil from tar sands.

Emily Stone is with Green Century Capital Management.

“We want these companies to be more forthright about what they see as the big risks and how they’re mitigating those risks.”

She says risks include dealing with pollution… and lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.

BP did not want to be recorded for this story. But in a statement to shareholders, BP told them to vote no. BP says Canada’s oil sands are a proven and secure source of oil.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Shell Walks Away From Oil Shale

  • Shell says that even though it's no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it's in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

Transcript

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

In the Western US, some energy companies are betting big on oil shale. That’s a process of basically heating up a shale rock into a liquid that’s eventually refined into oil. But the global recession and the threat of climate change might be giving those companies second thoughts. Add to that a increasingly limited water supply, and oil shale looks like a risky investment.

The process of creating oil shale is energy intensive and uses a lot of water. That’s a problem in the arid West. As the population grows, the value of water is increasing.

Royal Dutch Shell has the most invested in developing an oil shale technology that works. So earlier this year when the company announced it was pulling away from water rights, it sent shock waves through the industry.

“I read that decision as Shell’s acknowledgment that oil shale is a long way off and that this was a really controversial filing and that in a sense it’s not worth it.”

That’s Claire Bastable of the Western Energy Project. It’s an environmental group that keeps on eye on energy issues in the West. Shell had been pursuing water rights on the Yampa River, in the Northwest portion Colorado.

“Shell’s decision was a big deal. We’re talking about 15 billion gallons of water. … It would have basically taken the Yampa River, which is one of the the last free flowing rivers in the West and diverted a huge proportion of it to Shell for potential oil shale development.”

Bastable says the 15 billion gallons Shell was seeking is about three times the amount the city of Boulder, Colorado uses in a year.

But, Shell knows a lot of oil can be extracted from the oil shale. It’s estimated that there are 800 billion barrels of usable oil in the shale – in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.

Dr. Jeremy Boak researches oil shale development at the Colorado School of Mines. He says Shell could be simply postponing extracting that oil. Boak believes oil shale has a future, but it’s still decades away.

“With all of the comments they’ve made about what the time scale for oil shale, Shell has been pretty comfortable that this is going to take time.”

Shell says that even though it’s no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it’s in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale.

The company wouldn’t provide someone to comment for this story, but in a statement the company said:

The “ultimate goal is to create a commercial oil shale recovery operation that is economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially sustainable.”

That statement adds timing depends on government regulation and the market. The company could be waiting to see what the government does about climate change and how that affects fossil fuel costs. Shell could also be waiting for oil prices go up before deciding whether oil shale worth the effort.

Eric Kuhn heads up water management for the Colorado River District. He monitors much of the state’s water West of the Continental Divide. Kuhn says there’s probably enough water for oil shale development right now, but it’s hard to say for how long.

“I don’t think they’re dropping the filing changes anything. I think those companies are dedicated to and still have a plan to develop the oil shale resource if they can find a technology that is economically productive or if they can produce the oil shale at a competitive price, I think they will do it.”

Environmentalists in the region hope they won’t. They say Shell’s decision not to pursue the water right now should be a signal to others… oil shale just might not be worth the effort.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

America’s Food Waste

  • It takes 25% of all the fresh water Americans use just to produce food that ends up being wasted. (Photo courtesy of Samara Freemark)

Government researchers recently put out a study that says American’s throw away forty percent of their food. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

Americans waste a lot of food – by some estimates, almost half of the total amount in the food supply. Samara Freemark reports that the problem goes way beyond cleaning your plate.

A couple of months ago, government researchers put out a study that said Americans waste 40% of their food.

When I read that figure, it seemed incredibly high. So high that when I sat down with a food policy expert, I was actually a little embarrassed to ask her about it.

“I saw this number, 40%. Is that possible? It seems high to me.”

“I think the wasting of 40% of food, I actually think that could be a low number.”

That’s Jennifer Berg. She’s the director of the graduate program in food studies at New York University, and she spends a lot of time thinking about the food waste problem – in particular, about its huge environmental impacts.

It turns out, it takes 25% of all the fresh water Americans use just to produce food that eventually ends up in the garbage. It takes a lot of fuel to move that food around; packaging it takes plastic and paper, and throwing it away fills up landfills.

“There’s that old, you know ‘an orange peel…’ An orange peel takes years to break down. You know, a banana peel, half a loaf of bread. All that stuff goes into landfills. It doesn’t matter whether it’s organic matter or not. It doesn’t decompose. It doesn’t break down, when it’s all put together like that.”

Berg says Americans get plenty of messages about cleaning their plates.

But they don’t necessarily understand how much food gets wasted before it even makes it to the table.

“If you think about meat. Other countries, they will consume 85% of a cow. We will consume 30%. 20%. We only eat very specific cuts. We want our food totally filleted, we want it boned. We just eat very very specific food.”

I wanted to see what a waste-free meal looked like, so I took a trip to EN Japanese brasserie in Manhattan.

For the past couple of months, EN Brasserie has hosted special dinners where customers pay good money to eat the kinds of things most Americans throw away.

Reika Alexander owns the restaurant. She came up with the idea for the dinners when she moved to New York and saw how much food people in the city threw out.

“I realized that New Yorkers create so much garbage. When I saw that my heart was really aching. We have to do something about that.”

Alexander showed me some of the food she’d be serving that night. The first thing she handed me was a plate of fried eel backbones.

“We import live eels. So we get the whole thing. So we deep fry the bone part. It’s like a really flavorful rice cracker. Want to try. You just eat it? Like the bone? The whole bone? It’s good, right? It’s really good. The bones just fall apart in your mouth.”

There was a platter of rice topped with scraps of fish and vegetable trimmings. A salad made from salmon skin. And a cauldron of soup with whole fish heads bobbing in the broth.

“The eye, it’s so flavorful and delicious. The fish eyes have so much flavor. It makes a beautiful fish stock.”

At the dinner that night I asked college student Cordelia Blanchard what she was eating.

“I don’t know. I think the idea is that what’s left over the chefs just throw in a pot, and that’s what we have the pleasure of eating tonight. It makes me want to be more creative about how I combine what’s left in the kitchen sink.”

Which is the kind of attitude that restaurant owner Reika Alexander likes. Still, she says, she doesn’t expect the average American to sit down to a dinner of eel bones and fish eyes any time soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark

Related Links

Stripping Politics Out of Science

  • The Union of Concerned Scientists says the explicit written policies Obama promised last year are crucial to ensure scientific integrity in government. (Photo courtesy of Planar Energy Devices, Inc.)

President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics. He wanted guidelines in four months. It’s been a year now and still there are no guidelines. Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

President Barack Obama promised to protect scientific research from politics.

He wanted guidelines in four months.

But Shawn Allee reports, it’s been a year now and still there are no guidelines.

Francesca Grifo tracks the issue of scientific integrity for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

She says the issue can be a matter of life and death.

Grifo has lots of examples.

“Basic things like the way the Clean Air Act is implemented, the way we look at drugs before we put them out for the public, all of these big, government processes that we don’t pay a lot of attention to, if we don’t have them be transparent, we end up with inappropriate influence on those decisions.”

Grifo says Obama has improved the situation at some agencies, but he should finish explicit, written policies on things like protecting scientists who become whistle-blowers.

That way the next president has high standards, too.

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy did not return calls for comment.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Obama: Tar Sands Oil Will Work

President Obama indicates a willingness to continue to import Canada’s dirtiest source of oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists don’t like it:

Transcript

President Obama indicates a willingness to continue to import Canada’s dirtiest source of oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists don’t like it:

The United States gets about 20% of its imported oil from Canada. Half of that comes from tar sands in Alberta.

It takes two-tons of the asphalt-like substance to produce one barrel of oil.

Refineries in several states are expanding facilities to process the dirtier oil.

Henry Henderson is with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

He says takes a lot more energy to extract, transport and refine tar sands oil. That means a lot more greenhouse gases.

“At least three times what conventional oil involves. That brings with it a significant threat and impact on our national security in terms of changing global climate in a way that is a threat to us.”

Despite the environmentalists’ concerns, President Obama says the U.S. will work with Canada to use the tar sands oil reserves.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

From the Toilet to the Tap

  • Inside the Reverse Osmosis building for the Groundwater Replenishment System in Orange County, California. (Photo courtesy of Orange County Water District)

Treated sewage water has been used to water
lawns and flush toilets before. But now the world’s
largest “toilet-to-tap” system has gone online. Mark
Brush reports on the new water treatment system:

Transcript

Treated sewage water has been used to water
lawns and flush toilets before. But now the world’s
largest “toilet-to-tap” system has gone online. Mark
Brush reports on the new water treatment system:

You think flush the toilet and it’s gone, right?

Well… that’s not happening in the O.C.

In Orange County California, the water people flush from their homes and businesses will
eventually come back to their taps.

The treated sewage water is sent to a water purification plant. It’s treated some more and
then pumped back into the aquifers where the county gets its water supply.

Mike Wehner is with the Orange County Water District. He says, at first, people kind of
held their nose at the idea:

“The biggest concern is kind of a general yuck-factor. It’s just, ‘You mean sewage? We’re
not going to drink that.’ But after people develop an understanding of the kind of
treatment processes we’re talking about, the yuck-factor diminishes, it goes away.”

Wehner says when the half billion dollar system is at its peak; it will add 70 million
gallons of recycled water a day to the areas drinking water supply.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Sewage Blending Stirs Up Debate

  • Many environmentalists fear the practice of sewage blending would become more routine if a new EPA policy is enacted. (Photo by M. Vasquez)

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering a new policy for sewage treatment plants. Many environmentalists say if the policy is adopted, it will lead to increased water pollution and greater risk to public health. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports on the debate over sewage blending:

Transcript

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency are considering a new policy for sewage treatment plants. Many environmentalists say if the policy is adopted, it will lead to increased water pollution and greater risk to public health. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports on the debate over sewage blending:


(sound of water in sewer)


Some sanitary sewers are tied in with storm sewers. So when there’s a big rainstorm, or when there’s a fast snowmelt, all that water can inundate some sewage treatment plants. To tackle this problem, some treatment plants have adopted a practice known as “blending.” The excess sewage is re-routed around the slower parts of the treatment plant. The dirty water is then mixed with the water that’s been cleaned. It’s sometimes given a shot of chlorine, and then released into creeks, rivers, and lakes.


Kurt Heise oversees the operation of a sewage treatment plant on the Detroit River. He says the practice of blending is necessary in order to keep the plant from being overwhelmed.


“When you have a wet weather event, an extreme wet weather event, if we were to allow all of that combined water in through the normal process the treatment process would be ruined.”


Sewage blending has been around for a long time. To plant operators, it’s a necessary step in handling large amounts of dirty water. But to some people, blending is not seen as a good option. They want the practice to stop.


Instead, they say, cities should invest in their systems to make sure they can fully treat all the water that comes to the plant. Kurt Heise says, if his plant were required to do this, it wouldn’t make sense economically.


“It would almost result in doubling the size of our plant and spending just untold amounts of dollars for an event only happens a few times a year.”


Sewage treatment plant operators say you have to weigh the costs and the benefits before spending hundreds of millions of dollars on expanding the treatment plants. The decision of whether or not to allow blending has been left up to state and local regulators. But recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has weighed in on the subject. And ever since they suggested new guidelines for allowing blending, environmentalists have been critical of their plan. Mike Shriberg is the Great Lakes advocate for the Public Interest Research Group. It’s an environmental consumer activist organization.


Shriberg says the draft blending policy, the way it’s written now, is too broad. And will allow the practice of blending to become routine.


“Our fear is that when you’ve got a treatment plant that uses blending, they’re never going to upgrade to full treatment sewage. And so if a treatment plant is allowed to blend they’re not going to go up to full treatment capacity they have no incentive to do that anymore. It’s sort of the cheap way out.”


Sewage treatment operators say blending is better than seeing the raw sewage overflow into waterways. And they say it’s better than spending large sums of money to fix a problem that only occurs a few times a year. But critics say the EPA doesn’t have a good handle on how often blending is used, and what kind of health risks are associated with the practice.


Some initial studies have been done on blended sewage and how it might affect public health. Joan Rose is a water microbiologist at Michigan State University. She’s written a report on the health risks associated with blended sewage.


“So what I found was that if people were actually swimming in the water and there was a discharge of a blended sewage upstream, that their risk of getting sick, actually getting sick with a virus or a parasite was about a hundred times greater – when there was a blended discharge as opposed to if the water was fully treated.”


Rose says some of these viruses, such as Hepatitis-A, are highly contagious. At this point, there are no good estimates on how many people get sick from blended sewage each year. It’s never been studied, so the impact of blending on public health is unclear. Ben Grumbles is the Assistant Administrator for water at the EPA. He says the EPA is considering the billions of dollars at stake in expanding the nation’s sewer treatment plants versus the risk to public health.


“What we’re trying to do is to clarify what’s legal and what isn’t legal and to recognize the economic realities that sewage teatment plants face across the country in terms of their infrastructure needs, but foremost and above all what leaves the facility has to meet Clean Water Act permit limits.”


But the Clean Water Act permit limits don’t measure all the viruses, bacteria, and parasites found in blended sewage. And so some environmentalists and scientists say meeting the limits doesn’t necessarily mean protecting public health. Grumbles says officials are still reviewing the tens of thousands of comments they received after releasing the draft blending policy.


He says he doesn’t know what the final rule will look like, or if they’ll issue a rule at all. One thing is likely, if the policy is finalized the way it’s written now, it’s expected that environmental groups will take the EPA to court.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Recent Deer Hunts Help Feed the Poor

  • Overpopulation of deer is causing problems for forest understory, farmers, and increased car/deer accidents. Some programs are encouraging hunters to take an extra deer and donating the meat to charity. (Photo by Lester Graham)

The hunting season for deer has ended or is about to end in most states. But the deer are still plentiful. Overpopulation of deer has led to an increase in deer-and-car crashes. Too many deer also damage the understory of forests. In some states, though, the deer overpopulation also means more deer meat is made available to low-income people. That’s because hunters, meat processors and food banks are working together to get venison to the poor. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Skye Rohde
reports:

Transcript

The hunting season for deer has ended or is about to end in most states. But the deer are
still plentiful. Overpopulation of deer has led to an increase in deer and car crashes. Too
many deer also damage the understory of forests. In some states, though, the deer
overpopulation also means more deer meat is made available to low-income people.
That’s because hunters, meat processors and food banks are working together to get
venison to the poor. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Skye Rohde reports:


It’s only been in the last decade or so that states have begun allowing hunters to donate
wild game to charitable organizations. In New York, meat processors and hunters started
the Venison Donation Coalition in 1998. Starting out, they gave a thousand pounds of
deer meat to food pantries in two counties.


Kathy Balbierer handles the coalition’s public relations. She says since that first thousand
pound donation, the program has grown…


“Last year, we had 108,000 pounds of venison donated, which on the average is, you
know – a deer is 40 pounds. It was approximately 27,000 deer. This year we have 119
participating processors throughout the state serving 52 counties.”


It’s an idea that hunters and meat processors across the nation are embracing. There are
venison donation programs in almost every state. Some, such as those in New York and
Illinois, are administered by state government. Others, like Michigan’s and Minnesota’s,
are run by private organizations.


Here’s how it works. First, a hunter who wants to donate meat takes it to a participating
processor. Ed Tanguey operates a meat processing facility in Kirkville, New York. He
says it’s a pretty simple process.


“Once the hunters show up to the building, we’ll have them come into our skinning room.
We’ll have them fill out some paperwork and once it’s brought in, we’ll start to skin the
deer, remove the hide and trim off any meat that’s not edible. We’ll bring the deer into
our cutting room.”


Butchers section the deer into shoulder, torso and hindquarters.


(sound of grinder starting up)


Then Tanguey sets up the grinder and grabs the meat from the cooler.


He packs the ground meat into five-pound black-and-white tubes and slaps a label on
with his name and the hunter’s license number on it.


Tanguey has processed 250 deer so far this season, 44 of them for the Venison Donation
Coalition. The coalition pays him a reduced rate, about a dollar a pound. Once there’s
enough meat in Tanguey’s cooler, he calls the Food Bank of Central New York to pick it
up.


Tanguey says this is his way of giving back to his community.


“When I see a hunter bringing in his son or grandson and they’re giving a second deer or
a third deer to the food bank, I think it’s going to pass it on to them. And years from now
we’ll keep the coalition supplied with some more food for the food bank.”


Jim Giacando is operations manager at the Food Bank of Central New York. He says
200 of the 600 agencies he works with ask for venison.


“In our freezer, we have almost 1,000 lbs ready to distribute, and it’s already committed
to a number of agencies throughout our 11-county area. And we’ll be distributing it this
week and next week, and then hopefully we’ll receive more in and fill more orders.”


The food bank will receive venison up until January. But Giacando says the greatest
challenge is keeping up with the demand for deer meat. A lot of people want it.


“I think we actually may have to get to a point where we might have to say ‘you know,
you can’t order that much. We have to keep it for all the other programs.'”


(ambient sound in church)


One of the food pantries asking for the deer meat is the University United Methodist
Church in Syracuse, New York. Norma Goel ordered venison from Giacando’s food
bank. The church’s food pantry feeds about 150 people every week.


Goel says she can’t buy as much food for the pantry as she’d like to because of the
church’s limited budget and an increase in the number of poor people asking for food.
She says farm-raised meat is a high-priced commodity…


“We’re always looking for a way to provide meat to participants in the pantry. And it’s
become increasingly difficult to buy frozen meat that the food bank has. By and large,
we’re not purchasing frozen meat from the food bank because we can’t afford it.”


So the deer meat is a cheaper alternative. Last year, Goel ordered venison too late to
receive any. This year she got all she could for the pantry: 60 pounds. She only has to
pay the handling costs – the coalition covers processing.


Goel says she’ll encourage people to use the deer meat in place of ground beef because
it’s high in protein and low in fat. She says the 60 pounds will feed a lot of hungry people
in her community.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Skye Rohde.

Related Links

Pollution Cleanup Program Underfunded

A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:

Transcript

A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being
underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than
originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:


The Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed by Congress in 2002… with a promise of 54 million
dollars a year for five years to clean up some of the 31 so-called “Areas of Concern”… the most
heavily polluted areas along the Great Lakes.


But in 2004, the first year money was allocated, only 10 million dollars was released by
Congress. Even so, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientist Mark Tuchman says this is
money available for clean up now… a change from the notoriously slow Superfund process.


“This is a focused program. The focus is on contaminated sediments at AOCs. So we’re
optimistic that this program can start making a significant dent in the contaminated sediment
problem in these Great Lakes sites.”


Congress is allocating 24 million dollars for Great Lakes clean up projects in 2005. That’s still
less than half the annual amount promised.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Related Links