In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:
The Environmental Protection Agency says it supports permits for one mine in West Virginia because operators agreed to some environmental protections.
But the EPA is asking a federal court to delay a decision on another mine. The Spruce Number One mine – owned by a subsidiary of Arch Coal – is one of the largest mountainop removal mines ever proposed in the area.The EPA says it’s concerned the mine would bury streams and contaminate water.
Bill Raney is the President of the West Virginia Coal Association. In a recent interview he said regulators are changing the rules.
“And it’s punishing the people here with uncertainty, not knowing what the future holds as to whether you’re going to get the next permit and are you going to be able to mine the coal, are you going to be able to use it in the power plant.”
The EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement, the EPA is actually bringing clarity to the process.
West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:
Transcript
One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:
President George W. Bush took it on the chin when it came to the environment. One accusation is that he ignored science that suggested we should get tougher on green house gas emissions.
President Obama’s Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency is Lisa Jackson. She said things would be different.
“On my first day, I sent a memo to every EPA employee stating that our path would be guided by the best science and by the rule of law, and that every action we took would be subject to unparalleled transparency.”
It hasn’t taken long for the chemical industry to say Obama’s Administration is back-tracking.
“There’s been this notion to get things done, and it get it done fast.”
That’s David Fischer, an attorney for the American Chemistry Council. Fischer’s concerned about new standards on dioxins.
Dioxins are by-products from producing chemicals. They also get into the environment from burning trash and wood.
The government says dioxin causes cancer and reproductive and developmental diseases.
It’s known this for decades, but it’s been finishing a report to show exactly how toxic dioxins are. It’s been writing this dioxin reassessment for 18 years, and it was supposed to put out a draft last week.
But it didn’t do that, and it hasn’t said when it will.
That didn’t stop the EPA from proposing a new rule about how much dioxin should be allowed in the soil in peoples’ yards.
Fischer says that rule should wait.
“If they’re going to base goals based on the best available science, and they have, in fact, stated they plan to, it’s hard to imagine how you can do that before the reassessment’s finished because that does after all represent or should represent the best available science.”
The chemical industry’s concerned because dozens of sites across the country are contaminated with dioxins. And the rule would lower the amount of dioxin allowed in residential soil. It would go from 1000 parts per trillion to 72 parts per trillion – that’s a drop of more than 90%.
Fischer says that could cost companies millions of dollars in extra clean-up costs.
“Again, that begs the question, Why?”
One accusation is that the Obama administration wanted to finalize dioxin soil regulations in time to coincide with controversial, on-going dioxin clean-ups, such as one in central Michigan.
The EPA didn’t answer this question directly and wouldn’t provide an interview in time for this report. But it did say it’s got sound science to justify the proposed dioxin soil rule.
You might ask why this matters. Well, just look at central Michigan, where there’s a large, on-going dioxin cleanup.
Linda Dykema works with Michigan’s Department of Community Health. She creates state standards on how much dioxin should be allowed in water, fish, and soil. To protect people in Michigan, she needs help from the EPA.
“We rely a great deal on federal agencies to provide us with some hazard assessment for chemicals. The ability of the state to public health staff to do those kinds of assessments is pretty limited. They can do what needs to be done and what we can’t do here at the state.”
And a ruling on dioxin levels in soil should help Dykema. But this move by the EPA might cause more problems than it solves. For years, the chemical industry’s argued that the science behind dioxin isn’t complete.
This proposed soil rule gives the chemical industry another chance to say, ‘here we go again.’ And the justification it needs to keep fighting a rule the EPA insists protects people’s health.
2.6 billion pounds of arsenic and other toxic pollutants flooded over nearby farmland and into the river.
(Photo courtesy of the Tennessee Department Of Health)
When a dam broke a year ago in Kingston,
Tennessee, the town experienced one
of the biggest environmental disasters
in US history. Billions of gallons
of waterlogged coal ash from a nearby
power plant streamed into the Emory
River. Tanya Ott reports
the contamination was even greater
than originally thought:
Transcript
When a dam broke a year ago in Kingston,
Tennessee, the town experienced one
of the biggest environmental disasters
in US history. Billions of gallons
of waterlogged coal ash from a nearby
power plant streamed into the Emory
River. Tanya Ott reports
the contamination was even greater
than originally thought:
2.6 billion pounds of arsenic and other toxic pollutants. That’s how much
contamination flooded over nearby farmland and into the river.
That comes
from a report by the Environmental Integrity Project.
Eric Schaeffer is the
project’s Executive Director and a former official with the Environmental
Protection Agency. He says 2.6 billion pounds is more than the total
discharges from all U-S power plants last year.
“The toxic metals, once they get into the environment,
and especially once they get into sediment, are notoriously difficult to
clean up.”
Difficult and expensive. The Tennessee Valley Authority puts the price tag
at about a billion dollars.
The EPA was supposed to propose tougher
disposal standards for toxic ash by the end of 2009. But the agency delayed
that decision.
Lena Perenius and Franco Bisegna are with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council in Brussels, Belgium.
(Photo by Liam Moriarty)
Bjorn Hansen oversees chemical regulations at the European Commission's Directorate General for the Environment in Brussels, Belgium.
(Photo by Liam Moriarty)
There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:
Transcript
There are tens of thousands of
chemical compounds on the market
these days. And, for the most part,
unless regulators can prove a chemical
is harmful, it stays there. Now, Europe
has turned that way of doing things
on its head, and the US is showing
signs of moving in that direction, too.
Liam Moriarty has this report:
(sounds of a street)
Brussels, Belgium is sort of like the Washington, DC of Europe. It’s here – in the seat of the European Union – that the 27 nations that make up the EU hash out their common policies.
I’m sitting in the office of Bjorn Hansen. He keeps an eye on chemicals for the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment. To give me an idea of how ubiquitous chemicals are in our everyday lives, Hansen points around his office.
“Just us sitting here, you are probably exposed to chemicals, which come from the office furniture, which have been used to color the textile, which has been used to create the foam, the glue under the carpet that we’re sitting – you name it, you’re exposed.”
The big question is whether all this exposure is harming our health or the environment. The answer?
“We, by far, do not know what chemicals are out there, what the effects of those chemicals are, and what the risks associated with those chemicals.”
In the European Union, that uncertainty led to a new law known by its acronym, REACH. That’s R-E-A-C-H. REACH requires that tens of thousands of chemicals used in everyday products in the EU be studied and registered. If a substance cannot be safely used, manufacturers will have to find a substitute, or stop using it. REACH has, at its core, a radical shift: it’s no longer up to the government to prove a chemical is unsafe.
“The burden of proof is on industry to demonstrate safety. And by demonstrating the safety that they think, they also take liability and responsibility for that safety.”
Even for industries accustomed to tougher European regulations, REACH was alarming.
“There were very, quite violent opposition in the beginning.”
Lena Perenius is with CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council.
“In the EU, we already had a very comprehensive set of regulations for ensuring safe use of chemicals. And the industry saw that this was putting an unreasonable burden on the companies.”
Corporations may not have liked it, but the measure had strong public support. After several contentious rounds of negotiations, Perenius says the industry feels it got key concessions that’ll make the far-reaching law workable. Now, she says, the industry has come to see the up-side of REACH.
“Now, when we have the responsibility, that gives us a little bit of freedom to demonstrate, in the way we believe is appropriate, how a substance can be used safely.”
Here in the US, there are signs of political momentum building around taking a more REACH-like approach to regulating the chemicals in everyday products. New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg recently said he’d introduce a bill that would shift the burden of proof for safety onto chemical manufacturers.
“Instead of waiting for a chemical to hurt somebody, it will require companies to prove their products are safe before they end up in the store, in our homes, and in our being.”
Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson recently told a Senate committee that – out of an estimated 80,000 chemicals in use – existing law has allowed the EPA to ban only 5, and to study just 200.
“Though many of these chemicals likely pose little or no risk, the story is clear – we’ve only been able to effectively regulate a handful of chemicals, and we know very little about the rest.”
More than a dozen states from Maine to California have already moved to toughen safety standards for chemicals. Even the American Chemistry Council has agreed to support more vigorous regulations to assure consumers that the chemicals in the products they use are safe.
As always, the devil is in the details. But the coming reform is shaping up to look a lot like what Europe is already putting in place.
The EPA found that 44% of the nation's lakes ranked fair or poor.
(Photo by Randolph Femmer, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)
The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
has released its first comprehensive
survey of the nation’s lakes. Samara Freemark tells us what
the study turned up:
More than half the nation’s lakes are in good condition. That’s according to a nationwide survey just released by the EPA. But the agency found that 44% of lakes ranked only fair or poor.
The survey identified two major problems facing lakes. First, many of them are surrounded by development. And that can mean dirt and polluted water running off into the lakes.
And second, many lakes contained high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus, which can lead to harmful algae blooms.
Susan Holdsworth is with the EPA. She says those findings were concerning.
“These stressors are both widespread and pose a significant threat to the condition of our nation’s lakes.”
Holdsworth says the EPA will use the data to assess how well government programs are doing at protecting lakes. The results will also help set future EPA priorities.
Most US communities have low rates of childhood lead poisoning - averaging 1.2% of the total population. But with the new influx of Burmese immigrants, Fort Wayne’s exposure rate rose to 12%.
(Photo by Erika Celeste)
Officials have set up a pilot preschool program for kids like Snow White. The program will help the kids catch up through, speech, cognitive, and nutrition therapy.
(Photo by Erika Celeste)
Lead was banned from paint in
1978. And it was taken out of
gasoline a few years later. So
with less lead in the environment,
the problem of lead poisoning in
kids has been decreasing. But
every once in a while, health officials
find a dramatic spike in the number
of lead poisoning cases, and the race
is on to find the source. Erika Celeste reports on the poisoning
of some Burmese refugees:
Transcript
Lead was banned from paint in
1978. And it was taken out of
gasoline a few years later. So
with less lead in the environment,
the problem of lead poisoning in
kids has been decreasing. But
every once in a while, health officials
find a dramatic spike in the number
of lead poisoning cases, and the race
is on to find the source. Erika Celeste reports on the poisoning
of some Burmese refugees:
Three years ago, Mah We took her baby daughter and fled the unrest in Burma to Fort Wayne, Indiana. It’s the largest Burmese settlement outside of their home country. They wanted their new daughter to have an American name. They settled on Snow White after seeing some the Disney movie.
She is now three and a half years old.
Celeste: Hi, Do you like school?
Snow White: “School, yes.”
Celeste: “What’s your favorite thing at school?”
Translator: “Play with my friends.”
Snow White has had a lot of challenges in her young life. Blood tests revealed Snow White had lead poisoning. Exposure to lead can cause brain damage, I-Q loss, behavioral problems, and in rare cases, death.
Most US communities have low rates of childhood lead poisoning – averaging 1.2% of the total population. But with the new influx of Burmese immigrants, Fort Wayne’s exposure rate rose to 12%.
Amy Hastings is with the Allen County Health Department:
“We kind of assumed they had been poisoned when they were in the camps, and it just wasn’t identified until they got to the United States and so we conducted it like a normal lead investigation and found no lead hazards.”
But then new siblings were born into some of the Burmese families. At birth, the babies’ blood levels were normal, yet within a few months those levels became dangerously high.
Most small children get poisoned when they crawl on the floor, get dust from old lead paint on their hands, and then stick their hands in their mouths.
“The babies weren’t old enough to do that yet, and so why they had a blood lead level of in the 20s, made no sense to us.”
With the cases mounting and the source still unknown, the Centers for Disease Control helped Hastings assemble an investigative team. They set up a make shift field office and went door to door in the Burmese apartment complexes.
“We were hunting around for anything we could find that these kids might be getting into. We tested food, we tested toys, anything we thought that babies could have come into contact with.”
They tested more kids. And took samples of various household items. Then a break came in the case. Two homemade Burmese medicines – daw tway and daw kyin— geared specifically to small children for tummy aches came back with extremely high levels of lead.
Hastings was relieved to finally have an answer. But it didn’t solve the problem.
Aye Ma is a Burmese translator. She says many parents didn’t believe Hastings are her team.
“The mother was pretty upset. She referred back to her ancestors, ‘oh my ancestors have been using this medicine and how can you come and out of the blue tell me this is no good and it has lead in it?’”
While some families are taking the advice to stop using the medicine, others are still skeptical. The medicines are banned in the US. But they can still get a hold of them through family connections back home.
Hastings says she’s still seeing new cases of lead poisoning. But because she isn’t certain the medicines are the only cause, educating the families about lead poisoning remains important.
Officials have set up a pilot preschool program for kids like Snow White. The program will help the kids catch up through, speech, cognitive, and nutrition therapy. So far it seems to be a great success.
(sound of kids playing)
While this was an unusual case for the US, the CDC reports that many traditional medicines from East Indian, Middle Eastern, Western Asian, and Hispanic cultures still contain lead.
The US Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas monitoring program will cost businesses about $115 million total this year.
(Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The government wants a better
sense of where America’s greenhouse
gas emissions are coming from,
so starting today -January 1, 2010,
more than ten-thousand businesses
will have to report them. Shawn
Allee explains:
Transcript
The government wants a better
sense of where America’s greenhouse
gas emissions are coming from,
so starting today -January 1, 2010,
more than ten-thousand businesses
will have to report them. Shawn
Allee explains:
Oil refineries that fuel our cars now have to report greenhouse gas emissions to the federal government. So do kilns that make cement for homes and businesses. Same thing for landfills that take our garbage.
Ed Repa is with the National Solid Waste Management Association – a trade group.
“The gas itself that’s being generated at the landfill is basically 50% methane, which is what natural gas is, and fifty percent CO2. Those gases are produced by organic materials for the landfill. That’s either paper or grass, or yard waste.”
The US Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas monitoring program will cost businesses about 115 million dollars total this year.
Most businesses can handle the new costs, but some small businesses with big emissions could be hit harder.
In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
