Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome.
The winter is still a way off already for a while.
Many parts of the country have had cold enough weather to turn on the heat or light the
wood stove.
This time on the Environment Show, a new type of wood stove that does not use wood.
Also this time, the Federal EPA faces a lawsuit over a failing superfund program.
And Methanol cars are here.
The way of the future says Raymond Lewis.
The thing that makes a Methanol car very, very practical is that it is a flexible fuel vehicle
meaning that it has one fuel time.
But it has an own board sensor that feeds into the computer that allows the car to know
whether it's getting Methanol or whether it's getting gasoline or any ratio in between.
The Environment Show is a national production made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New
York.
And this is Bruce Robertson.
As winter months approach, many of us look forward to curling up in front of a warm
fire.
Others are going through that fall ritual, stacking cords of wood to provide heat in
the home.
But while wood fires have always been a source of comfort and heat, they are also a cause
for concern.
In 1986, the Environmental Protection Agency introduced emissions controls for wood stovs.
Burning wood had become a major source of particulate pollution, especially in the northwest.
So in response, a new heating system began to appear.
It's called a pellet stove or a pellet appliance.
Pat Irish, president of Fiber Fuels Institute, describes how a pellet stove works.
The fuel is put into a hopper and all stoves have a hopper.
And it's fed through a little auger into the burn pot.
And there's a blower for the combustion air, which makes it very efficient.
And then there's another blower that blows the heated air into the room.
And it's controlled by thermostats and other controls, just like you have in a well in
your central heating system.
According to Irish, the type of fuel used is one reason pellet stoves burn cleaner than
traditional wood stoves.
One pellet stove each year burns about three tons of material made from many different
waste materials like sawdust or peanut shells.
Irish says the waste used often depends on what is available in the region.
Her company, the pellet group in Burlington, Vermont, was the first to pelletize waste
cardboard.
When the state government assisted in the development of the technology to help minimize
Vermont's cardboard waste problem.
Pellet companies in other parts of the country use walnut shells, sunflower seed shells,
and even corn husks.
First Irish says the waste product is tested before it is used in pellets.
For instance, the industry does not use demolition waste that often has lead paint in it or
creasote soaked wood.
Next, the pellets are made with a pelletizer, which works like a meat grinder.
The raw material is ground up and if it needs to be dried down to the correct moisture
content, it goes through a dryer.
And then it may be ground again to the right size that they need.
And it goes through a pelletizer.
And then when it comes out of the pelletizer, it's very hot.
Probably 170 to 180 degrees.
And then it goes into a cooler to cool it down and also to harden it.
Irish says the pellets burn cleaner because they contain less than 10% water.
In contrast, a wooden log can be filled with sap and water.
And a wood log produces more smoke and therefore more emissions.
Irish says a traditional wood burner produces 100 times the emissions that come from a pellet
stove.
These appliances are so clean that the federal EPA has exempted them from clean air quality
restrictions.
But Bob Labens says that is not entirely accurate.
He's in charge of the Wood Stove Certification Program at the Environmental Protection Agency.
According to Labens, pellet stoves actually fall through a loophole that was meant for
fireplaces.
In the 1986 regulations, the EPA chose not to include anything that uses a lot of air
to burn, like an open fireplace.
And since most pellet burners use at least two fans, Labens says many of them fall under
the exemption.
In defining what was going to be covered by the regulation originally, the distinction
was made primarily to separate airtight wood heaters from fireplaces.
One of the technical criteria that was applied was an air to fuel ratio.
A lot of the pellet stoves that are manufactured today tend to have a high air to fuel ratio.
They operate in some sense more like a fireplace than a wood stove and are not subject to
our regulations.
An air to fuel ratio indicates the amount of air used to burn one pound of fuel.
A ratio greater than 35 to 1 is not included in the EPA guidelines.
Now while more air can mean a more thorough burning, Labens says it can also mean less heat.
Labens explains why stoves with a lower air to fuel ratio may be the best choice.
Anytime you introduce more excess air into one of these combustion appliances, you tend
to force some of that heat up the flu and out of the house.
That's useful heat that might otherwise be delivered to the room.
Those stoves with a lower air to fuel ratio use less air and are more efficient for heating,
the lower ratio means they have to follow EPA guidelines.
Right now about 100,000 homes in the United States use pellet stoves, Irish expects to
sell another 75,000 this season.
Schools, hospitals and apartment buildings in the northwest were the first to use them
because the price of pellets does not fluctuate like the price of oil.
The stoves cost anywhere from $1,700 to $3,200.
Irish says that is more than a wood stove, but the cost of wall protectors and a chimney
for conventional stoves will even the price out.
She also cites convenience, a season supply of pellets takes up as much room as one cord
of wood.
Then there is a cost comparison.
A season of wood, say ten cords, would cost about a thousand dollars.
In contrast, most homes will use about three tons of pellets at $200 per ton or $600.
However, if you don't live near one of the 60 operating pellet mills in the nation,
every may be expensive and those who cut their own wood are saving a lot more money.
But as the amount of air regulations increases, Irish believes pellet stoves could become more
popular.
This is Bruce Robertson.
In less than a month, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will be
suing the Federal Environmental Protection Agency for failing to enforce key provisions of
the Federal Superfund Act.
New York State DEC Commissioner Thomas Jorling says what is happening in New York is part
of a larger problem.
What we have here in New York is the only hazardous waste landfill that exists in the entire
Northeast region.
Obviously, that facility becomes very attractive to other states.
They would like to use our capacity so they avoid the political and the technical and
financial needs to establish a hazardous waste landfill in their own jurisdiction.
The landfill is located in Niagara County in the western part of the state.
With this facility, New York State has what is referred to as a CAP capacity assurance
plan.
In plain English, this means New York has said to the Federal Government, we can assure
you that we have the capacity to handle our own hazardous waste.
Indeed, in order to receive federal money for waste cleanup, all states must be able
to give this assurance.
The problem is, to fulfill this requirement, some states are relying on landfills in other
states.
There is not much that one state can do to keep waste from crossing the state line because
says Jorling.
Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that hazardous waste and solid waste are
articles of interstate commerce and therefore outside the reach of the state governments to regulate.
As we said, under terms of the Federal Superfund Act, all states are required to develop a long
range plan to deal with hazardous waste.
Failing to demonstrate such a plan, a state would lose federal cleanup money.
This is spelled out in the Superfund Law, also known as Circola, the comprehensive environmental
response, compensation and liability act.
Under that federal law, the EPA is to go through a program in which each state submits to
them.
Information which shows that they have the capacity to manage the waste that is generated
in each state through one of two mechanisms.
One, the actual capacity within that state or two, an agreement with another state that
does have capacity.
EPA has not implemented that law.
They've gone through somewhat of a charade on implementation, but it has not been implemented.
Witness the fact that New York has the only hazardous waste landfill in 17 states nearest
to it.
It's clear that EPA has not acted to force those other states to install their own capacity.
The important thing is that the law, the federal law, is attached with some very serious
sanctions.
It says if a state does not have the capacity or does not have an agreement with another
state, then EPA would refuse or is mandated to refuse to spend cleanup, Circola or Superfund
cleanup money at hazardous waste sites in that state.
Very serious penalty.
We have tens of millions of dollars spent in New York each year by the federal government
cleaning up federal Superfund sites.
That was very serious threat to us.
We took it seriously, but they didn't take it seriously.
But Jorling says it is just not fair that one state adheres to the law and gets money
while another state does not adhere to the law, but still gets its money.
So we're suing EPA in order to force them to implement the Capiturance Program under
the federal law to help discipline the overall management of hazardous waste.
As ought a concept as it might seem, hazardous waste is considered a commodity, a product,
if you will.
And for those managing, transporting and processing the waste, more is better.
Jorling says the state is aware of this reality of the marketplace and in fact seeks to make
use of it.
It's clear that for a firm now to make the investment in hazardous waste management, they have to make
a very serious investment.
The controls that we apply in the design standards and the construction operation standards and
the amount of monitoring wells that are associated with it, the double liners and all of the
very expensive.
And so a firm will only do that if they are assured a rate of return on that investment,
which makes it financially possible for them to engage in that business.
In one sense, we could say to a firm in New York, you can only operate to manage New York's
waste.
The firm would come back to us and say, that's not a sufficient magnitude for us to bear
all of those front end costs to meet your environmental and health standard requirements.
We have to have a bigger market.
We understand that.
So our objective is to draw the balance where New York's strict interest matches the financial
capability to provide these services and that can include the ability to draw waste from
other jurisdiction.
That's why it's such an inherently national federal program.
We would hope that the federal government would assert some of its influence in this area
to assure that the balance is drawn properly on a national basis because right now it's
still the case.
And it's interesting.
New York here has allegiances with about 13 states in the union that have all of the capacity
to manage hazardous waste.
We're all concerned.
We're being responsible.
We're saying we're not excluding this out of state waste, but we want those other states
to bear the same kind of policies and costs that are imposed on our jurisdiction that we
cannot become as the classic politically charged words say, the dumping ground for these
other states.
We'll participate in doing it right, assuring that it's done properly environmentally
and economically, but that they have to participate in both of those.
Thomas Jorling, Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation in New York State.
He hopes to file the suit by the middle to the end of November, forcing EPA to abide
by its own laws.
In addition to New York, Alabama, South Carolina, California, Illinois, and Indiana, along
with Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Oklahoma, and Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Oregon have active
approved hazardous waste landfills.
And with real estate limited and public sentiment often lodged against citing new facilities,
these states are going to be less and less willing and able to accept waste from other
non-compliant states.
This is Bruce Robertson.
In the mid-1970s, businesses specializing in solar and other alternative energy sources
took off like brush fire, fueled by growing public concern for the environment, the energy
crisis, and federal tax credits.
With plummeting oil prices and government support, many of these businesses disappeared
in the 1980s.
But in Colorado, Becky Rumsy talked with Maria Valdez, an alternative energy advocate,
who has stuck it out for 20 years.
Maria and Arnie Valdez lived near the New Mexico border in San Luis, Colorado, driving
through their gate, Upaza Beanfield.
Sunflowers six feet tall spring from the rows.
Across the Assequia or irrigation ditch stands their two-story, glass-faced Adobe House.
The Valdez is built their home with recycled Adobe blocks and wooden beams called Vigas.
Its solar design keeps their family of seven warm, despite bitter winters at 8,000 feet.
Solar panels heat water.
Wind energy holds their electric bills below $20 a month year round.
They built this house for only $10 a square foot.
That's important because they live in one of the poorest counties in the country.
We started working to energy issues out of our own needs.
And then once we were able to address them and see that it was something that could impact
the lives of our family and friends and the community, then that's how people's alternative
evolved into doing community development, energy development and energy alternatives.
Maria Valdez's family has lived in this area for five generations.
Jesus Bonky 42, chickens, blue-headed turkeys and old Adobe bricks fill her yard.
When they built their house, the Valdez is discovered that government programs encouraged
low-income people to use less energy efficient frame housing.
Adobe, the architectural tradition of the region, was discouraged.
In 1978, they formed people's alternative energy services to promote self-sufficiency
in their rural, Hispanic community.
They helped neighbors repair and solarize their homes.
They installed old-fashioned hand pumps and traditional solar food dryers.
But by the early 1980s, they realized that energy efficiency was only one small part of
a rural community's survival.
Then these other more pressing issues came up, environmental issues.
So everybody can have a solar collector on their house.
But yet their water is being threatened by cyanide waste from a mine.
Or that our landfill is unsanitary.
Or that they're trying to put a small airport over a culturally historic and sensitive
area when we need a airport, like we need a hole in the head.
Valdez says people's alternative now works with a bio-regional perspective.
They're joining other grassroots groups in Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico.
Together they help to protect their region from pressures that drive rural communities
like third-world countries to mine and export their resources.
Water is one of the resources in this valley that some people hope to market.
What's going to happen to my children and to everybody else's children and to society
and to mankind if we don't preserve some of our bio-regional resources?
And I think every area has some.
For 140 years, this stream has been the lifeblood of San Luis, a community founded by Indian
and Spanish descendants.
Maria Valdez says the stream recharges her.
It reminds her that everything's interrelated, a region's resources, a community's traditions,
a person's home.
For the High Plains News Service, I'm Becky Rumsy and Son Luis Colorado.
The High Plains News Service is a production of the Western Organization of Resource Councils
based in Billings, Montana.
Congress is poised to begin serious debate over some type of energy legislation.
The battle lines are being drawn between those who favor the status quo, continued reliance
on the fossil fuels of oil, coal and natural gas, and those who push for alternative fuels.
Raymond Lewis, president of the American Methanol Institute, is driven to prove a point
that Methanol engines are not a science fantasy of the future, but a technological reality
of the present.
Methanol technology is available today.
In California, we're taking orders now for 2000 Chevrolet Lumenikars that will be delivered
in early next year.
The Detroit Diesel Corporation has a fully commercial and fully certified by both EPA and California
bus engine and the City of LH has purchased 225 of these engines fully commercial.
They are running fleets now in a number of cities around the country.
What we have to do is expand this beyond the horizons of California where they have filling
stations around the state and enough to support these vehicles.
They're probably got 30 or 40 now and they will have, they've got commitments from the
oil companies for an additional number of stations to get them up to around 100 within
the next couple of years.
However, in the rest of the United States, we have distribution systems or more spars
and we need to get the filling stations ready, but the technology is available from the
car suppliers.
Ford will be selling several thousand next year.
Chrysler has announced that starting with their 1993 model year that they will make available
up to 100,000 Methanol powered cars.
Critics of any of the alternate fuels say the greatest drawback is not the engine but the
supply of the fuel.
Lewis says this is not a big problem.
The thing that makes a Methanol powered car very, very practical is that it is a flexible
fuel vehicle meaning that it has one fuel tank but it has an own board sensor that feeds
into the computer that allows the car to know whether it's getting Methanol or whether
it's getting gasoline or any ratio in between.
So when you're in a city that needs the pollution protection and has the fuel available, you
can fuel it on Methanol.
But if you take the car on vacation and go out of the city where the fuel is not available,
you put gasoline in the same tank, even mixed with the Methanol and the car does all the
adjustments to optimize the performance and the emissions on the mixture.
So it really is a user friendly and very, very acceptable fuel that allows us to have
a domestic alternative, that allows us to have the clean air benefits and to begin making
the transition.
Where in a number of years, say five years, we can start working on a more dedicated
vehicle that will even get further benefits.
Lewis says we are probably already using Methanol and don't even know it.
The way gasoline is currently cleaned up today is with the use of a product called MTBE
made from Methanol.
That is the clean air component that replaces the more toxic components that are now in
gasoline.
That helps develop the volume for Methanol and the distribution system and the use of
it so that we begin to get greater use and availability of Methanol and the cost comes
down proportionally.
So that is going in to clean up gasoline today and is the reason why we are able to make
the great strides mandated in the clean air act.
Then we move into the next generation.
It helps the neat clean Methanol car and it helps it in two ways.
As I mentioned, it helps get the cost of Methanol down but also cleaner gasoline is going
to be somewhat more expensive.
Arco is announced in California that it could raise the price of gasoline 16 cents a gallon.
As that happens, it makes it differential, better and favor the ability to handle the
alternative fuels which today don't have the distribution system and therefore pay a
little bit more for distribution in the gasoline.
But Methanol will be fully competitive with gasoline after it reaches commercial volume.
Throughout some of our hesitation and even fear of alternate fuels, in this case Methanol,
comes from ignorance.
Literally, we often don't really know what these fuels are.
So what is Methanol?
It's made predominantly from natural gas.
However, we have currently in the United States plant under construction and operating that
will be making Methanol from garbage, from the off-gas that comes off of garbage that
normally goes into the atmosphere.
We have a program to develop under development now to make Methanol from trees.
We have an enormous supply of coal in this country that would supply enough Methanol to provide
all the cars in any country, entire 1% of their fuel for like 500 years.
That's not the preferred source today.
But if we had a disruption in the world's supplies of conventional fuels, it's a tremendous
insurance policy for this nation and by having a fleet of flexible fuel cars, it can
go either way.
It really gives us a security option.
But most important today, Methanol is made from natural gas inside the US.
We're about 90% domestic in North America between the US and Canada.
And we're using as much natural gas today to make that Methanol as would be used in 1.8
million compressed natural gas vehicle cars.
So we're a very large market for natural gas and consumer of domestic resources today.
We're bringing on for fuel uses, Methanol facilities within the next three years.
That will be the equivalent in natural gas consumption of an additional 800,000 CNG cars.
Raymond Lewis, president of the American Methanol Institute and advocacy group based in Washington
DC, he spoke to us on the road, literally, touring in his flexible fuel vehicle to
prove his point.
And this is Bruce Robertson.
That's our show for this week.
We hope you enjoyed this edition of the Environment Show.
Our piece on pellet stoves was written and produced by Karen Kelly.
The Environment Show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife,
and people of our common habitat.
For a cassette copy of this program, call 1-800-767-1929.
Ask for the Environment Show number 96.
The Environment Show is a presentation of national productions, which is solely responsible
for its contents.
Dr. Alan Shartock, executive producer.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The Environment Show is made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York.
