This Month in Environmental History: The Ozone Hole
In May 1985, a group of scientists from a British Antarctic Survey discovered a hole in the (Antarctic) Ozone. Learn more.
While my childhood is mostly gaps or memories created from thumbing through yearbooks or my dad’s slides, I do have solid memories of my first pair of high-top Air Jordans in the fifth grade and the time I peed my pants taking a standardized test in the first grade. I vaguely remember learning that littering was bad for the environment and, later, in middle school, understanding that my can of hairspray might also be bad somehow and looking for the ‘no CFCs*’ labels on bottles at the drugstore.
It was probably my middle school science class before a teacher mentioned the ozone layer and the subsequent havoc that the human population wreaked on the thin part of Earth’s atmosphere that absorbs a portion of the radiation from the sun.
In May 1985, a group of scientists from a British Antarctic Survey (Cambridge) published a ‘letter’ in the scientific journal Nature titled Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. (Abstract below)
Translation: the discovery of the (Antarctic) Ozone Hole, thought to be one of the most striking indictors of ozone depletion. According to NASA, the depletion of the ozone layer is recognized as on the Earth’s most important environmental issues.
In October 1985, the area of the ozone hole was measured at 7.25 million square miles. Thirty-seven years later in October 2022, it measured 10.23 million square miles. For reference, the entire continent of North America is just over 9.5 million square miles.
Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction
Abstract: Recent attempts1,2 to consolidate assessments of the effect of human activities on stratospheric ozone (O3) using one-dimensional models for 30° N have suggested that perturbations of total O3 will remain small for at least the next decade. Results from such models are often accepted by default as global estimates3. The inadequacy of this approach is here made evident by observations that the spring values of total O3 in Antarctica have now fallen considerably. The circulation in the lower stratosphere is apparently unchanged, and possible chemical causes must be considered. We suggest that the very low temperatures which prevail from midwinter until several weeks after the spring equinox make the Antarctic stratosphere uniquely sensitive to growth of inorganic chlorine, ClX, primarily by the effect of this growth on the NO2/NO ratio. This, with the height distribution of UV irradiation peculiar to the polar stratosphere, could account for the O3 losses observed.
For more information on Federal (Clean Air Act) and International (Montreal Protocol et al) actions to address Ozone Depletion, visit this site.
*chlorofluorocarbons and other Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS)
Sources: Farman, J., Gardiner, B. & Shanklin, J. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315, 207–210 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1038/315207a0
Recent Posts
The History of Earth Day
After celebrating the 53rd Earth Day this past weekend, it seems like an opportune time to look back at the history of Earth Day.
After celebrating the 53rd Earth Day this past weekend, it seems like an opportune time to look back at the history of Earth Day as many of the rules and regulations Cornerstone works with now came about because of Earth Day.
A Wisconsin Senator by the name of Gaylord Nelson was the one behind getting the very first Earth Day started. He was worried about the shape of the environment in the U.S and, after taking notice of the energy behind the anti-war protests by students, decided that something similar could be done to raise public awareness about air and water pollution. The original plan for Earth Day, before it was even given the catchy moniker, was for a teach-in on various college campuses to the national media on April 22nd; however, that all changed when a young activist named Denis Hayes, who was in charge of organizing the event, decided to promote it across the country. His efforts helped gather a number of individuals, groups, and organizations together and it was decided to change the name of the event to “Earth Day”.
The first Earth Day took place on April 22nd, 1970 and the response from the American people was overwhelming. Over 20 million people went out to protest, rally, and demonstrate across the nation to bring attention to the environment and its importance. For anyone curious, the population of the United States of America in 1970 was over 200 million people; meaning that about 10% of all Americans turned out for Earth Day and supporting the environment (Census Bureau, 2021). Earth Day was so effective that by the end of the year, Congress approved and the President signed the Clean Air Act into effect as well as the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency; both of which are just as, if not more, effective and relevant today at defending our environment. It could be said that this helped get the ball rolling for other key environmental legislation to be passed, such as the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Earth Day later went on to become recognized around the world, with groups from a wide variety of countries taking part in the efforts to raise awareness about the importance of protecting the environment. Earth Day has even taken on the effort to raise awareness about the need to address the growing issue of climate change. Even after 50 years, Earth Day is still observed by about 1 billion people across the Earth.
Some people participate in Earth Day through more political means by joining marches, protests, letter-writing campaigns and other public demonstrations to raise awareness and show support for the environment. Others volunteer for various environmental projects, cleaning up trash from their local beach or park, planting trees and/or other native plants, cutting down invasive species, and even educating others in their local community about the importance of the environment. You don’t have to solve the climate crisis to take part in Earth Day.
Recent Posts
The Legacy of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy
As we wrapped up the Toxic Release Inventory (Form R) reporting for the year, curiosity got me as to how this program came about. So, I decided to refresh my memory and dive back into my college years during which I studied Environmental Management at Indiana University.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a great website filled with amazing resources and content. However, in looking for detailed information on the history of a specific regulation, they tend to provide only a summary -- presumably to allow space for more current resources.
This is the EPA version of how TRI came to be:
On December 2, 1984, a cloud of extremely toxic methyl isocyanate gas escaped from a Union Carbide Chemical plant in Bhopal, India. Thousands of people died that night in what is widely considered to be the worst industrial disaster in history. Thousands more died later as a result of their exposure, and survivors continue to suffer from permanent disabilities.
The incident raised public concern about toxic chemical storage, releases, and emergency response. It led to the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) under the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. Section 313 of EPCRA established the Toxics Release Inventory.
Boom! There you have it…explained, right? Yeah, not so much.
Here’s the more detailed -- but not too wordy -- version of what happened… But, before I get into the aftermath of this catastrophic event, let’s discuss what led to it.
When the facility was built in Bhopal (in the 1970s), the site was zoned for light industrial and commercial use, not for the hazardous industry, as the plant was approved only for the formulation of pesticides. MIC was only to be imported in small quantities. However, pressure from competitors in the chemical industry led to the manufacture of raw materials and intermediate products for the formulation of the final product. This was inherently a more hazardous process.
By the early 1980s, the plant had significantly reduced production due to a decrease in demand for pesticides. Local managers of the UCIL plant were instructed to close the plant in preparation for sale in the summer of 1984. When no buyer was found, UCIL made plans to dismantle key production units. All the while, “the facility continued to operate with safety equipment and procedures far below the standards found in its sister plant in Institute, West Virginia.” It seems the local government was aware of the safety issues but hesitant to place burdens on the struggling industry at risk of losing the economic gains afforded by such a large employer
“The vent-gas scrubber, a safety device designed to neutralize toxic discharge from the MIC system, had been turned off three weeks prior. Apparently, a faulty valve had allowed one ton of water for cleaning internal pipes to mix with forty tons of MIC. A 30-ton refrigeration unit that normally served as a safety component to cool the MIC storage tank had been drained of its coolant for use in another part of the plant. Pressure and heat from the vigorous exothermic reaction in the tank continued to build. The gas flare safety system was out of action and had been for three months.”
On Sunday, December 2, the 100 workers on the late shift at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) facility in Bhopal, India were in the process of making the pesticide Sevin. This involved mixing carbon tetrachloride, methyl isocyanate (MIC), and alpha-naphthol.
While most of the one million residents of Bhopal slept, at 11:00 p.m. a plant operator noticed a small leak of MIC gas and increasing pressure inside a storage tank.
Around 1:00 a.m. on December 3, 1984, more than 40 tons of methyl isocyanate gas leaked from the pesticide plant. Within hours, an estimated 3,800 people perished, and the final death toll is estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000 which includes premature deaths reported during the two decades following the disaster.
In a settlement mediated by the Indian Supreme Court, Union Carbide Corporation accepted moral responsibility and agreed to pay $470 million to the Indian government to be distributed to claimants as a full and final settlement. By the end of October 2014, according to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy Relief and Rehabilitation Department, compensation (~$486,101,760) had been awarded to 574,366 people (dependents of the deceased, seriously injured, permanently disabled, cancer and kidney patients, and temporally disabled people). This averages out to approximately $846.33 per person.
This disaster cast a spotlight on the urgent need for enforceable international standards for environmental safety, preventative strategies to avoid similar accidents, and help ensure industrial disaster preparedness.
Enter the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).
TRI tracks the management of certain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to human health and the environment. U.S. facilities in different industry sectors must report annually how much of each chemical is released to the environment and/or managed through recycling, energy recovery, and treatment. (A "release" of a chemical means that it is emitted to the air or water, or placed in some type of land disposal.)
https://www.britannica.com/event/Bhopal-disaster
https://www.epa.gov/toxics-release-inventory-tri-program/what-toxics-release-inventory
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-4-6
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/explosion-kills-2000-at-pesticide-plant
Recent Posts
Environmental History: DOCUMERICA
From what I’ve been told, I’m right on the cusp of being either a Gen Xer or a Millennial -- a Xennial as it were (that weird micro generation born between 1977 and 1985). I tell you this because it’s important to note that cell phones weren’t in existence during my youth and disposable cameras didn’t become widely affordable until my teens. My dad took his ‘good’ Nikon everywhere and fancied himself an amateur photographer. He was good at it too (still is), especially outdoor photography. He’d have the film developed on slides which filled countless carousels. Then, he would pull out a wall-sized, retractable screen to entertain viewers with family slideshows.
Gas shortage 6/1973
As you might guess, imagery and the art of photography became ingrained on me. I have always adored old photographs. Black and white, sepia, vintage, full color…I just love it. I think “Why? Why this shot?” “What compelled the photographer to shoot this?” “Did this scene or these people mean something to them?” “What was it?” And, photos of people are even more intriguing to me! Just the same, when I came across the DOCUMERICA Project, I was absorbed! (and, I think you will be too…
For the DOCUMERICA Project (1971-1977), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hired (at $150/day + film and expenses) freelance photographers to “photographically document subjects of environmental concern”, EPA activities, and everyday life across the United States in the 1970s.
The collection reports over 22,000 photographs in the U.S. National Archives and they’ve digitized more than 15,000 photographs from the series Documerica (Local ID 412-DA) and included them in an online catalog.
I encourage you to visit the catalog linked above. It’s an addictive time capsule of imagery. The visuals are haunting, beautiful, and compelling.
Recent Posts
May in Indianapolis! Indy 500 Environmental Improvements
If you’ve never experienced May in Indianapolis, it’s an experience like no other. It’s much like celebrating your birthday month… only on steroids! Events celebrating the tradition of the Indy 500 actually start the end of April with the IU Little 500 and Purdue Grand Prix. There is an organized evening of collective porch parties, a fundraising gala at the Motor Speedway, a Festival parade, Carb Day etc. The month is filled with celebration for this time-honored racing tradition! (find a complete list of events here).
Having been a central Indiana resident for 86% of my life, the race and events leading up to it have simply been part of my ‘normal.’ It wasn’t until a few years ago when I watched the release of 1000s of balloons prior to the race that I considered the environmental impact of the Greatest Spectacle in Racing.
While I’m sure there are plenty of areas, we could look at to highlight the impact of Race Day alone, I’ve bulleted a few below that immediately came to mind:
Trash. Speedway officials estimated approximately 50,000 lbs. of trash was left behind after the race in 2013.
Balloons. The release of thousands of balloons was formerly a pre-race tradition. Balloon launches has been paused indefinitely as of April 2022due to impacts on the environment and wildlife.
Spectator traffic. A very conservative estimate from the IndyStar in 2018 reported that spectator traffic at the 500 on race day would produce nearly 20 million pounds of carbon dioxide. By comparison, the EPA reports that the average passenger vehicle emits roughly 10,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide…over the course of an entire YEAR. Calculations were based on using the most popular vehicle in the United States, the Ford F-150.
Fuel consumption. Indy cars use about 115 gallons of fuel on race day alone (roughly five miles to the gallon). Several years ago, IndyCar made the switch to 85% ethanol which does burn more cleanly. Unfortunately, while the air pollutants that affect human health are lower, the fuel still releases carbon dioxide and water vapor into the air which traps heat on Earth
Change is coming.
Last year (2021), the Indy 500 earned the silver level Responsible Sport Certification from the Oregon-based Council for Responsible Sport. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway stated in April 2021 that the 2021 race successfully implemented all mandatory standards of the council, as well as nearly 40 of the recommended social and environmental impact considerations. The Indianapolis Motor Speedway stated in August 2021 that the 2021 race successfully implemented all mandatory standards of the council, as well as nearly 40 of the recommended social and environmental impact considerations.
While I couldn’t readily find confirmation that the Race has earned this distinction again for the 106th running of the Greatest Spectacle in Racing, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway announced the next phase of sustainability initiatives including:
a new race tire made with sustainable natural rubber;
increased waste diversion efforts throughout the facility with expanded recycling and food recovery programs; and
the official IMS retail partner, will open a fully sustainable store inside an electric truck. All items sold in the truck will be reusable or designed from recycled plastic bottles.
So that’s progress.
We hope we can continue cataloging the changes made to the Race and celebrations to decrease the environmental Sasquatchian-sized (it’s a word, I’m sure) footprint. In the meantime, check out my sources and more information on race festivities and efforts below:
https://www.indianapolismotorspeedway.com/planyourvisit/season-schedule
https://cbs4indy.com/news/this-is-who-cleans-up-all-the-trash-left-behind-at-ims-after-indy-500/
https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/05/21/indy-500-has-trash-problem/607042002/
#Sustainability #GreenhouseGas #GHG #Indy500
Recent Posts
Dramatic History of PFAS Leads to Present-Day EPA Actions
I’ll admit it — I’m a true crime junkie.
It started with a podcast and has moved into documentaries. Never, not once, did I imagine that my professional life would seep into my guilty pleasure. I was happily binging on a new podcast when suddenly the topic went from unsolved historical mysteries to the Dupont Chemical Scandal, which is a 20-year legal battle between Dupont (the manufacturers of such products as Teflon) and a West Virginia farmer whose cows kept mysteriously dying. Bonus: There’s a newer movie about this case as well! Dark Waters contains a rather star-studded cast too including Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, and Tim Robbins.
A recently proposed EPA rule has once again brought Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) or ‘forever chemicals’ into conversations and compliance questions. For more technical information on what PFAS are and the proposed rule, check out our blog post on the topic.
Dupont Chemical and PFAS: An Extremely Abbreviated History
In 1802 (not a typo…1800s, people!), Éleuthère Irénée du Pont, who emigrated from France after the French Revolution, founded a company to produce gunpowder called E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company near Wilmington, Delaware. Being a horrid name for all the marketing reasons (kidding, I have no idea why), the company was later renamed Dupont. Fast forward to 1930 when Dupont and General Motors joined to form Kinetic Chemicals to produce Freon.
In January 1935, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company formally opened the Haskell Laboratory of Industrial Toxicology, which at the time was "one of the first in-house toxicology facilities." According to a 1935 news item in the Industrial and Engineering Chemistry journal,“the purpose of the du Pont facility was to thoroughly test all du Pont products as a public health measure to determine the effects of du Pont's finished products on the health of the ultimate consumer and that the products are safe before they are placed on the market.”
Now, I’m not going to throw stones or try to spoil the ending here but based on what happens next, I’m not so confident that this Haskell Lab crew was cut out for the job.
In 1937, a 27-year-old research chemist named Roy Plunkett was working with Freon refrigerants and accidentally (yes, accidentally) invented a new chemical. Polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE), a saturated fluorocarbon polymer, would become known as the "first compound in the family of Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs).” PFCs are a group of hundreds of human-made compounds collectively known as Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances or PFAS or forever chemicals.
After ten years of research, this saturated fluorocarbon polymer would be introduced under its commercial name, Teflon. Side note: Roy would later be inducted into the National Inventor’s Hall of Fame for his invention of Teflon.
DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, started using PFAS in their manufacturing process in 1951. Shortly after which, a Dupont employee received an inquiry into the possible toxicity of ‘C8.’ Quick explanation in the most simple way I can: C8 is basically an eight carbon chain chemical structure that includes Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), which are long-chain PFAS. C8 is super stable and hardy and literally takes forever to break down. OH!! and it’s really good at attaching to soils and migrating into aquifers. So, in 1956, a study at Stanford University found that PFAS binds to the proteins in human blood, and five years later an in-house DuPont toxicologist deemed C8 to be toxic and should be handled with extreme care. Around this same time, it is known that DuPont buried as many as 200 drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River near the plant. SPOILER ALERT: This was not a well-thought-out plan.
Alright so that’s the backstory blip as it pertains to DuPont, but please note I’ve left out A LOT about 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), the Oakdale Dump, PFAS in firefighting foams, Wolverine, and just general poor handling of a potentially toxic substance since way back.
Fast forward to 1998 when Robert Bilott with Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP (a Cincinnati based attorney) took the case to represent Wilbur ‘Earl’ Tennant. Tennant was a farmer in Parkersburg, West Virginia, who blamed DuPont’s Washington Works facility for his cattle dying. Ok, so that sentence doesn’t even do it justice. Over 250 of Tennant’s cattle died of a ‘mysterious wasting disease.’ While the cause of death was never conclusively linked with the chemical contamination from DuPont, the company quietly settled with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount. Sidenote: This farmer did dissections on his own cows in attempts to determine and document cause of death because area veterinarians didn’t want to get involved. He recorded and documented his findings on video including “blackened teeth, liver, heart, stomachs, kidneys and gall bladder; unusual discolorations — some dark, some green — and textures; cows with stringy tails, malformed hooves, giant lesions protruding from their hides and red, receded eyes; cows suffering constant diarrhea, slobbering white slime the consistency of toothpaste, staggering bowlegged like drunks.”
The Tennant family purchased 68 acres along West Virginia Route 68 in 1968 but in 1984 they sold a portion of their adjoining land to Dupont. This land was to become the Dry Run Landfill. The Tennant family claims that there was noticeable difference in the land within a year of the property sale. Cattle began to die, deer carcasses were found, and “there were no minnows in the streams.”
In 1999, Bilott filed a federal suit in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of Wilbur Tennant against DuPont. A report commissioned by the EPA and DuPont and authored by six veterinarians (three chosen by the EPA and the others by DuPont) found that Tennant's cattle had died because of Tennant's "poor husbandry," which included "poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control."
While performing research during the suit, Bilott found an article identifying a surfactant called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA aka C8) in Dry Run Creek. So, in 2000 he requested more information through a court order to DuPont. DuPont was ordered to submit 110,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1950s. A year later (2001), DuPont settled out of court with Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Shortly after which, Bilott made a substantial submission to the EPA and US Attorney General demanding that "immediate action be taken to regulate PFOA and provide clean water to those living near."
While Tennant settled, Bilott filed a class action suit against DuPont in August 2001. According to a 2004 report by ChemRisk, an industry risk assessor hired by DuPont, “Dupont's Parkersburg, West Virginia-based Washington Works plant had dumped, poured and released over 1.7 million pounds of C8 or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into the environment between 1951 and 2003.”
In 2017, DuPont agreed to pay $671 million to settle with approximately 3,550 personal injury claims involving the leak of PFOAs used to make Teflon in Parkersburg, West Virginia. DuPoint denied any wrongdoing.
Obviously, this is a seriously brief snapshot and by no means an exhaustive history of DuPont’s use and handling of PFAS or use in other applications. Find more information and actions to address public health at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.
From the Center for Disease Control’s website:
“In the Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals (Fourth Report), CDC scientists measured PFOA in the serum (a clear part of blood) of 2094 participants aged 12 years and older who took part in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) during 2003–2004. Serum PFOA levels generally reflect exposure that has occurred over several years. By measuring PFOA in serum, scientists can estimate the amount of PFOA that has entered people’s bodies.
CDC scientists found PFOA in the serum of nearly all the people tested, indicating that PFOA exposure is widespread in the U.S. population.”
In summary, some guy accidentally invented a chemical that has been around since the late 1930s and is now being phased out because it has been shown to cause increased cholesterol levels, low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS)...oh and it will definitely mess up your livestock if they drink from a contaminated water source!
Time to go buy a cast iron skillet!