Empty Ballast Tanks Still Carrying Critters

  • A scientist collects samples of ballast sediment. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)

A new study finds that ocean-going ships that enter the Great Lakes often carry biological pollution in their ballasts, even when they declare their ballasts are empty. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A new study finds that ocean-going ships that enter the Great Lakes often carry biological pollution in their ballasts, even when they declare their ballasts are empty. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The study by the University of Michigan and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at ships coming into the Great Lakes from the ocean. Nearly 80-percent of them declared “no ballast on board” and avoided inspections by the Coast Guard.


But several of those ships were tested by the researchers. They found that although the ballast water was pumped out, there were thousands of organisms left behind in the sediment in the bottom of the ships’ ballast. Then, when the ships unloaded at their first stop, they took on Great Lakes ballast water which stirred up the sediment.


And that made it possible for the biological contaminants to be pumped out at the next Great Lakes port.


The authors of the study warn that more restrictions must be placed on how the ships handle ballast water, or the Great Lakes will continue to be invaded by more invasive species such as the zebra mussel, round goby, and 180 other foreign aquatic species that have harmed the Lakes’ ecosystems.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

How Long Do You Keep a Polluting Heap?

  • Motor oil dripping from cars can add up and end up contaminating waterways and sediments. (Photo by Brandon Blinkenberg)

Industries and companies get labeled as
“polluters.” But what do you do when you find out you’re a pretty big polluter yourself… and you find out it’s going to cost you a lot of money to fix the
problem? As part of the series, “Your Choice; Your
Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca
Williams finds herself in that dilemma:

Transcript

Industries and companies get labeled as “polluters.” But what do you do when you find out you’re a pretty big polluter yourself… and you find out it’s going to cost you a lot of money to fix the problem? As part of the series, “Your Choice; Your Planet,” the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams finds herself in that dilemma:


(sound of car starting)


This is my ‘89 Toyota Camry. It has 188,000 miles on it. Pieces of
plastic trim fly off on the highway, and I have to climb in from the
backseat when my door gets frozen in the winter. But I got it for free, I get good gas mileage, and my insurance is cheap. But now, it’s leaking oil – lots of oil. I knew it was bad when I started
pouring in a quart of oil every other week.


I thought I’d better take it in to the shop.


(sound of car shop)


My mechanic, Walt Hayes, didn’t exactly have good news for me.


“You know, you’re probably leaking about 80% of that, just from experience, I’d say
you’re burning 20% and leaking 80%.”


Walt says the rear main seal is leaking, and the oil’s just dripping
straight to the ground. Walt tells me the seal costs 25 dollars, but he’d
have to take the transmission out to get to the seal. That means I’d be
paying him 650 dollars.


650 bucks to fix an oil leak, when no one would steal my car’s radio. There’s no way. Obviously, it’s cheaper to spend two dollars on each quart of oil, than to fix the seal.


“Right – what else is going to break, you know? You might fix the rear main
seal, and your transmission might go out next week or something. Your car,
because of its age, is on the edge all the time. So to invest in a 25 dollar seal, spending a lot of money for labor, almost doesn’t make sense on an
older car.”


That’s my mechanic telling me not to fix my car. In fact, he says he’s seen
plenty of people driving even older Toyotas, and he says my engine will
probably hold out a while longer. But now I can’t stop thinking about the
quarts of oil I’m slowly dripping all over town.


I need someone to tell me: is my one leaky car really all that bad? Ralph
Reznick works with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. He
spends his time trying to get polluters to change their behavior.


“That’s a lot for an old car. If you were the only car in the parking lot,
that wouldn’t be very much. But the fact is, there’s a lot of cars just
like yours that are doing the same thing.”


Reznick says the oil and antifreeze and other things that leak from and fall
off cars like mine add up.


“The accumulative impact of your car and other cars, by hitting the
pavement, and washing off the pavement into the waterways, is a very large
impact. It’s one of the largest sources of pollution we’re dealing with
today.”


Reznick says even just a quart of oil can pollute thousands of gallons of
water. And he says toxins in oil can build up in sediment at the bottom of
rivers and lakes. That can be bad news for aquatic animals and plants.
There’s no question – he wants me to fix the leak.


But I am NOT pouring 650 bucks into this car when the only thing it has going
for it is that it’s saving me money. So I can either keep driving it, and
feel pretty guilty, or I can scrap it and get a new car.


But it does take a lot of steel and plastic and aluminum to make a new car.
Maybe I’m doing something right for the environment by driving a car that’s
already got that stuff invested in it.


I went to the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan
and talked to Greg Keoleian. He’s done studies on how many years it makes
sense to keep a car. He says if you look at personal costs, and the energy
that goes into a making a midsize car, it makes sense to hang onto it for a
long time… like 16 years.


No problem there – I finally did something right!


Well, sort of.


“In your case, from an emissions point of view, you should definitely
replace your vehicle. It turns out that a small fraction of vehicles are
really contributing to a lot of the local air pollution. Older vehicles
tend to be more polluting, and you would definitely benefit the environment
by retiring your vehicle.”


Keoleian says if I get a newer car, it won’t be leaking oil, and it won’t
putting out nearly as much nitrogen oxide and other chemicals that lead to
smog. Oh yeah, he also says I really need to start looking today.


And so doing the right thing for the environment is going to cost me money.
There’s no way around that. The more I think about my rusty old car, the
more I notice all the OTHER old heaps on the road. Maybe all of you are a
bit like me, hoping to make it through just one more winter without car
payments.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Increased Funding for Great Lakes Legacy Act?

  • President Bush is calling for more money to be put into the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but some wonder if it will be enough. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan DEQ)

President Bush is recommending more money for
a program designed to clean up contaminated sediment
around the Great Lakes. But the program has a track
record of not being fully funded. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

President Bush is recommending more money for a program designed to clean up contaminated sediment around the Great Lakes. But the program has a track record of not being fully funded. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The President says he wants fifty-million dollars for the Great Lakes Legacy
Act, beginning this fall. But last year he asked for forty-five-million dollars and
Congress only granted half of that. It was the second year in a row that
Capitol Hill failed to fully fund the five year program.


Even if President Bush succeeds getting all the money he wants this year, EPA official Gary
Gulesian says it wouldn’t cover the fourteen projects waiting for federal dollars.


“So at this point we would not be able to fund all those projects assuming
they were all appropriate and we had the local matches in place.”


Environmental groups say they’re glad to see more money proposed for
sediment clean-up around the Great Lakes. But the groups say, overall, the
president’s budget makes significant cuts in other programs aimed at
cleaning up the nation’s water and air.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

How Far Will Dow Chemical Cleanup Go?

For years, a big chemical company has been negotiating
with government officials on cleaning up an area contaminated with dioxin. Environmentalists say Dow Chemical has used its power and influence to drag out the talks. The chemical company has agreed to plan for some kind of clean-up… but it’s still not clear how far that clean-up will go. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:

Transcript

For years, a big chemical company has been negotiating
with government officials on cleaning up an area contaminated
with dioxin. Environmentalists say Dow Chemical has used its
power and influence to drag out the talks. The chemical company
has agreed to plan for some kind of clean-up… but it’s still
not clear how far that clean-up will go. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Rick Pluta reports:


Dow Chemical is a huge employer in Michigan, it employs almost 60 thousand people, not including outside suppliers. In a state that has lost a lot of manufacturing jobs, a big company like Dow is important. The state of Michigan has been negotiating with Dow for nearly a decade over cleaning up dioxin downstream from the company’s big plant in the central part of the state. Just recently Dow and the state struck a deal on the next phase of coming up with a clean-up plan. But it’s not clear how long it will take to design the plan and it’s not clear exactly how far the plan will go to clean up the contamination.


The people who live in the floodplain of the Titabawassee River, downstream from the Dow Chemical plant in Midland, Michigan, say they’ve waited long enough for a cleanup plan. Almost a decade has passed since dioxin was first discovered in the river sediment.


(sound of river)


At Immerman Park in the town of Freeland, downriver from Dow, signs dot the riverbank. They warn parents to keep their children from playing here, because there’s dioxin in the soil.


(sound of hand-washing)


An earlier agreement with the state led Dow to put handwashing stations up here for children to clean up after playing in the dirt. Mary Whitney lives nearby. She says the sinks and faucets in the hand-washing stations are too high and too complicated for children to use, and they’re located too far from the banks of the river. She doesn’t think the kids are getting the dioxin contamination off their hands let alone off their shoes and clothes. She says it’s typical of how the dioxin question’s being handled in Michigan.


“It’s like, well, let’s do a little bit to show we’re doing something, but let’s not maybe address the whole issue. We’ll do just a little but to keep the peace and to keep everybody from not getting so much up in arms. But I think, they’re trying to do, Dow is, trying to do some things to help. But it’s just putting a little Band-Aid on the whole issue. It’s not fixing the main problem.”


For decades one of the by-products of the chemicals Dow produced was dioxin. It’s believed dioxin has been in the soil around Midland since the early 20th century. The fact that dioxin contaminated the sediment along the river downstream was only discovered within the last decade.


Studies have linked dioxin to health problems, including cancer and damage to the nervous system. The state says dioxin has spread to the environment round the Titabawassee River to the point that it issued warnings to hunters to limit how much wild game they eat from the area. That’s because the state says deer, squirrels and other game might be contaminated with dioxin.


Dow and its supporters say the risks posed by dioxin are being overstated. Dow officials say there’s no evidence that the dioxin levels in the Titabawassee floodplain pose a threat to the public health. Dow researcher Jim Collins says the company has six decades of research on employees who’ve been exposed to high levels of dioxin, and the worst health effect is a mild form of chloracne in some of the company’s employees.


Chloracne is the skin condition that disfigured Ukraine’s president, Victor Yushchenko, after he was poisoned by a large dose of dioxin.


“We’ve studied heart disease, diabetes, immunologic effects, reproductive effects, and cancer. And other than some increased risk of chloracne in these workers, we find no health effects that have been related to dioxin exposures.”


Backers of the company say critics should be careful about calling for penalizing Dow. Janee Valesquez is the the local economic development group “Midland Tomorrow.” She says Dow’s impact on the local economy amounts to almost a billion dollars a year.


“So Dow is absolutely… an anchor for mid-Michigan.”


Businesses and workers don’t want to damage relations with the chemical giant. Jim Ballard is an economist at Michigan State University. He says there is some risk that Dow could abandon Michigan. Texas is the new home of the chemical industry, he says, because energy’s cheap and it doesn’t burden industry with a lot of environmental regulations.


“I think Dow might consider leaving if they felt the business regulatory climate in Michigan was excessively onerous. On the hand, it would be very costly for them to leave. They’ve got a large investment in infrastructure and human capital in the Midland area, and to reverse would be a decision that I’m sure they would not take lightly.”


But critics of how the dioxing clean-up has been handled think the economic concerns should not be more important than the health risks to people who live nearby – people such as Mary Whitney. She and others filed a lawsuit seeking a lifetime of medical tests paid for by Dow. That case is before the state Supreme Court. Whitney says she’s afraid a cleanup plan will get bogged down in talks, or delayed by studies.


“We want them to clean it up. Take responsibility for what they’ve done and clean it up and make it safe for all of us. Now I’m not sure what all that would entail. Surely maybe dredging the river to make it deeper. Shoring up the shores, so it doesn’t flood any longer. And fill in the yards with clean soil. And that’s going to be a big thing to do.”


Many critics of the state’s handling of the dioxin clean-up believe anything less than an extensive clean-up is putting business and jobs ahead of the health of the people in Midland and downstream along the Titabawassee River.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Rick Pluta.

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

Work to Begin at First Great Lakes Legacy Act Site

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it’s beginning the first clean-up project under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The measure allots 270 million dollars in federal funding over five years to target contaminated sediment in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:

Transcript

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has announced that it is beginning the first
clean up project under the Great Lakes Legacy Act. The measure alots 270 million dollars
in federal funding over five years to garget contaminated sediment in the region. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has details:


The EPA and the state of Michigan will spend 6.5 million dollars to clean up the Black
Lagoon on the Detroit River. The area was given its name when aerial pictures showed oil
and grease swirling in the lagoon. The project is the first that will take place under the
new Great Lakes Legacy Act. EPA administrator Mike Leavitt says plans to build a new housing
development nearby played a role in making the Black Lagoon project a priority.


“The most important thing is the where we can make the biggest difference and the fastest.
Because there is a good plan in place that will not just improve the environment, but also
boost the economy, that’s so much the better.”


The EPA says about 90 thousand cubic yards of sediment contaminated with oil, mercury, and
PCBs will be dredged from the Black Lagoon. The agency says the project should begin
in mid-October and be completed by mid-January.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jerome Vaughn in Detroit.

Related Links

Cargo Ships Oppose Proposed Ballast Rules

A proposed bill requiring ocean-going foreign vessels to dump their ballast water before they enter the Great Lakes is receiving strong criticism from shipping groups. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

A proposed bill requiring ocean-going foreign vessels to dump their ballast water before they
enter the Great Lakes is receiving strong criticism from shipping groups. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:


Helen Brohl of the Great Lakes Shipping Association agrees that the introduction of invasive
species into the lakes from ballast water is a problem. Zebra mussels alone have caused about a
billion dollars in damage since they got into the Great Lakes from foreign vessels in the
1980s. But Brohl says a bill proposed by a Michigan Congresswoman is too radical. She says
requiring ships to dump virtually all their ballast water before entering the Great Lakes would put
an end to international shipping in the area.


“When you have no cargo on a ship you have to use ballast water to even out the vessel in rough
weather. It’s a very dangerous thing not to have ballast water on board.


Brohl says a better approach is to require ships to use stringent ballast water management. That
includes regular flushing and keeping sediment out of the water.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Erosion in the Gulf Blamed on Midwest

Scientists say part of the problem with erosion along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico begins in the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Weber reports:

Transcript

Scientists say part of the problem with erosion along the coast of the
Gulf
of Mexico begins in the Midwest. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Tom Weber reports:


In a recent report… the U.S. Geological Survey says Louisiana’s
coastline
is disappearing faster than first thought. By the year 2050… one-third
of the state’s current coastline could be gone.


Restoration depends a lot on sediments. As they flow south… they’re
diverted to build new land along the coast. But the USGS’ Jimmy
Johnston
says the locks and dams along the Missouri… upper Mississippi… and
Ohio
Rivers trap much of that sediment…


“They have had numbers as high as 67% of the sediments that come
down the
river are being diverted or meeting these locks and dams. If you have
less
sediments there’ll be less sediments to build land.”


Johnston adds more study is needed to know just how much locks and
dams in
the Midwest affect Louisiana’s coast. For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, I’m Tom Weber.

Manmade Islands Stir Debate

For more than one hundred years, man has made changes to rivers and lakes. Locks, dams, and redirecting waterways has raised water levels and increased river flows. One effect has been the near disappearance of islands that once provided habitat for fish, plants, and birds. Some groups are trying to rebuild those islands. But the concept of a man-made island is not universally accepted. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

For more than one hundred years, man has made changes to rivers and lakes. Locks, dams,
and redirecting waterways has raised water levels and increased river flows. One effect
has been the near disappearance of islands that once provided habitat for fish, plants, and
birds. Some groups are trying to rebuild those islands. But the concept of a manmade
island is not universally accepted. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl
reports:


Jim Baldwin is driving his small boat along an island in the Illinois River, the body of
water that connects the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River. He is an environmentalist
that has been watching this portion of the river for years, and likes what he sees. He’s retired now,
and spends most of his time either at his cabin on the riverfront just north of Peoria, Illinois
or working with environmental groups looking to preserve rivers and streams. These
islands are not natural. The Army Corps of Engineers made them ten years ago. Baldwin
says since then, it’s not uncommon for him to take his boat out and see fifty to a hundred
pelicans.


“Everybody tells me that until this island was built, they never even stopped here. Now
some of them stay year round.”


The Corps built the islands by dredging silt and sediment that had been clogging nearby
portions of the river. The theory is the manmade islands would provide a buffer from the
river flow, and create an area of deep water that could provide habitat for sport fish. It
would also provide a feeding area for migrating birds.


John Marlin is a researcher with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. He says the
program has been a success.


“The islands stop the large waves that come across the lake and there is a calm area behind
the islands the waterfowl seem to appreciate. Also, the birds such as pelicans and alot of the wading birds are using
the islands as resting areas.”


Marlin says the islands are growing thick vegetation, and the soil dredged from the river
has proven to be free of any pollutants that are present in some river sediments.


But not all environmentalists sing the praises of manmade islands. Some believe these
new islands will suffer the same fate of the natural islands that are now gone.


Tom Edwards is the head of River Rescue, an environmental group focusing on rivers. He
says the man made islands are only a temporary fix:


“The islands are an illusion. All of the wonderful that they say are going to result from the islands are not going to result. We have 113 islands in the river right now, and it hasn’t
resulted from a single one of them. So let’s learn from what’s here right now. So they are
going to dig the water deeper around these islands and hope that’s going create deep water.
It will be very temporary. Deep water amounts to a silt trap.”


Edwards says it is just a matter of time until the sediment fills up the deep water areas created by the manmade islands. He says until there are significant changes in land-use policy that keep sediment from entering rivers, manmade islands will only be a quick fix.


But river activist Jim Baldwin says many states and local governments are starting to adopt
land use policies that will keep sediment out of the Midwest Rivers and streams. He also
says using dredged materials to create the islands will help alleviate the problem. He says most importantly, the manmade islands are getting the job done.


“It does two things. Number one is it provides the deep water that we need for fisheries.
The island itself will grow trees and habitats for all kinds of birds. It will do that. That’s what it’s all based on is those two things.”


While the debate over man made islands continues, the Army Corps of Engineers is proposing to build two more islands on the Illinois River in the coming years.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Electrical Charges Zap Pollution

  • A worker samples polluted mud in a test pit. Researchers are trying to break down contaminants in the mud using electrical charges. A German company developed the technology, which U.S. officials hope will be cheaper than dredging polluted sediments. Photo courtesy of MPR.

One of the biggest challenges facing Great Lakes water quality comes from polluted harbors. Scores of underwater sites have been identified, but cleanup has been painfully slow. Now, some people are taking a new approach – they’re using an electrical charge to clean up pollutants. It’s the first test in this country of the system. Supporters say it’s cheaper and faster than conventional methods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher reports:

Transcript

One of the biggest challenges facing Great Lakes water quality comes from
polluted harbors. Scores of underwater sites have been identified, but
cleanup has been painfully slow. Now, some people are taking a new
approach – they’re using an electrical charge to clean up pollutants. It’s
the first test in this country of the system. Supporters say it’s cheaper
and faster than conventional methods. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Bob Kelleher reports:


Stryker Bay is a lovely little cove alongside the St. Louis River, near Lake
Superior, in Duluth, Minnesota. It’s a gentle water with ducks in the
summer; and a shady hiking path along the shore.


Tim Leland lives along the shore. From his home, he sees waterfowl, and
fouled water.


“Stryker Bay is a shallow bay. It’s six foot at the most of water.
But there’s a silt that’s underneath it, and all this tar and stuff that’s
coming up. Summertime there we do have a lot of oil that makes the surface
there.”


The bottom of Stryker Bay is a biological time bomb. Under the sand, are
pools of oily stuff – that experts call polynuclear aromatic-hydrocarbons,
or PAH’s. For nearly a century, Stryker Bay was an industrial sewer. PAH’s
were first identified under the bay in the 1970’s. That tar like stuff is
still there. There’s not enough money and little agreement how to get rid
of it.


But what if you could make pollution go away by throwing a switch? That’s
essentially what a German based company promises. And U.S. officials are
listening. The first underwater test in the United States of
Electrochemical-GeoOxidation treatment is underway in Duluth. And early
results show promise. It’s a simple concept, according to Ken Whittle with
Electro Petroleum Inc., who describes the process underway behind him in a
pair of water-filled pits.


“It’s a pretty simple kind of thing. If you want to look at it;
if you have a battery charger at home, you plug the battery charger in, you
take the two leads and you connect them to the terminals on a battery. Well,
that’s pretty analogous to what’s going on here.”


Each pit is filled with polluted mud and covered with water. Metal pipes
are sunken into the muck. In one pit, a carefully controlled electrical
charge pushes electrons through the sediment between the pipes. It’s
supposed to break the electron bonds of dangerous molecules; like PAH’s.
What’s left is harmless – like carbon and water.


The test is financed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers: the agency responsible for dredging shipping lanes.
Dealing with polluted sediment is a huge expense, according to Army Corps
researcher Tommy Myers.


“It’s a real big problem for us to dispose of that material. We
can’t put it back into the water. And, typically, we confine it in what we
call a confined disposal facility, and just store the material into
perpetuity and let it break down by natural processes, if it will.”


Officials would rather destroy pollutants than store them, but conventional
methods are expensive, smelly, and noisy. And they all require dredging,
and that’s expensive.


“In this particular technology, it wouldn’t necessarily require
dredging. There’s very little noise or gaseous emissions associated with
it. The main thing is it could be applied in situ; that means in the water,
without having to dredge.”


Proponents say Electrochemical-GeoOxidation is a bargain. Pollution
officials say conventional methods might cost as much as 200 dollars to
clean up a single cubic yard of sediment from Stryker Bay. But, according
to David Bowman with the Army Corps of Engineers in Detroit, electrical
cleanup might cost a quarter of that.


“Our goal with this project was to find a technology that would
work for around one hundred dollars per cubic yard. The vendor talked about
that they might be able to treat material for around forty five to fifty
dollars per cubic yard at Duluth Harbor.”


And the contractor claims the process works fast. A typical site can be
cleaned in just a few months. It’s also supposed to work on metals, like
mercury, which attach to the electrodes, which can then be disposed of in a
hazardous waste facility.


In the Duluth test, PAH’s have decreased by forty five percent in about a
month. That’s promising, although far from conclusive. The process
won’t get every molecule, but it’s intended to reduce contaminants below
dangerous levels.


Tests began in Duluth this summer, but results are several months away.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bob Kelleher.