Call to Close Foreign Shipping

  • Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on foreign ships entering the Great Lakes. Foreign ships are believed to be responsible for many of the invasive species causing billions of dollars of damage to the Great Lakes economy and ecosystems. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Environmentalists are trying to ratchet up pressure on the shipping
industry over invasive species. They’re calling for a moratorium on
allowing ocean-going ships into the Great Lakes. David Sommerstein
reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists are trying to ratchet up pressure on the shipping
industry over invasive species. They’re calling for a moratorium on
allowing ocean-going ships into the Great Lakes. David Sommerstein
reports:


Foreign freighters account for about 25% of overall tonnage on the
Great Lakes.


Jennifer Caddick says those ships’ ballast water bring a new invasive
species into the region, on average, every six months. Caddick’s
group, Save The River, has joined Great Lakes United in a petition
campaign for a moratorium:


“There is continuous talk, you know over the past 10 or 15 years, about having new, stronger ballast regulations
to stem the flow of invasive species, and unfortunately, nothing has
happened. Frankly, we have said enough is enough.”


Caddick admits a moratorium is unlikely. The agency that runs the
shipping lanes says it would violate a 1909 treaty with Canada.


Invasive species do billions of dollars of damage in the Great Lakes.
There are five bills in Congress to address the problem, but none has made
it out of committee.


For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

States Pass Feds on Invasives Law

  • Federal restrictions have not stopped importation of invasive species. Now some states are passing laws that will stop some ocean-going ships from docking in their ports. (Photo by Lester Graham)

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:

Transcript

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


People in the shipping business say the problem is Michigan is
the only state in the Great Lakes region that is requiring ocean-
going freighters to install expensive technology as a condition
of using one of its ports.


John Jamian is the president of the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association. He says requiring ocean-going freighters to install
expensive technology before they can dock in Michigan ports won’t
solve the problem. The ships will just go to other Great Lakes
ports.


If a ship goes to Windsor or Toledo that doesn’t have these rules
and regulations, they will discharge their cargo. If there were
any critters on those ships they could still swim or crawl into
Michigan waters, so you still haven’t solved anything.


Jamian represents the owners of ships that travel from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
He says ship owners will very likely avoid Michigan ports, and
choose to unload at ports in other states and Canada:


“The fact of the matter is that they’re not going to put an
expensive piece of equipment just because Michigan calls for it
on their ship when in fact it may not be acceptable anywhere else
in the world and it might just be easier to take that cargo
across the river and unload it where they don’t have these
regulations.”


And for Michigan ports that are near other competing ports,
that’s a concern. Patrick Sutka is the treasurer for Nicholson
Terminal and Dock Company at the Port of Detroit:


“We fear these ships may be going to other ports, such as Windsor
right across the waterway, or other competitors of ours such as
Toledo or Cleveland.”


At the height of the shipping season, there might be three
freighters at a time moored to the docks, offloading steel and
other cargo. A hundred trucks a day will move in and out of the
docking area to get those commodities to factories.


On the dock right now are dozens of stacks of 20-ton slabs of
steel from France and Russia. That Russian steel was most likely
shipped from a port in the Caspian Sea or the Black Sea. The
freighters take on ballast water from those seas for the voyage
to the Great Lakes. That ballast water helps keep the ships low
and steady in the water.


The ships are required to exchange the water in deep ocean mid-
journey. The salt water is supposed to kill the fresh water
organisms. But, some organisms can survive the trip. That’s how
zebra mussels, quagga mussels and the round goby fish made their
way from the Balkans to the Great Lakes.


Those invasive species and others combine to cost the economy an
estimated 5 billion dollars a year. For example, zebra
mussels cost taxpayers and utility customers. It shows up in
your power bill because the utilities have to pay divers to
scrape the crustaceans off pipes carrying cooling water to power
plants.


Shipping companies, port owners, and dock workers’ unions are all
pressuring Michigan to hold off on enforcing its new law. What
they’d really like is for the federal government to step in,
negotiate with Canada, and create a regional set of rules for
combating aquatic invaders:


“…But the federal government has not had the guts or the
gumption to step up to the plate and get this done.”


Patti Birkholz chairs the Michigan Senate Environmental Affairs
Committee. She sponsored the law:


“So we’re going to do it on a state-by-state basis. Our eco-
system within the Great Lakes is what many scientists have termed
‘on the tipping point.’ We cannot deal with any more invasive
species in this system, and we know the majority of the invasive
species come through the ocean-going vessels. They know they’re
the cause. We know they’re the cause. We’ve got to deal with this
situation.”


Michigan’s new law is as much a political statement as anything
else and other states are starting to follow Michigan’s lead.
Birkholz says Wisconsin and New York could pass ballast standards
this year.


In the mean time, Michigan environmental officials say they
intend to enforce the state’s requirements when the Great Lakes
shipping season resumes in the spring. But, so far, no ocean
freighters have applied for a permit to dock at a Michigan Port.


For the Environment Report, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links

Court Orders Epa to Issue Ballast Rule

A federal court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to start regulating the discharge of ballast water from ships. Rebecca Williams reports it’s the first time the agency has had to take responsibility for the problem:

Transcript

A federal court has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to start
regulating the discharge of ballast water from ships. Rebecca Williams
reports it’s the first time the agency has had to take responsibility for
the problem:


Ballast water helps stabilize ships, but it can also carry foreign invasive
species that might harm local waterways.


For 30 years, the EPA has exempted ballast water from the Clean Water Act.


Now, the judge has given the EPA two years to come up with rules to limit
the discharge of ballast water.


Tim Eichenberg is with The Ocean Conservancy. The group is one of three
environmental groups that sued the EPA.


“Within two years, EPA should come up with something, some approach, that
could phase in a series of controls that could eliminate invasive species in
ballast water over a period of time.”


The shipping industry is concerned about having enough time to comply with
any new federal regulations.


Shippers already face some new laws at the state level. States such as
Michigan and California have passed their own laws restricting what ships
can do with their ballast in local waters.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Untapped Power in Offshore Wind Turbines?

  • Developers want to put wind turbines in offshore locations like Lake Ontario and off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo by David Orsborne)

The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:

Transcript

The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s
electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that
power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The
GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:


Until recently, the strength of the wind on the water was mainly of
interest to the shipping industry, anglers, and to people who like
to sail.


(Sound of sail ruffling and folding)


Lee Konczak is folding up the sail on a small sailboat that he often
takes out into Lake Michigan. Konczak says he likes the serenity of
riding on the wind and the beautiful view from offshore. Even so, he
says he wouldn’t mind if the view included a few wind turbines:


“With energy certainly being at the top of the news practically on a
daily basis right now, and with limited resources, I think an
experimental kind of thing with wind turbines would be excellent.”


Some wind power companies are planning more than a small
experiment. An effort is underway to put up 140 wind turbines in Lake
Ontario and another developer wants a wind farm off the coast of
Massachusetts. The industry would like to develop more projects. It
says the US is behind some European countries when it comes to
going offshore for wind. Compared to the US, European countries are
short on fossil fuel supplies and they don’t have as much land. So
they began placing turbines offshore a few years ago.


John Dunlop is with the American Wind Energy Association. He says the land-based
wind turbines in the US and Canada are important but often trigger local
disputes over new overhead transmission lines. Dunlop says lake-based
wind turbines would avoid some political squabbles by being close to
many cities:


“We enjoy living next to water, so consequently our population centers
tend to be close to the water which means a lake-based installation
may be no more than 10-20 miles away from that load center. Now, to get
that energy, that electricity from that wind project back to the city
you do need to have underwater cabling, but that’s a fairly common
technology so that’s not a huge impediment or a huge cost.”


Several environmental groups are getting on board with the idea of
putting wind farms in waterways. Charlie Higley is with the Citizens’
Utility Board in Wisconsin. He says there are already many coal and
nuclear plants near the water:


“Both of those have huge environmental and economic costs
associated with them, so we’re supportive of the development of
wind, not only on land but we really think the time is now to
start looking at developing wind resources on Lake Michigan.”


Higley acknowledges some people may not like the look of wind
turbines if they’re installed within view of the shoreline. Other
supporters concede there also needs to be more study of wind speeds
over the water. They also say there needs to be a cheaper way to fix
turbines that break down in waters dozens of feet deep.


Walt Musial helps oversee offshore wind projects at the National Renewable Energy
Lab. He says getting to a turbine in water is no easy task:


“You can’t drive a truck, so you have to drive a boat, or perhaps a helicopter like they do
in Europe. These add costs as well, and so these methods of accessing turbines have to be
developed and minimized.”


Still, Musial says because the Energy Department’s long-term goal is
to promote more wind production, he predicts some of that wind power
will come from offshore. But for now, the uncertainties have many
power companies rooted in inland turbines.


Kim Zuhlke is with Alliant Energy. He says his firm prefers a place
like Iowa, where there are already 800 wind turbines and a
desire from public officials to have more:


“You couple the acceptance, the economic growth, existing
transmission, all of those things together make it a logical place
for us to go.”


Still, Zuhlke says offshore wind turbines in the U.S. may become
a reality. He says engineers have to perfect a turbine that provides a big
enough payback for the additional expense of putting something way out in
the water.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

MARKETING a BY-PRODUCT OF ETHANOL (Short Version)

In the next six years, the amount of ethanol production is expected to double. With more corn ethanol plants coming online, the distillers are looking for ways to sell one of the by-products.
The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports ethanol distillers are selling the corn mash left over from turning corn into ethanol:

Transcript

In the next six years, the amount of ethanol production is expected to
double. With more corn ethanol plants coming online, the distillers
are looking for ways to sell one of the by-products. The GLRC’s
Lester Graham reports ethanol distillers are selling the corn mash
left over from turning corn into ethanol:


The mash, called distillers grain, is a good livestock feed. It’s
higher in protein than the same amount of corn. Since most of the
ethanol plants are being built in the corn-belt, the distillers are
trying to get nearby livestock operations to buy the distillers grain.


Jim Hilker is an agriculture marketing expert at Michigan State
University. He says that works… up to a point…


“It depends on whether the livestock is near. It appears, as many
plants are going up, that we’re going to saturate some areas. They’ll
have to be shipped somewhere.”


That means drying the distillers grain… and shipping it… both adding
to the cost. The trick is to keep the price the same or cheaper than
corn… to keep it competitive. With 97 plants operating and another 34
under construction to meet the government’s call to produce a lot more
ethanol… there could soon be a glut of distillers grain.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Ten Threats: Expanding the Seaway

  • A freighter leaving the Duluth harbor in Minnesota. (Photo courtesy of EPA)

One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by many of the experts we surveyed
is dredging channels deeper and wider for larger ocean-going ships. In the 1950s, engineers
carved a shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
River. The St. Lawrence Seaway was to make ports in cities such as Chicago and Duluth main
players in global commerce. Today, the Seaway operates at less than half its capacity.
That’s because only five percent of the world’s cargo fleet can fit through its locks and
channels. For decades, the shipping industry has wanted to make them bigger. David
Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

We’re continuing our series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes with a look at the idea of
letting bigger ships into the lakes. Lester Graham is our guide through the series.


One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes identified by many of the experts we surveyed
is dredging channels deeper and wider for larger ocean-going ships. In the 1950s, engineers
carved a shipping channel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence
River. The St. Lawrence Seaway was to make ports in cities such as Chicago and Duluth main
players in global commerce. Today, the Seaway operates at less than half its capacity.
That’s because only five percent of the world’s cargo fleet can fit through its locks and
channels. For decades, the shipping industry has wanted to make them bigger. David
Sommerstein reports:


(Sound of rumbling noise of front-loaders)


The port of Ogdensburg sits on the St. Lawrence River in northern New York State.
When the Seaway was built, local residents were promised an economic boom. Today
what Ogdensburg mostly gets is road salt.


(Sound of crashing cargo)


Road salt and a white mineral called Wallastonite – the Dutch use it to make ceramic tile.
Front-loaders push around mountains of the stuff. In all, the port of Ogdensburg
welcomes six freighters a year and employs just six people.


Other Great Lakes ports are much bigger, but the story is similar. They handle low-value
bulk goods – grain, ore, coal – plus higher value steel. But few sexy electronic goods
from Japan come through the Seaway, or the gijillion of knick-knacks from China or
South Korea.


James Oberstar is a Congressman from Duluth. He says there’s a reason why. A
dastardly coincidence doomed the Seaway.


“Just as the Seaway was under construction, Malcolm McLean, a shipping genius, hit on
the idea of moving goods in containers.”


Containers that fit right on trains and trucks. The problem was the ships that carry those
containers were already too big for the Seaway’s locks and channels.


“That idea of container shipping gave a huge boost of energy to the East Coast, Gulf
Coast, and West Coast ports, and to the railroads.”


Leaving Great Lakes ports behind ever since the regional shipping industry has wanted to
make the Seaway bigger.


The latest effort came in 2002, when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studied the
economic benefits of expansion. The study said squeezing container ships through the
Seaway would bring a billion and a half dollars a year to ports like Chicago, Toledo, and
Duluth. But if you build it, would they come?


“Highly doubtful that container ships would come in. Highly doubtful.”


John Taylor is a transportation expert at Grand Valley State University in Michigan.
He’s studied Seaway traffic patterns extensively. He says there would have to be “a sea
change” in global commerce.


“Rail is too competitive, too strong moving containers from the coast in and out say from
Montreal and Halifax and into Chicago and Detroit and so on, too cost-effective for it to
make sense for a ship to bring those same containers all the way to Chicago.”


The expansion study sparked a flurry of opposition across the Great Lakes. It failed to
mention the cost of replumbing the Seaway — an estimated 10 to 15 billion dollars. It
didn’t factor in invasive species that show up in foreign ships’ ballasts. Invasives already
cost the economy 5 billion dollars a year, and environmentalists said it glossed over the
ecological devastation of dredging and blasting a deeper channel.


Even the shipping industry has begun to distance itself from expansion. Steve Fisher
directs the American Great Lakes Ports Association.


“There was quite a bit of opposition expressed through the region, and in light of that
opposition we took stock of just how much and how strongly we felt on the issue and
quite frankly there just wasn’t a strong enough interest.”


Most experts now believe expansion won’t happen for at least another generation.
Environmentalists and other critics hope it won’t happen at all.


So instead, the Seaway is changing its tactics. Richard Corfe runs Canada’s side of the
waterway. He says the vast majority of Seaway traffic is actually between Great Lakes
ports, not overseas. So, the Seaway’s focus now is to lure more North American shippers
to use the locks and channels.


“Our efforts have to be towards maximizing the use of what we have now for the benefit
of both countries, the economic, environmental, and social benefit.”


Today, trucks and trains haul most goods from coastal ports to Great Lakes cities.
Shippers want to steal some of that cargo, take it off the roads and rails, and put it on
seaway ships headed for Great Lakes ports.


For the GLRC, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Seaway Toll to Hurt Shipping Business?

  • President Bush is proposing a toll for use of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Some worry the toll will dissuade usage and hurt businesses. (Photo courtesy of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics)

The Bush Administration wants to charge ships
for passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The
Seaway links the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean.
The Administration hopes the toll will help the
system pay for itself. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:

Transcript

The Bush Administration wants to charge ships for passing through the St. Lawrence Seaway. The Seaway links the Great Lakes with the Atlantic Ocean. The Administration hopes the toll will help the system pay for itself. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:


The Bush Administration’s spending plan for next fiscal year calls for
raising 8 million dollars through a new toll system on the Seaway. The
shipping industry says the move could hurt businesses and cost jobs. But
Seaway Administrator Albert Jacquez says he doesn’t expect tolls to affect
traffic levels. He says there used to be a toll, but it was eliminated in
1987.


“If you look at five years before we stopped collecting tolls and five years
after, you’ll see very little change in the level of cargo that moves
through the system, and so I wouldn’t expect a great impact.”


Jacquez says the state of the economy in North America has a much larger
effect on cargo than any other factor.


Great Lakes shippers say the plan is unfair because it would force them to
pay twice for using the Seaway – once for an existing harbor maintenance
tax, and again for a transit toll.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

High Lake Levels a Boon for Shipping

Water levels on the Great Lakes have come up this summer… thanks to the wet conditions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson has more:

Transcript

Water levels on the Great Lakes have come up this summer… thanks to the wet conditions. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson has more:


Higher water levels have been good for the shipping industry. Lake cargo is up 20 percent this
year. Glenn Neckvasil is with the Lake Carriers Association in Cleveland. He says a wet
summer has brought water levels closer to normal. Because of that, ships are able to carry a lot
more cargo.


“We did a little study here in July. Some of the thousand footers are carrying 2800 tons more per
trip. Some of the smaller ships are carrying as much as 1400 more tons per trip. So obviously,
this is a big boost to the efficiency of the industry.”


Neckvasil says water levels are just a fact of life… a cyclical thing.


Lakes Superior and Erie’s levels are up from last summer and close to the normal historic level.
Lake Ontario is above normal. Lakes Huron and Michigan are up a foot from last year, but still
about a foot below normal levels.


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

Related Links

Seaway Opening Day Disputed

  • The view from an icebreaker on the channel between the Snell and Eisenhower locks near Massena, NY. Icebreakers have to crunch through ice for the Seaway to open on time. (Photo by David Sommerstein)

The St. Lawrence River is the only way for international shippers to bring cargo in and out of ports such as Duluth, Detroit and Chicago. The river’s frozen during the winter and the shipping channel is closed. The date it re-opens each spring is highly controversial because icy conditions can damage the shoreline. Critics say the government agency that runs the Seaway is sacrificing the environment to get ships to port earlier. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein has more on this debate:

Transcript

The St. Lawrence River is the only way for international shippers to bring cargo in and out of
ports such as Duluth, Detroit and Chicago. The river’s frozen during the winter and the shipping
channel is closed. The date it re-opens each spring is highly controversial because icy conditions
can damage the shoreline. Critics say the government agency that runs the Seaway is sacrificing
the environment to get ships to port earlier. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David
Sommerstein reports:


This year the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation plans to allow shipping starting
March 25th. But the spring thaw comes late to northern New York and the St. Lawrence River.
Even in late March, there can still be lots of ice, especially in bays and coves. And it’s a sensitive
time for fish.


“There’s many species of fish that begin their spawning activities very early, even before the ice
is out.”


Stephen Litwiler of New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation says a ship’s wake
can rattle the ice enough to gouge delicate habitat.


“The ice going up and down is scouring the shoreline and pushing water in and out of the shallow
marshy areas and it’s dislodging vegetation that’s critical for these habitats.”


The bobbing ice can be so bad it can damage people’s docks and homes along the river.


A chorus of politicians and interest groups, including New York’s two senators and the Mohawk
tribe that lives along the river, are calling on the St. Lawrence Seaway to postpone its March 25th
opening date. Just one week, they say, will give the ice time to melt. Stephanie Weiss directs the
citizens’ group Save The River. She says environmentalists fear the date is driven by the
shipping industry.


“People lose money, so when you have that situation when they’re trying as hard as they can to
open early, we think it just makes it difficult for them to make the safest possible decision.”


The decision is made by government agencies in the U.S. and Canada. Seaway administrator
Albert Jacquez makes the call for Washington.


“To be honest with you, if I was listening to the industry and only the industry, we wouldn’t even
be talking about this date. We’d be talking about opening a lot sooner.”


Jacquez says the Seaway balances commercial demand with weather conditions, thaw trends, and
environmental concerns when it chooses an opening date. Last year thick ice forced the Seaway
to postpone the opening for the first time ever. Save The River’s Stephanie Weiss says it always
needs to be delayed rather than damage the river’s ecology.


“It was too early last year and it might be too early this year. It’s difficult really for anyone to
know.”


Weiss says getting cargo ships in and out of Great Lakes ports one week earlier isn’t worth the
risk of damaging the St. Lawrence River’s fish and nature for good.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

International Treaty to Combat Invasive Species?

  • The current range of the invasive zebra mussel. The mussel was first spotted in the Great Lakes in 1988 after being dumped overboard by a foreign ship. It has since spread throughout much of the United States.

Cargo ships bring goods that we buy, but they also bring invasive critters in their ballast water. These invaders compete with native species and upset the natural balance. Now, delegates from around the world have drawn up a plan to help stop the spread of these foreign stowaways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Cargo ships bring goods that we buy. But they also bring invasive critters in their ballast water.
These invaders compete with native species and upset the natural balance. Now, delegates from
around the world have drawn up a plan to help stop the spread of these foreign stowaways. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:


Ships need ballast water to keep them upright when sailing open waters. But often that ballast
water contains foreign species.


The international plan aims to implement guidelines that would clean up the ballast water. The
delegates will now try to get their countries to sign onto the plan.


It will be ratified when 30 countries representing 35% of the cargo shipped sign onto it.


Dennis Schornack is the U.S. Chair of the International Joint Commission. The Commission
monitors the health of the Great Lakes. He says the U.S. can’t wait for ratification and needs to
pass it’s own law now.


“I mean we’re having a new species discovered on the average of one every eight months. And if
the convention goes along an ordinary schedule of ratification it could be up to ten years to fifteen
years before it’s effective worldwide. So, we can’t wait that long.”


Schornack is hoping the international plan will give Congress the framework it needs to pass its
own law this year.


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

Related Links