Tag: sludge

Oil Refinery Expansion on Hold

An oil refinery is expanding in part to meet growing demand for gasoline. The
refinery planned to dump more waste into the Great Lakes. Laura Weber reports
the refinery company is now delaying those plans:

Transcript

An oil refinery is expanding in part to meet growing demand for gasoline. The
refinery planned to dump more waste into the Great Lakes. Laura Weber reports
the refinery company is now delaying those plans:


British Petroleum plans to expand its Indiana refinery near Lake Michigan.
State and federal authorities have given BP permission to dump more ammonia
and sludge into the lake.


This is the first time a company has been allowed to dump more pollution into the
Great Lakes since the Clean Water Act was passed in 1977.


But BP is putting its plans on hold after meeting with Congressional leaders.
US Senator Debbie Stabenow says Congress wants to make sure BP will dump the
least amount of waste possible:


“There is a real question in my mind, particularly, when we’re talking about a Great
Lake that’s impacted by a variety of state actions. I think this is an important thing
to look at.”


The expansion plans are delayed until September. A BP spokesman says if there is
additional dumping, it will not harm the Great Lakes ecosystem.


For the Environment Report, I’m Laura Weber.

Related Links

Epa to Loosen Aluminum Rules?

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:


When you make aluminum for vehicles, there’s a leftover
sludge that can include some toxic chemicals. The EPA wants
to loosen regulations on that sludge.


It says that could encourage more auto manufacturers to use
aluminum instead of steel in vehicle bodies, and since
aluminum is lighter than steel, those vehicles would burn
less gas. Don McKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists
says he’s not sure it’s a good idea:


“Aluminum can help to get us more efficient vehicles. But we
shouldn’t need to be changing the rules around aluminum
production to get aluminum into vehicles.”


McKenzie says if the government imposed stricter fuel
economy standards, and kept the rules on aluminum sludge in
place, more automakers would be forced to use aluminum
anyway.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.

The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.


The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:


“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”


Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Invasive Reeds Help Treat Wastewater

  • Phragmites, or "common reed," is being used to treat wastewater in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. (Photo by Adam Allington.)

Nature is often full of practical solutions to real-world problems. Take the case of sewage and wastewater treatment: for decades engineers have used mechanical means to process wastewater before disposing of the end product in landfills. It turns out that phragmites, a robust wetland reed, can do the job just as quickly and for a fraction of the cost. Adam Allington has more:

Transcript

Nature is often full of practical solutions to real-world problems. Take the case of sewage and wastewater treatment: for decades engineers have used mechanical means to process wastewater before disposing of the end product in landfills. It turns out that phragmites, a robust wetland reed, can do the job just as quickly and for a fraction of the cost. Adam Allington has more:


Brandee Nelson is wearing knee-high rubber boots. She’s wading out into a tiny patch of reeds gently swaying in the wind. They’re planted in a goopy substance that appears to be mud, but is actually…


“Sludge. We’re standing ankle deep in sludge. Sludge is the leftover solids from the conventional sewage treatment process. Things that are very organic in nature, but thin enough that you can’t really scoop it out with your hand. It’s not the consistency of yogurt, it’s more like a thin milkshake.”


That thin milkshake used to be the solid stuff that you flush down the drain. Brandee is an environmental engineer working for the village of Tivoli, New York. Today she is monitoring the growth of two recently planted reed beds. The reeds are an invasive wetland species called “phragmites,” or “common reed”. In most places these reeds are a problem because they crowd-out native plants, but here they’re doing a job.


“The whole reason to have the reed beds is really to get the largest volume reduction of your waste product. Because the sludge tends to have so much water in it, and phragmites sucks up an enormous amount of water. This bed, we’re standing in it now, this bed will be totally dry in one day.”


Even though Tivoli is relatively small at about 1000 residents, the village still produces 100,000 gallons of waste water every day. That waste water translates into a whole lot of sludge, which Tivoli then has to haul to landfills.


“We’ll probably be saving about $45,000 on hauling fees.”


Tom Cordier is deputy mayor for the village of Tivoli.


“At one point we had drying beds, and it took about a week for them to dry, and then we would come in with our backhoe and take out the dried material. But every time we got ready to do that, it would rain and we would have to start the whole process over again, and then in the wintertime it was always freezing, and finally we got to the point where we had to have it trucked away.”


Before they planted the reeds, Tivoli had to remove their liquid sludge once a month. When the reeds are fully grown, the village won’t need to haul anything away for over 10 years. But if reed bed technology is so efficient, why isn’t everyone using it?


The answer has a lot to do with the predictability of mechanics, versus the variables of biology.


“One of the issues with the reed beds is it’s a biological process. Engineers like to typically do things that are mechanical, things that fit into formulas.”


Dan Fleuriel is director of the wastewater treatment for the town of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. Shelburne Falls began experimenting with reed bed technology back in the early 1990’s. Unlike the short 3 foot reeds in Tivoli, the mature reeds in Shelburne Falls tower some 6 feet over us as we walk through them.


“We’ve been applying to these reed beds since 1993. It’s been very good for us because we’ve gone from a very time consuming process of de-watering sludge to something that we pretty much leave hands-off that we can rely on.”

Functionality and reliability: they’re fundamental to any civil engineering project. But Brandee Nelson notes that Tivoli’s reed beds also make sense from an environmental perspective.


“This waste product, 150,000 gallons of it, used to go to a landfill somewhere else and it wasn’t our problem any more. Now what we’re able to do is manage that waste product here on site in a relatively small footprint using a natural technology, a very low-energy technology, and in the end we’ll end up with a product that we can use for village landscaping projects.”


Tivoli’s reed beds are expected to reach full maturity by next summer. Success of the project is being followed closely by neighboring towns, who are also considering a switch to reed bed treatment plants.


For the Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

States to Crack Down on Ship Ballast Tanks?

  • Michigan Senator Patty Birkholz and state Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema proposing a "multi-state compact" to combat invasive species. (Photo courtesy of Senate Photowire)

A Michigan lawmaker is urging other states in the region to enter into a multi-state compact aimed at limiting the influx of invasive species into the Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

A Michigan lawmaker is urging other states in the region to enter into a
multi-state compact aimed at limiting the influx of invasive species into
the Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:


Federal regulations require ocean-going ships to exchange their ballast
water in the open ocean before they enter the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The
idea is to flush out any plants or animals that might have hitched a ride
from foreign ports. But Michigan state Senator Patty Birkholz says that
system isn’t working, because organisms can remain in the sludge at the
bottom of ships’ ballast tanks.


Birkholz is the co-chair of the Great Lakes legislative caucus. She wants
the eight states that surround the lakes to use their water pollution laws
to crack down on ships that release ballast water into the lakes.


“So it would require, first of all, them to get a permit to prove that
they’ve treated their ballast water, and then to treat their ballast water
in order to enter the Great Lakes basin.”


Birkholz hopes to have a multi-state compact in place by 2007.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

A “Poplar” Solution for Hog Waste?

Large scale hog farmers typically store their animal manure in large open air ponds called waste lagoons. They mix the liquid and sludge in the lagoons to fertilize their farmland. The process often poses problems for pork producers. But some farmers are using trees as a solution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Richie Duchon has more:

Transcript

Large scale hog farmers typically store their animal manure in large open
air ponds called waste lagoons. They mix the liquid and sludge in the
lagoons to fertilize their farm land. The process often poses problems for
pork producers. But some farmers are using trees as a solution. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Richie Duchon has more:


As hog farmers spray liquid manure on their land, they risk saturating the
soil with nutrients.


Environmental officials fear that these nutrients might be running off into
nearby lakes and streams, which can cause harmful algae blooms.


This is forcing farmers to spray the waste on more and more land.


Researchers are exploring other options for the waste.


The plan involves drying the waste lagoons and planting poplar trees on
top of them.


The trees would absorb many of the nutrients from the sludge. And they
hope this would reduce the amount of land needed to get rid of the
manure.


Frank Humenik is a researcher at North Carolina State University. He
says the sludge from the dried lagoons would stay in place while the
trees grow.


“The poplar trees restrict its movement, because they take up so much
moisture, and they also take up some of these nutrients, and give us a
harvestable wood product.”


Researchers are still running tests on water near the sites. And they think
the poplar trees will make the land reusable in about ten years.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Richie Duchon.

Related Links

Woman Fights Uphill Battle Against Water Diversion

  • Upstream on the Glen Tay River in the Fall of 1999. Residents fought against a Swiss company (OMYA) who wanted to draw water from the river to make slurry for products like toothpaste and paper. (Photo courtesy of Carol Dillon)

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being drained from her local river:

Transcript

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited
supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that
water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one
woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being
drained from her local river:


(sound of crunching leaves)


It’s been a wet spring. But the leaves along the shore of the Tay River in Perth, Ontario
crunch beneath your feet.


Carol Dillon walks a path that was once submerged in water. She stops at a maple tree, and
points to a ring of greenish bark around its trunk.


“This is where the water comes to normally in the spring…
This was sort of the natural shore line, but the water has not
been this high, this would be the fourth year now.”


(sound of wind, crunching of leaves)


Carol Dillon and her husband, Mel, bought this piece of land in
1999. They came here to retire. Then, in the fall of that year, the Tay River dried up.


Four months later, they were shocked when a manufacturer applied
to take 1.2 million gallons of water out of the river every day.


“We simply looked out the window at this very dry river and
said, well how are they going to do that?”


Dillon soon found out they weren’t the only people asking that
question. Six thousand residents depend on the river for drinking water.
Another six thousand draw from wells in the river’s watershed. People worried there wouldn’t be
enough clean water during the dry season. And that wildlife would suffer.


(sound of truck)


An 18-wheeler pulls out of the OMYA plant in Perth, carrying a
load of calcium carbonate sludge. The Swiss company needs water to make the sludge, which
goes into products like paper and toothpaste.


They already draw about 400 thousand gallons out of the area’s
groundwater each day. But OMYA wanted to triple its water consumption so it could step
up production, with a promise of new jobs.


The public had 15 days to comment on the company’s plan.


As a consultant with the federal government, Dillon knew a bit
about bureaucracy. So she started helping out neighbors, who weren’t sure what they
could do.


“At one of the public meetings, a farmer stood up and said,
‘I’ve been a farmer on the Tay River for 40 years, but I don’t know
what to write in a letter to the minister.’ He said, ‘well, we have
to be careful with the water.’ And I said, ‘that’s your letter.'”


Dillon says she wanted to convince people that their voices do
matter. So she dropped off envelopes for them, faxed their letters, and
answered lots of questions. Before she knew it, she had kick-started a grassroots
movement.


“I was not a tree hugger in my life and I never was a
political person, either, but always believed in responsibility…
This is a democracy and when people have an opinion on something,
your government should hear it.”


People were inspired by Dillon. Jackie Seaton is one of the many who got involved.


“She simply spoke to the issue of water. If you’ve ever read
any of her memos or heard her speak at a council meeting, I mean
everybody can understand what’s she saying because it’s in the
plainest and simplest terms. And I must say that was very, very impressive.”


Typically, the ministry of environment receives fewer than 10
letters. But 283 townspeople wrote in to oppose the water taking.


Despite that, the ministry granted OMYA its permit.


The residents could appeal the decision to a quasi-judicial panel. But without money or a lawyer,
they decided it would be impossible.


Dillon, however, disagreed. She forged ahead on her own, and won the right to a hearing. She
relied on scientists who had retired in the community to help her prepare. It would be her word
against lawyers representing the company and the government.


(ambient sound)


Dillon pulls a thick plastic binder off a bookshelf that’s packed
with evidence used in the hearing.


She insists she wasn’t against the water taking per se. She just wanted the government to make a
decision based on good science. The company was granted the initial permit based in part on 75-
year-old data. Dillon argued more research needed to be done.


Over the past eight years, 46 community groups have challenged
decisions by the Ministry of the Environment.


No one had ever won – until now.


The panel granted the company just one third of the amount of
water it requested, with a potential for more in the future. And it directed the province to conduct
more research on the river.


“First, we were…it was unbelievable and then we were
ecstatic that it was all worth it.”


But the citizens’ celebrations were short-lived.


In April of this year, Ontario’s environment minister, Chris
Stockwell, reversed the tribunal decision and reinstated the full
permit. He cited new information that predicted the river would drop only
a few inches when the water was removed. The minister won’t comment on the outcome, other
than to say he stands by his decision.


But OMYA’s plant administrator, Larry Sparks, says the decision
was based on science. And while he recognizes that citizens have a right to question the
government, he says it shouldn’t come at the expense of business.


“And it’s very difficult to make
business decisions when you apply for a permit and have to wait three
years for approval and conclusion of the process. Our concern was not with the people, but rather
with the fact that the process was allowed to go on for three years.”


For Carol Dillon, the minister’s decision was a disappointing end to a
long struggle.


“You can have this two and a half year-long process and the
minister can just overturn it, politically, then what’s the point
of it all? So I’m back to where I started.”


(sounds by the river)


But Dillon hasn’t given up. Now she’s lobbying Ontario to adopt new standards for water use.
She doesn’t care if she has to write letters, battle lawyers or
lobby politicians – she just wants her community, and everyone in
Ontario, to have a say in the future of their water.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Eliminating Mercury in Sewage Treatment

A city along Lake Michigan is fighting the construction of a waste-treatment plant. The town filed a lawsuit against the local waste-treatment company that wants to dry and burn sludge from half the surrounding county. City officials say they don’t want an eye sore on their lake front and environmentalists are worried about mercury getting into the lake. But the sanitary district says it has a system that will virtually eliminate emissions. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports, environmentalists say that’s not enough:

Transcript

A city along Lake Michigan is fighting the construction of a waste-treatment plant. The
town filed a lawsuit against the local waste-treatment company that wants to dry and burn
sludge from half the surrounding county. City officials say they don’t want an eye sore on
their lake front and environmentalists are worried about mercury getting into the lake.
But the sanitary district says it has a system that will virtually eliminate emissions. As
the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie Macdowell reports, environmentalists say
that’s not enough:


After rolling out of bed in the morning, what’s the first thing you do? Do you use the
toilet? Take a shower? Brush your teeth? Probably one or all of the above. And what
happens to that unwanted dirty water? It just vanishes, right? Flushes into oblivion?
Disappears down the drain? Wrong. All that scummy sludge heads straight for your
local waste water treatment plant.


The North Shore Sanitary District along Lake Michigan in northern Illinois receives 187
tons of waste water a day. That adds up to 20 trillion gallons of the stuff a year. And in
among all that waste there are 26 different toxic metals. At this point, North Shore is
trucking the toxic sludge to landfills and dumping it. Brian Jensen is the general manager
of North Shore. He says toxic chemicals aren’t necessarily safe in a landfill because a
landfill liner can leak.


“If in fact, that liner were to leak, and there’s been a history around our country and in
Europe that these liners do leak, when that happens, the environmental liability is
extremely significant.”


With these worries in mind, a couple of years ago Jensen started looking around for a
new way to dispose of the sludge. He says a process called “sludge-drying” was the best
option.


Here’s how the system works: the sludge is pumped into a dryer where most of the water
is sucked out. Then the dried sludge is burned as fuel for the next part of the process –
the melter. The melter burns up the organic part of the sludge at 3000 degrees. That’s
hot enough to melt heavy metals. So after everything else is burned away, what remains
are the toxic metals locked up in a glass matrix that looks a lot like lava. It’s called glass
aggregate. It can be used in concrete where it’s sealed and can no longer pollute water or
soil.


The only toxic metal that doesn’t go into the glass matrix meltdown is mercury. That’s
because in the hot melter, mercury becomes a vapor. Over the course of the year, north
shore gets about 33 pounds of mercury – a third of it comes from fillings in people’s
teeth. The rest is from industry and commercial sources.


People in the area and environmentalists, object to the idea of the plant emitting all that
mercury into the air. That’s because it could further contaminate Lake Michigan which
already is contaminated by mercury from coal-burning power plants. Cameron Davis is
the head of the Lake Michigan Federation. He says mercury is a dangerous neurotoxin.


“You know the MadHatter in Alice in Wonderland? That character was developed
because in the old days, people who made hats actually used mercury in the hat
manufacturing process, and that mercury being around it in the manufacturing of hats,
would cause people, literally, to go insane, to go crazy.”

Davis says Lake Michigan already has a fish advisory because mercury has contaminated
the water so badly. If people eat the fish, especially expectant mothers and children,
there could be serious health effects. Mothers could pass mercury poisoning onto their
infants. Children’s bodies are especially susceptible because they’re developing so fast.
Davis says anyone who cares about the environment is against the construction of any
new source of mercury emissions.


But Brian Jensen says the North Shore sludge incinerator will fix that problem too. The
plans include a filtration system, to catch mercury in the vapor state. The air travels
through carbon canisters and the mercury particles cling to the carbon. The canisters last
for up to 5 years and then the mercury is recycled and reused. The result is something
less than two pounds of mercury emissions a year. Jensen says that’s such a small
amount that today’s scientific instruments can’t detect it in the normal emissions each day.
They’ve tried. And in the end, Jensen says it could very well be that the new North Shore
Plant will emit no mercury at all.


But Cameron Davis says any uncertainty is unacceptable.


“We do want to encourage different ways to be able to get to zero and if we are in fact
getting to zero, then we’ve got a different game here, and that’s important, but we are
talking about zero.”


But Davis doesn’t have any better ideas for getting rid of the sludge. He says North
Shore should continue landfilling for now.


Michael Murray with the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Office says there is
a better alternative. It’s a process called land application. That’s when sludge is used as
fertilizer for crops.


“There’s a study published on work in France recently where they looked at number of
different options for sewage sludge treatment and they found that land application in
general had the lowest environmental cost, in other words it was the best environmental
option.”


Murray says companies must have a really good pre-treatment program if they’re going
to use land application. That means capping levels of toxic metals before they get into
the sludge.


Brian Jensen at North Shore says he looked into land application and saw too many
problems. He says North Shore already has an award-winning pre-treatment program,
but they still get too many metals to land apply. And he’s heard about problems like e-coli bacteria growths from the fecal matter in the sludge. Beyond that, he says they just
have too much sludge and not enough land to fertilize.


Jensen says he’s confident the judge will not let the lawsuit stop north shore sanitary
district from building the plant. It already has the permits from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency. He’s amazed that people are giving north shore such a hard time,
when right next door to where they want to build the waste treatment plant, a coal-burning incinerator emits up to 450 pounds of mercury a year.


“The North Shore Sanitary District is truly people that are concerned about the
environment. And this process, even though it probably, it does, in fact, cost a little more
to own and operate than a landfill, the environmental gains, I’m saying the environmental
gains, not losses, are significantly greater than any other sludge disposal method.”


Jensen says environmentalists should be the first to recognize when a waste water
treatment plant is doing the very best job that’s possible with the most recent technology
available instead of criticizing the effort.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Annie Macdowell.

Superfund Sites Without Funds

The Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the EPA didn’t fund clean up for seven toxic waste sites this fiscal year. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie Macdowell reports, two of the seven sites are here in the Midwest:

Transcript

The Inspector General of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says the EPA didn’t fund clean-up for seven toxic waste sites this fiscal year. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Annie MacDowell reports, two of the seven sites are here in the Midwest:


A tax on chemical and oil companies expired in 1995.
The tax was used to fund clean ups at some of the country’s most polluted sites.
Now most of the funding comes from tax payers.
Clean-up on two Midwest sites was pushed back – the Jennison Wright Corporation in Illinois and Continental Steel in Indiana.
Hazardous chemicals are seeping into the ground water at these two sites.
Bill Muno, the Regional Superfund Director at the EPA, says to clean up more sites each year, Congress would have to increase Superfund appropriations.


“There isn’t enough money in that annual appropriation to cover all the work that needs to be done each year.”


Muno says the EPA Inspector General’s report shows there were more sites in line for funding that were delayed under the Bush Administration.
But he adds that tests show the sites are not an immediate threat to public health.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Annie MacDowell.

Commentary – Epa Misses an Opportunity

Last month (April) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency decided
against regulating ash and sludge from coal-burning power plants as a
toxic hazardous waste. Instead, the EPA will develop voluntary coal-ash
disposal standards. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston says the move is a major setback in the war against global
warming: