Epa Proposes Controls on Livestock Waste

The U.S. EPA is proposing new rules to control pollution at large-scalelivestock farms. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahlreports some activist groups say the restrictions don’t go far enough:

Transcript

The US EPA is proposing new rules to control pollution at large scale livestock farms. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports some activist groups say the restrictions don’t go far enough.


The proposed rules include requiring companies to be held accountable for cleaning up waste spills. They would also put limits on spraying animal waste onto farm fields. But some environmentalists are calling the rules grossly inadequate. Karen Hudson is the President of the Illinois based Families Against Rural Messes.


“There are still many loopholes that remain, and as a grass roots
person who is experiencing factory farms near my home I’m seeing that the water quality problems and the air quality problems are not being addressed.”


Hudson says the EPA rules do nothing to phase out storing waste in large open-air lagoons. She also says they do not address the release of airborne particles that can cause disease. The EPA will take public comment on the proposed rules until the middle of April. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

Commentary – Working From Home

The gift-giving season has come and gone. Some folks ended up withsweaters that were two sizes too large, some folks got sparkly baubles,and lots of people were the beneficiaries of gifts promising to simplifytheir lives – including their work lives. With millions of Americansworking out of their homes, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentatorJulia King thinks home-office life after the holidays is going to besmooth sailing! Or is it?:

Transcript

The gift-giving season has come and gone. Some folks ended up with sweaters that were two sizes too large; some folks got sparkly baubles; and lots of people were the beneficiaries of gifts promising to simplify their lives – including their work lives. With millions of Americans working out of their homes, Great Lakes Radio Consortium
commentator Julia King thinks home-office life after the holidays is going to be smooth sailing! Or is it?


Testing, testing, one, two, three. Testing, testing listen to me.


This is great. I’m standing in my living room right now because my generous, genius husband got me recording equipment for Christmas. I’m his very favorite NPR commentator. I think.


So, I used to have to go to an actual studio for this kind of thing. *LOOK AT MY PICTURE, MOMMY* Not now, honey. I had to get in my car (and burn fossil fuel), drive miles away (sometimes in snow or pouring rain) and then *VIOLIN PLAYS IN BACKGROUND* I’d hope that the engineer would show up.


Hey, Sweetheart. Mommy’s working here. Can I get a little cooperation? Thanks.


Anyway, one of the studios had this weird hum. We never could figure out exactly what it was… *MAN YELLS QUESTION IN BACKGROUND* I think I saw it in the upstairs bathroom.


I remember once I brought a big wool blanket into the studio and we hung it over some buzzing generator but it…


*PHONE RINGS*


Hello. Oh, hi. What’ cha doing? Oh yeah. That’s too funny. Hey, can I call you back? I’m actually recording right now. Uh huh. No. It’s serious, high-quality stuff. Stuart got it for me for Christmas. Yeah. Isn’t that great? Okay, I’ll talk to you later. Bye.


So the wool blanket didn’t work. And the other studio was, well, let’s just say we had a
minor disagreement about my importance. You know how that is.


Generally speaking, the only downside to this whole commentary thing has been the recording aspect. Now it’s like all my problems *DOG BARKS* are solved. Can somebody let the dog out? Now I’m going to be working all the time. Wow. I recommend this set up to anybody who’s considering working for radio.


This is fabulous. I wonder what great idea my husband will come up with next year for Christmas. I hope he gets me a snow-cone maker.

SEEKING CHEAPER DREDGING METHODS (Part 3)

Dozens of Great Lakes communities are trying to find ways to pay for removing contaminated sediment from bodies of water. Dredging silt full of pollutants from the bottoms of the rivers and lakes can cost tens of millions of dollars. In the third and final part of our series on contaminated sediment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on what may be the only attempt in progress to find a new way to dredge toxic silt and mud:

Transcript

Dozens of Great Lakes communities are trying to find ways to pay for removing contaminated sediment from bodies of water. The cost of dredging silt full of pollutants from the bottoms of the rivers and lakes can cost tens of millions of dollars. In the third and final part of our series on contaminated sediment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on what may be the only attempt in progress to find a new way to dredge toxic silt and mud.


(ambient sound in the warehouse)


Two engineers are working in the back of a massive warehouse at Kress Corporation headquarters in Brimfield, Illinois. They are standing over a bin six feet wide and twenty feet long. It’s full of green water and thick brown muck. This is a replica of a river bottom and its sediment… — sediment that could contain pollutants including PCB’s, mercury, and lead.


(ambient sound – the dredger in action)


Crawling through the bed is a machine that houses a two-foot diameter disc. It looks like a Ferris wheel that scoops up its sediment passengers at the bottom of its rotation, and deposits it into a container next to the dredge just before dropping down to make another cut into the muck. Jim Sutor is an engineer with Kress Corporation. He says if the full size model works as well as this one-tenth size prototype, it will be much more efficient than the current method of removing contaminated sediment using a clam shell dredger – a bucket raised and lowered by a crane:


“It’s more of a continuous operation, so it’s more efficient than a
clamshell, where a clamshell goes down and takes a cut, brings it up, then puts it into something. Well this wheel is continually moving the whole time. It’s continually taking a cut.”

Sutor says the full size version of this machine will be able to dredge 1600 cubic yards per hour, and stir up less sediment into the water column than clamshell dredges. But not everyone is convinced that this new technology will do much to solve the problems that face communities looking to clean toxic areas.


Michael Palermo is a contaminated sediment expert with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He says it’s risky to invest a lot of money on new dredging technology, especially considering dredging equipment already exists that can remove contaminated sediment from lakes and rivers.


“Well I think we know very well how to address these problems with technologies we have. The problem that we have is that some of the technologies that we would like to apply are very expensive, and we do think there is research needed, but there are ways to address the problems with the technologies that we have now.”


Kress Corporation is predicting their new dredge will be a more financially viable option to current machines. But they can’t prove it yet. The company is receiving federal funds to help with the development of the new technology. Illinois Congressman Ray LaHood says the one million dollars that is going toward the Kress Dredger is a good allocation of sediment remediation money:


“We know there are lots of bodies of water all over the country that are in great need of a piece of machinery like this to save lakes or rivers, or other bodies of water.”


However, some communities say the government is throwing away money on research, when that same money could be used to clean up their neighborhood waterways. They argue that existing technology is good enough to remove the contaminated sediments from their rivers and lakes. But officials at Kress Corporation say once their full sized prototype is in the water, it will be clear that the money was well spent. Those tests are scheduled to begin later this year. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

BARRIERS TO CLEANER SEDIMENTS (Part 2)

Contaminated sediment is a major problem in the Great Lakes region. Dozens of lakes and rivers are lined with sediment full of chemicals that are killing plants and animals and poisoning area residents. In the second part of our series on contaminated sediment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on some of the major obstacles facing those who want to clean up the toxic hot spots:

Transcript

Contaminated sediment is a major problem in the Great Lakes region. Dozens of lakes and rivers are lined with sediment full of chemicals that are killing plants and animals and poisoning area residents. In the second part of our series on contaminated sediment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on some of the major obstacles facing those that want to clean up the toxic hot spots.

(ambient sound – White Lake)


It is a clear and cool day on the shores of White Lake in Western Michigan. While
the crisp wind and blue waters may make this lake seem clean and clear, this is one of the
43 areas of concern in the Great Lakes region – places the federal government has designated as containing dangerously high levels of pollutants. Even with that government designation, there is not always a consensus that there is a problem at a particular location. Rick Rediske is with Grand Valley State University, and has studied dozens of contaminated sediment sites. He says while pollution standards have been set for water and soil, there are no standards for defining contaminated sediment. He says since there are no rules on how many parts per million of pollutants like mercury or lead are acceptable in sediment, there is not a definitive answer to basic questions about the safety of a body of water.


“You can put together reasons why you think there’s a concern about the
sediment contamination, and somebody else can look at it too and put together a totally
contrary position by looking at other factors and twisting them a bit. So there is a lot of
wiggle room when you are operating in a situation where there is no numerical criteria.”


That means a company that has been polluting a lake or other body of water for years can
mount a reasonable defense to avoid blame for contaminated sediment – and in turn avoid
paying for the clean ups that often total tens of millions of dollars. Rediske says he
doubts there will ever be standards on polluted sediment levels because the material’s
very makeup is so complex. Michael Palermo is a contaminated sediment expert with
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He says for years, researchers have focused on ways
to clean up polluted air, water, and soil.


“But sediments don’t really fall clearly into any of those categories. There are aspects related to all three of them, and so magnitude of the problem and the nature of the problem, I like to think of it almost as a fourth environmental medium.”


Coming to a consensus on what areas are contaminated is just the first of many hurdles
that must be overcome before a site can be cleaned. Then communities have to decide how to
treat the contaminated area. Options include putting down a cap over the polluted area,
dredging and removing the sediment, and removing the pollutants from the sediment while it is
at the bottom of the lake or river. Each method has advantages and disadvantages, and there
can often be a protracted fight over which method is best for a particular site. One of the
most recent examples is the Hudson River. General Electric, which legally dumped PCB’s into
the Hudson until the late 1970’s, has fought for several years the possibility of dredging
portions of the river. GE officials claim the PCBs are now locked up in the river sediment, and dredging will only serve to release those chemicals back into the water. The EPA however recently ordered limited dredging, saying methods that would contain the PCBs in place would not work. GE continues to fight that decision. Even when a community can agree that an area needs to be cleaned, and agrees on a method to do it, there is the issue of money. Those groups often look to the government for help, and are often disappointed. Cameron Wilson is a staff member for Michigan Congressman Vern Ehlers.


“There are federal resources for dealing with contaminated sediment. But the issue from a nationwide perspective is so vast and issue is controversial and complex that I don’t think we have begun to scratch the surface on what we need.”


Wilson says Ehlers, along with other members of Congress in the Great Lakes region plan to reintroduce legislation to specifically fund cleaning contaminated sediment sites in the Great Lakes. Meanwhile, many of the funding problems could perhaps be solved if there were a cheaper way to remove contaminated sediment from lakes and rivers. A new Illinois Company may be headed in that direction. Peoria Dredging LLC is a new company that is developing a non-hydraulic dredger and sediment transportation system.


But this new technology is in its infancy. The new company hopes to have a full sized
prototype ready for testing in two years. Company officials say the success of the project is also dependent on federal funds to help development. The same federal funds that many
Great Lakes communities would like to see used to clean toxic hot spots with technology that
already exists. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

TOXIC SEDIMENTS THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH (Part 1)

Dozens of rivers and lakes in the Great Lakes region contain contaminated sediment. In the first of a three part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on the severity of this problem facing the region:

Transcript

Dozens of rivers and lakes in the Great Lakes region contain contaminated sediment.
In the first of a three part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on the severity of this problem facing the region.


(ambient sound – digging for worms)


A woman who only gives her name as Marsha is digging for worms along the shore of Muskegon Lake in Western Michigan. She says worms at the bait store are too expensive, so she comes out here every week or so to look under rocks and dig up night crawlers from the damp and silty soil on the lakefront.


(more ambient sound – more digging)


The Norton Shores resident says she fishes in the lake, and eats what she catches. While
she will eat the animals that live in Muskegon Lake, she says she has to be very careful
around the water. Marsha says she is seeing a doctor because of rashes and burning skin
that cropped up after spending too much time in the lake:


“I don’t stand in it anymore. I used to stand in it, but it was burning me, I was getting big burns. And then I started getting them on my hands. Now I have to wear gloves on my hands when I fish and touch the water.”


One possible reason for her skin troubles could be the massive amount of contaminated sediment in the waters – pollutants that have entered the lake over the past one hundred
years. Many of those pollutants settled in the sediment and silt that rests at the bottom of the lake, but some are also spread throughout the water itself. Muskegon Lake is one of 43 places that have been designated by the federal government as areas of concern in the Great Lakes Region. These toxic hot spots are bodies of water where pollutant levels are considered dangerous. Tanya Cabala is an activist with the White Lake Public Advisory Council, a citizens activist group trying to clean up contaminated sediment. She says years of Great Lakes residents allowing large industrial plants to locate right next to lakes and rivers is taking its toll.


“Where we live, we made some deliberate choices in past decades to chose jobs and development and those kinds of things over protecting the environment. There was the attitude that you couldn’t have both.”


Cabala says a major focus for her group is to educate people on the dangers of toxic
sediment in the Great Lakes region. Amy Mucha is an analyst with the U.S. EPA. She
says levels of PCB’s, mercury and dioxins pose many long-term health risks to people
who eat the fish or drink the water from these areas, or even come in contact with the
water.


“Impairment of reproductive ability, we have seen some of that in monkey studies. There have actually been some studies of children in the Great Lakes area in Michigan showing that women who ate contaminated fish out of the Great Lakes – their children had reduced IQ, children had reading difficulties and other kinds of learning difficulties.”


Mucha says since many of the health problems caused by polluted sediment take years to
manifest themselves in people, it is difficult to convince the public that there is an immediate need to fix the problem. The federal government has known about toxic sediment problems for more than fifteen years. That’s how long ago Congress first designated the Areas of Concern. Scott Cieniawski is with the U.S. EPA’s Great Lakes Office. He says since then, only one million cubic yards of sediment have been dredged from the Great Lakes toxic hot spots. That’s less than two percent of the estimated total of sixty million cubic yards of polluted sediment. Cieniawski says there is still a lot of work to do and projects to fund.


“We have to find a way to start coordinating at all levels and get the funding and get the technical people involved and actually start cleaning up. Because I think we know where the contamination is for the most part, and now its time to go get it.”


But Cieniawski says now could be a turning point in the battle to remove toxic sediment.
He says the research is done and an opportunity exists for a major effort to begin taking
action. But dredging toxic sediment sites faces many problems. Companies that are often responsible for the contamination are fighting efforts to clean the sites in an attempt to avoid the blame and cost involved. And the numerous layers of government agencies are contributing to a very fragmented, and often under funded, effort to solve this problem that still plagues many bodies of water in the Great Lakes region. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.