EPA BANS CHEMICAL &Quot;MIXING ZONES"

For years, the rule of thumb for dealing with industrial waste wasexplained by a simple statement — ”the solution to pollutionis…dilution.” If a substance mixed with enough water, it was thoughtit would no longer be harmful. But it’s now clear that some toxicchemicals don’t just disappear in water. In fact, they can build upover time. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced a phase-outof a chemical dilution process called ”mixing zones” in the Great Lakesand the St. Lawrence River. The ban will serve as a test case forsimilar standards nationwide. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s DavidSommerstein reports:

Transcript

For years, the rule of thumb for dealing with industrial waste was explained by a simple statement — “the solution to pollution is…dilution”. If a substance mixes with enough water, it was thought it would no longer be harmful. But it’s now clear that some toxic chemicals don’t just disappear in water. In fact, they can build up over time.
(P)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced a phase-out of a chemical dilution process called “mixing zones” in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River. The ban will serve as a test case for similar standards nationwide. David Sommerstein reports for the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.

(P)

Picture the oil slick that trails an outboard motor or jet ski. It dilutes and, if you watch it long enough, it disappears in the surrounding water. That little bit of dirty water is a small example of a mixing zone. The Clean Water Act of the early 70’s used the same idea as a compromise between environmental and industrial concerns. Under the act, factories have been allowed to release some toxic chemicals directly into water at higher concentrations than law might otherwise permit. That meant they could avoid spending money to eliminate the chemicals. The practice was allowed because it was thought the chemicals would be diluted in the mixing zone. But regulators didn’t take into account
the fact that some chemicals don’t just disappear…
(P)
(sound of waves)
(P)
On a blustery day along the St. Lawrence River in northern New York, Ken Jock stands on Raquette Point. It’s Mohawk tribal land. Jock directs the environment division of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe. He says his people were once trappers and fishermen. But when toxic fish advisories began popping up, it drastically altered their livelihood. Jock looks upriver to the smokestacks of the huge factories on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border. He blames the discharge pipes from these plants for disrupting his people’s lifestyle.
(P)
“The solution to controlling the pollution is not to dilute it in a mixing zone. You have to cut it off right at the source.”
(P)
Earlier this month, the EPA agreed with Ken Jock. It announced a ban on mixing zones in the Great Lakes watershed for 22 of the most toxic chemicals. They’re called “bioaccumulative chemicals of concern”, or BCCs. They include PCBs, dioxin, and mercury. The EPA singled out these pollutants because they don’t dilute and disappear as once thought, but rather build up in fish and aquatic plants over time. Charles Fox is the assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Water.
(P)
“These are chemicals that might get into the Great Lakes through the air or the water, and they don’t really flush out of the system, and they can be accumulated into the food chain. So, ultimately, the fish that we eat on our kitchen tables could be contaminated with toxic chemicals.”
(P)
Most Great Lakes states have already banned mixing zones for these chemicals in an effort to protect the cleaner upper lakes — Superior, Huron, and Michigan. Only New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania still need to change.
(P)
The EPA says the ruling will reduce these toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes by 700,000 pounds in the coming years. But industry groups say the ban will have little practical effect because most BCCs, such as DDT, dioxin and PCBs, were banned years ago in all 8 Great Lakes states. The ban on Mercury, however, is where industry will feel the pinch. Mercury is a contaminant in the production process, not a raw material. Joe Mayhew, spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the chemical industry, agrees it’s important to reduce mercury levels in the water, but he says the ban places an undue financial burden on the factories.
(P)
“Mercury is just a trace contaminant in a lot of things. To comply with this rule, what you do is you treat your discharges down to, essentially, zero. And that is an extremely expensive proposition.”
(P)
The EPA estimates the ban will cost industry up to 35 million dollars to implement. Mayhew puts that figure closer to a billion dollars.
(P)
Mixing zones are still permitted in the U.S. for many other chemicals. Across the international border, Ontario and Quebec allow mixing zones as well. And with tens of thousands of different chemicals being produced in both countries each year, it’s tough to predict how much the ban of these 22 will improve overall water quality in the Great Lakes.
(P)
Meanwhile, the Great Lakes ban on mixing zones will serve as a test case for a national ban that the EPA is likely to propose later next year.
(P)
(sound of water)
(P)
Standing on the shores of the St. Lawrence, Ken Jock says the St. Regis Mohawk see the river’s health over a longer term than even the EPA’s timeline.
(P)
“I think the river can rebound. I think that it’s all a matter of time. 22 chemicals right now is just a start.”
(P)
Jock says despite the polluted water, his people still derive their spirituality from the river, as they have for generations. And he expects those beliefs to outlast even the legacy mixing zones leave behind.
(P)
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.