Tiny Pest Threatens the Las Vegas Lights

  • Hoover Dam's backside stretches more than 700 feet from top to bottom, but the dam's seeing trouble from the tiny aquatic zebra mussel. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Hoover Dam generates some of the power that lights Las Vegas all night long. But there’s something
that’s making that job a bit more difficult. Shawn Allee found out, it’s a tiny aquatic pest:

Transcript

Hoover Dam generates some of the power that lights Las Vegas all night long. But there’s something
that’s making that job a bit more difficult. Shawn Allee found out, it’s a tiny aquatic pest:

The usual tour of Hoover Dam starts at the visitor’s center – way at the top.

Robert Walsh works with the federal agency that runs Hoover.

He says, go ahead – look over the edge.

Allee: “OK. That’s creepy. Seriously, that’s creepy.”

Walsh: “It’s spooky. Are you afraid of heights?”

Allee: “No, they don’t bother me at all.”

The dam stretches down 700 feet, and it holds an enormous reservoir – Lake Mead.

This tour is awesome, but Walsh says there’s another tour, too.

It’s, um, NOT so awesome.

It’s all about the trouble the tiny quagga mussel is causing Hoover and other nearby dams.

To get that tour, Walsh takes me to Leonard Willet.

Allee: “Where are we right now?”

Willet: “It’s kind of a work station where all the quagga mussel control activities take place
for Hoover Dam.”

Allee: “It’s quagga mussel central for this area?”

Willet: “Exactly.”

Willet first heard quagga mussels were growing in the nearby Lake Mead reservoir in 2007.

He called an expert for advice.

“First thing out of her mouth was, ‘I’m sorry to hear that.’ I knew it was a lot more serious.
And I asked her what we’re in for.”

Willet learned quickly enough – quagga mussels attach to nearly anything underwater.

He shows me a sandal that was in water – and is smothered in them.

They’re like clams the size of your pinky fingernail.

“We went from zero to THAT in seven months.”

And that’s the problem.

Hoover Dam uses water from Lake Mead to spin generators.

The water moves around in pipes – and quagga mussels can attach to them – just like on that sandal.

Allee: “What does that mean in a real practical sense?”

Willet: “Our intake towers would close off. Once you start closing off, you can’t spin the
generators. That’s just kind of the big view of it.”

Zero power generation.

That’s the worst-case scenario. It hasn’t happened – but it’s a fight to prevent it.

“Now, we’re going to go down to the third floor, which is the generator floor.”

The generators are inside broad metal cylinders.

Big water pipes turn the generators. Smaller ones cool them off.

“Well, we circulate cold water from those pipes. If those start to plug up with mussels, then
you can’t keep a generator cool, if those … it shuts down due to overheating.”

Right now, it takes a lot of scraping to keep everything clear.

All this effort’s adding up – Willet says he’ll spend 2 million dollars soon on new equipment.

Even with that, Willet is still a bit jittery about some pipes outside, at the very bottom of the dam.

“The one that’s probably the scariest of all is, we have a fireline that runs around here.
Mussels love it. Then, your firelines, when they’re needed, are plugged with mussels. So
that’s another area you have to really be careful of, safety-wise.”

This didn’t have to happen.

Quagga mussels invaded eastern rivers and the Great Lakes first.

Experts figure the mussels hitched a ride West on someone’s fishing boat.

Apparently – someone didn’t clean their boat properly – and mussels dropped into Lake Mead.

Allee: “When they built this amazing structure during the Depression, do you think they had
any idea that something like this could ever happen?”

Willet: “I think there was a lot of disagreement among professionals that a little mussel the
size of your finger nail could impact a large hydro facility, but we’re quickly learning a bunch
of them can impact water and power delivery.”

Willet says if boaters aren’t careful – they’ll spread quagga mussels to the Pacific Northwest, where
there’re lots of dams and hydro power plants.

After all, if it can happen at mighty Hoover Dam – it could happen anywhere.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

T. Boone Pickens Weighs in on Energy

  • Michigan Gonvenor Jennifer Granholm and T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman, BP Capital Management, shaire their alternative energy solutions at the Detroit Regional Chamber 2009 Mackinac Policy Conference (Photo courtesy of the Mackinac Policy Conference)

A Texas oil tycoon is trying to get America off of foreign oil. T. Boone Pickens has spent the last year and nearly 60-million dollars promoting his plan to use only US sources of energy. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A Texas oil tycoon is trying to get America off of foreign oil. T. Boone Pickens has spent the last year and nearly 60-million dollars promoting his plan to use only US sources of energy. Rebecca Williams reports:

T. Boone Pickens says he’s all for domestic oil drilling, solar, nuclear, coal – especially wind and natural gas. But anything, as long as it comes from the USA.

“I’m for anything that’s American. Anything that’s American. (applause) But we have to get off oil from the enemy.”

And he said he used to be an outspoken critic of ethanol. But not anymore.

“It is American. Is it a good fuel? It’s an ugly baby is what it is. But it’s our ugly baby.” (laughter)

He says Members of Congress tell him, whether it’s a good fuel or not, farm states want it.

He readily admits his plan would help him make some money. But he says he also wants the U.S. to get away from foreign imports for the sake of national security and the health of the economy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Interview: Book Blames Coast Guard for Invaders

  • Ships sometimes bring unwanted travelers with them (Photo by Lester Graham)

Invasive species hitchike on foreign cargo ships and end up in US waterways. Lester Graham talked with the author of a new book about why the government has done so little to stop these aquatic invaders that are damaging the environment:

Transcript

Invasive species hitchike on foreign cargo ships and end up in US waterways.
Lester Graham talked with the author of a new book about why the government has done so little to stop these aquatic invaders that are damaging the environment:

Lester Graham: “Maybe you’ve heard about Zebra Mussels. The thumbnail-sized mussels have invaded freshwater lakes, rivers, clogged water intake pipes, and damaged the environment across a good portion of the US – and they’re still spreading. The Zebra Mussel is just one of dozens and dozens of invasive species brought into the US by foreign cargo ships entering the Great Lakes though the St. Lawrence Seaway, which connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes. What happens is ships in Europe or Africa or Asia take on ballast water, sucking up millions of gallons of water from a foreign port. Aquatic life is sucked up with it. Then, as the ships take on cargo in the Great Lakes, the ballast water is discharged, and with it things like Zebra Mussels and other foreign pests. Many of those species have spread from the Great Lakes into the Mississippi River system, and then transported by recreational boating in every direction from there. Jeff Alexander has written a book that chronicles not only those invasions, but the utter failure of the government to do anything effective to stop these introductions. Jeff, you make the argument that these invasive species, biological pollution if you will, amount to a more serious environmental disaster than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska. How’s that?”

Jeff Alexander: “Well the Valdez, there’s no discounting the severity of the Valdez oil spill. But oil spills, over time, can be cleaned up to a certain extent, and the ecosystem can recover. In the Great Lakes, ocean freighters have brought in 57 species, they’ve caused billions of dollars in damage, and they’ve transformed the entire ecosystem.”

Graham: “There are eight states that border the Great Lakes, and members of Congress are aware of this problem, why haven’t they taken action to ensure this problem is dealt with once and for all?”

Alexander: “The shipping lobby has been very effective at keeping regulations at bay, the Coast Guard, which is the lead agency in the US, has just totally dropped the ball on this issue. They’re the ones who’re supposed to be the guardians of the Great Lakes when it comes to ships, and the Coast Guard is very close to the shipping industry. They have social events together every year. A lot of people blame the shipping industry for this problem, but I tend not to. They certainly have fought the regulations but, in the end, the reason that we have regulatory agencies is to protect public health and the environment. And our regulatory agencies haven’t done the job, and our politicians haven’t done the job – no one seems to have the backbone to stand up to the shipping industry and deal with this problem.”

Graham: “Are the foreign ships that bring in this cargo and take away grain or the other things from the Midwest so economically valuable that it is worth this economic and environmental cost?”

Alexander: “There is some debate on that, but the best economic study estimated if we kept these ocean freighters out of the Great Lakes, made them offload their cargo in Montreal and put it on trains and trucks, it would cost us an extra $55 million a year to move that cargo. That’s compared to the estimate of $200 million a year that foreign species are costing us in terms of economic and environmental damage. It’s not a stretch to make the case that the environmental and economic costs have far exceeded the economic benefits.”

Graham: “Jeff Alexander’s new book is ‘Pandora’s Locks: The Opening of the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway’. Thanks, Jeff.”

Alexander: “Thank you.”

Jeff Alexander spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham.

Related Links

Coal: Dirty Past, Hazy Future (Part 3)

  • Engineering Professor Rich Axelbaum studies his "oxy-coal combustor," a device he hopes could someday trap CO2 in coal-fired power plants. (Photo by Matt Sepic)

Coal has a reputation as a sooty, dirty fuel. More recently, environmentalists and the coal industry alike have become just as worried about the carbon dioxide released when coal is burned. In the third part of our series on the future of coal, Matt Sepic has this look at the science behind so-called “clean coal”:

Transcript

Coal has a reputation as a sooty, dirty fuel. More recently, environmentalists and the coal industry alike have become just as worried about the carbon dioxide released when coal is burned. In the third part of our series on the future of coal, Matt Sepic has this look at the science behind so-called “clean coal”:

As far as most leaders of the coal industry are concerned, the debate about global warming is over. It exists, carbon dioxide contributes to it, and it’s a crisis. But as they’re quick to point out, nearly half the nation’s electricity comes from coal. It’s domestic. It’s relatively cheap. And there’s a lot of it.

Steve Leer is the CEO of Arch Coal. Leer says unless Americans want that power to get really expensive, coal will have to remain part of the equation. But he says something has to be done about all that carbon dioxide.

If we don’t solve that CO2 question, the backlash of high cost electricity becomes an issue for all of us.

Arch Coal is the nation’s second largest coal producer. It’s paying for research into carbon capture and storage. The idea is to divert CO2 from smokestacks, compress it, and then pump it underground.

Engineering professor Rich Axelbaum is studying this with money from Steve Leer’s company. In his lab at Washington University in St. Louis, Axelbaum and two students are tweaking a device they call an oxy-coal combustor.

RA: “It’s a relatively small scale, quite a small scale for industrial, but it’s a relatively large scale for a university.”

MS: “It looks like a few beer kegs stacked end to end and welded together.”

RA: “Right, right.”

Axelbaum can burn coal inside this furnace along with a variety of combustion gases. He’s trying to figure out exactly how much oxygen to inject to yield pure carbon dioxide.

“We can capture the CO2 from a combustion process, by instead of the burning the coal in air, you’re burning it in oxygen, so the stream coming out of the exhaust is CO2.

Axelbaum says there’s no sense in filling valuable underground storage space with CO2 mixed with other gases if a power plant is built that can grab nearly pure carbon dioxide and store it.

He says energy companies already pump CO2 underground to extract crude oil, so some of the technology already exists. But environmentalists say the next step – which is crucial for any so-called clean coal power plant to work– is far from proven.

“No one knows in the industry whether in fact they can sequester carbon permanently.”

David Orr teaches Environmental Science at Oberlin College in Ohio. He says storing CO2 underground is easier said than done. And nobody knows if rock formations in different parts of the country can hold the huge amounts of carbon dioxide America’s power plants produce without it eventually leaking out.

Orr says because the goal is to reduce global warming, politicians would be better off funding research into other energy alternatives.

The metric here is how much carbon do we eliminate per dollar spent on research and deployment of technology?

Orr says the 3.4 billion dollars set aside for clean coal research in the federal stimulus bill would be better spent studying wind and solar power, modernizing the nation’s electrical grid, and finding ways to improve energy efficiency.

But the United States still has more than a century’s worth of coal reserves. And with plenty of money going into both research and advertising, talk of carbon capture and storage is certain to continue, even if it remains just that.

For The Environment Report, I’m Matt Sepic.

Related Links

Interview: Keeping Alien Invaders Out

  • Asian Carp is one species that is very dangerous to the Great Lakes ecosystem (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Nature never made a connection between the nation’s big rivers and the Great Lakes. But Chicago did. A canal was dug connecting the Mississippi River system – including the Missouri, the Ohio and all their tributaries – to all of the Great Lakes at a point on Lake Michigan. It opened up commercial shipping to the interior of the nation.
But it also opened up both bodies of waters to aquatic life you don’t want traveling back and forth. Invasive species such as the zebra mussel have traveled from one to the other. Asian Carp have already caused havoc in the Mississippi. Some biologists worry the Asian Carp will destroy the four-billion dollar fishing industry in the Great Lakes if it gets in. There’s an electric barrier in place, but some people don’t think that’s enough.
Joel Brammeier is with the environmental group Alliance for the Great Lakes. His group is proposing a barrier that will separate the Mississippi system from the Great Lakes completely, to stop those invasive species. He talked with Lester Graham about the barrier:

Transcript

Nature never made a connection between the nation’s big rivers and the Great Lakes. But Chicago did. A canal was dug connecting the Mississippi River system – including the Missouri, the Ohio and all their tributaries – to all of the Great Lakes at a point on Lake Michigan. It opened up commercial shipping to the interior of the nation. But it also opened up both bodies of waters to aquatic life you don’t want traveling back and forth. Invasive species such as the zebra mussel have traveled from one to the other. Asian Carp have already caused havoc in the Mississippi. Some biologists worry the Asian Carp will destroy the four-billion dollar fishing industry in the Great Lakes if it gets in. There’s an electric barrier in place, but some people don’t think that’s enough. Joel Brammeier is with the environmental group Alliance for the Great Lakes. His group is proposing a barrier that will separate the Mississippi system from the Great Lakes completely, to stop those invasive species. He talked with Lester Graham about the barrier:

Joel Brammeier: Well, ecological separation means no species moving between
the Mississippi River and the Great Lakes. When you consider the problem of
invasive species, unlike chemical pollution, which you can reduce to a certain
safe level, there is no safe level of invasive species. Once two get in, they can
reproduce, and the damage is done, and there’s no going back. So, an
ecological separation means stopping fish, and eggs, and other critters from
moving back and forth between the two systems.

Lester Graham: How do you do that when there’s so much commercial traffic
and recreational boating, and just the water flowing through?

Brammeier: Well, in our research, we found that tech fixes – electrical barriers,
sound barriers, blowing bubbles through the water to try and deter fish from
moving – those things can reduce the risk. But for invasive species, risk
reduction really isn’t enough – you need 100% protection. And to do that, we’re
probably looking at some physical barrier that prevents water and live organisms
from moving between those two great watersheds.

Graham: I can imagine the commercial shippers are not thrilled about that.

Brammeier: Well, I think it remains to be seen. Nobody’s quite sure where the
best place is to put a barrier. We discussed about half a dozen different
scenarios under which you could implement that kind of separation. The
Chicago waterway system does support about 25 million tons, give or take, a
year of commercial commodity traffic – and that’s a significant amount. The
reality is that most of that cargo is internal to the Chicago waterways. So, there
isn’t a huge exchange of cargo between the Chicago waterway and the Great
Lakes. And that’s a good thing. That means we have opportunities to actually
split the system back to the way it historically was, and at the same time, solve
our invasive species problem.

Graham: Now, we can see how that would benefit the environment, but how
would it affect the economy?

Brammeier: Well, again, going back to this issue of commercial navigation. If we
create a separation in this system that has a minimal impact on most of the cargo
in the Chicago waterway, we’re really talking about potentially a very small
impact. And, frankly, there’s an opportunity here to create a benefit for
commodity movements as well. A lot of the cargo transfer facilities on the south
side of Chicago are outmoded, outdated, and not competitive. And, any
investment in this kind of project that changed that and also allowed cargo to
move more efficiently and created new port facilities, could have that kind of
benefit, besides protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species.

Related Links

Asian Carp Barrier on Low

  • Asian Carp can grow up to 110 pounds (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

A stronger electric barrier
to keep an invasive fish out of the
Great Lakes is set to be turned on.
But people who travel past the
underwater barrier are worried about
electric shocks. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

A stronger electric barrier
to keep an invasive fish out of the
Great Lakes is set to be turned on.
But people who travel past the
underwater barrier are worried about
electric shocks. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

This barrier is supposed to keep Asian carp from getting into the Great Lakes.

Those fish escaped from Southern fish farms years ago. They’ve spread up the Mississippi river.
Now they’re near a canal that connects the Mississippi system with the Great Lakes.

Biologists worry the big fish would ruin Great Lakes fishing and the Lakes’ ecosystems. Start up
of ‘The Stronger Barrier’ was delayed because of concerns the electric current could hurt crews
on barges and people on recreational boats as the vessels passed by.

U.S. Coast Guard Captain Bruce Jones recently gave thumbs-up to running the new barrier at
low power.

“ We believe it will continue to keep the Great Lakes protected from carp through the winter, until
spawning season starts.”

But biologists don’t think the barrier will work well enough at low power. And barge operators
don’t want it on at all. They’ll be discussing the concerns at a meeting in Chicago in January.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

The Candidates on Renewable Energy

  • Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.

Transcript

Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:

John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.

McCain: “It’s wind, tide, solar, nuclear, offshore drilling.”

Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”

Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.

So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?

Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.

“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)

Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.

Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.

Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.

“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”

Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.

“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”

But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.

And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.

Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.

“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”

McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.

But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.

That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Weevils vs. The Mile-A-Minute Weed

  • The mile-a-minute weed (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Sometimes biologists fight foreign
pests with other foreign animals. But that
can be risky because it can create a bigger
problem than the one it’s supposed to solve.
Sabri Ben-Achour reports on one of the latest attempts to stop a weedy pest:

Transcript

Sometimes biologists fight foreign
pests with other foreign animals. But that
can be risky because it can create a bigger
problem than the one it’s supposed to solve.
Sabri Ben-Achour reports on one of the latest attempts to stop
a weedy pest:

On farms, backyards, and rights of way up the Eastern Seaboard a pointy leaved thorny
newcomer is becoming increasingly visible. It’s called mile-a-minute weed.

Bob Trumbule is an entomologist. He leads me through a stream valley north of
Washington DC where blackberries and small trees are being swallowed up by this
invasive vine.

“So now we’re getting into the mile-a-minute here. Basically what it does it, it’s an
annual vine, it grows up and over plants, it smothers them, out competes them for
sunlight, and weighs them down.”

The weed is native to Eastern Asia: China and Japan. It was introduced accidentally in
Pennsylvania in the thirties. From there, it’s spread to seven other states. It prevents new
trees from sprouting in forests. But back in Asia, it’s not a dominating species like it is
here.

Judith Hough-Goldstein is a professor at the University of Delaware.

“Part of the reason is because it doesn’t have anything that’s feeding on it. It’s gonna be
without its predators so it can out-compete other plants.”

Over several years, biologists searched for something that would eat the vine. They
found a tiny, black weevil in China. It feeds on the plant and lays it’s eggs there, keeping
things in check – in Asia.

“Here are the weevils. I’m gonna give you a glimpse of them here in the cup. They look
almost like little ticks. I’m gonna put them down here in the mile a minute weed patch,
and basically what they’ll do – they’re tough little guys – they’ll climb around and in the
past experience have started to feed almost immediately.”

Up close, they look like little anteaters, poking around the leaves with long snouts.

This may sound risky. There are lots of examples where similar approaches have gone
wrong. A parasite was introduced in North America to control gypsymoths. It attacked
native silkmoths. Mississippi catfish farmers used Asian carp to control algae. They got
loose and are taking over the Mississippi River system and threatening the Great Lakes.

And Trumbule admits nobody knows for sure exactly what might happen.

“Any scientist that might say otherwise is not being honest with themselves or the person
asking the question.”

But he says a lot’s been learned since the days when any scientist could introduce a
species on a whim. These days, exhaustive testing and federal permits are required
before anything is released.

That’s why for almost ten years Judith Hough-Goldstein has been trying to determine if
the weevil would eat anything else. Tests were conducted in a U.S. Department of
Agriculture ‘quarantine facility’ with sealed windows and its own re-circulated air supply.

“So what we found was that, in fact, this particular weevil is extremely host specific. The
insect has evolved to depend on the plant.”

So much so that the weevils and larvae actually starved to death rather than feed on other
plants.

In field tests in New Jersey and Delaware, the weevils have decimated mile-a-minute
weed. Some researchers say it’s the most impressive biocontrol they’ve worked with.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sabri Ben-Achour.

Related Links

A Silver Bullet for Zebra Mussels?

  • Zebra mussels were discovered 20 years ago, and have since spread across the country (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

Researchers say they’ve found something
that will kill invasive zebra and quagga mussels.
The mussels got into the US in the ballast of
foreign ships. Since then they’ve spread throughout
the country. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

Researchers say they’ve found something
that will kill invasive zebra and quagga mussels.
The mussels got into the US in the ballast of
foreign ships. Since then they’ve spread throughout
the country. Rebecca Williams reports:

So, let’s say you have a nasty pest, an invasive species. Then someone says, we can get rid of that
pest and it looks like there’s no environmental downside.

“It kinda sounds like snake oil. But it’s true.”

That’s Dan Molloy with the New York State Museum lab. He’s come up with a
way to kill zebra and quagga mussels.

Molloy says a strain of common bacteria is toxic to zebra and quagga
mussels. And, even if the bacteria are dead, they can still kill the
mussels.

“You know maybe horror stories of people applying biocontrol agents. And it
had effects they didn’t anticipate. We’re applying dead cells. And they’re
just as effective live or dead.”

It’s great news for power plants, because the mussels clog up intake
pipes.

But it’s not clear if the bacteria can kill mussels in open water.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Ballast Tanks: Rinse and Repeat

  • Crew chief Mohammed Sangare tests the "Federal Kivalina"'s ballast tanks for invasive species. (Photo by David Sommerstein)

The United States and Canada are trying to
figure out how to keep new invasive species out of
the Great Lakes. 185 have already snuck in, costing
the region billions of dollars a year. Many
hitchhiked in the ballast tanks of foreign cargo ships.
Both countries want the public to know they’re doing
something about the problem. So they invited journalists
to the port of Montreal to see how ballast tanks are
tested for invasive species. David Sommerstein
reports:

Transcript

The United States and Canada are trying to
figure out how to keep new invasive species out of
the Great Lakes. 185 have already snuck in, costing
the region billions of dollars a year. Many
hitchhiked in the ballast tanks of foreign cargo ships.
Both countries want the public to know they’re doing
something about the problem. So they invited journalists
to the port of Montreal to see how ballast tanks are
tested for invasive species. David Sommerstein
reports:

A couple dozen reporters crowd the deck of the cargo ship Federal Kivalina.
Cameras click, pencils scribble, and tape rolls as a man in a bright orange
uniform steps forward to test for invasive species.

“My name is Mohammed Sanare.”

(sound of tape measure sliding down)

Sangare is the bosun, the crew chief. He slides what looks like a metal tape
measure down a tube. It’s the opening of one of the Kivalina’s 16 ballast
tanks.

“Down to the bottom now. The bob’s down to the bottom.”

The tape hits the tank bottom, and Sangare reels it back up.

Terry Jordan, a St. Lawrence Seaway official, is waiting with a handheld
gizmo. It’s a refractometer that tests water salinity. He carefully places a
drop of ballast water on it.

“All it takes is one drop of water on the refractive lens, OK.”

Jordan peers through the refractometer’s lens. It reads 38 parts salt per 1000
parts water.

Recent scientific studies show that concentration of salt water kills up to
99% of the organisms hidden in these ballast tanks. That’s important
because those critters can compete with native species and damage whole
ecosystems.

David Reid is a researcher with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.

“Salinity was very effective at killing many of the organisms that we would
expect to be able to survive in the Great lakes.”

So for the first time this year, all ships voyaging into the Great Lakes have to
do something that sounds like a mouthwash ad.

“Swish and spit.”

Yeah, “swish and spit”. Terry Jordan says on its way across the ocean, the
ship flushes its ballast tanks with salt water, and presumably, kills potential
invasive species. The refractometer test is proof of the swish and spit. If the
ship fails, its ballast tank is sealed and its owner is fined up to 36,000
dollars.

“Swish & spit” has been voluntary for years. Environmentalists say the new
mandatory rules are a step in the right direction, but too little and way too
late.

“Some would argue that the dam has already burst.”

Hugh MacIsaac specializes in invasive species at the Great Lakes Institute
for Environmental Research in Windsor, Ontario. He says if ships were
“swishing and spitting” from the beginning, we might have been able to
prevent the zebra mussel, round goby, and other invasions.

But, MacIsaac warns there are other species lurking on the horizon, like
one in Germany, ominously called the killer shrimp.

“And so any protective measures that we put in place today that would
prevent or retard their ability to get in, I would welcome.”

Scientists doubt anything can be fool-proof. Invasive species still can hide
other places on the ship. And the new rules do nothing to stop salt-water
invaders like the mitten crab from attacking ports on the East and West
Coasts.

Terry Johnson is the St. Lawrence Seaway’s U.S. Administrator. He says
“swish & spit” is a huge step forward for the Great Lakes.

“So does that mean that it is absolutely, definately 100% positively assured that there
won’t be invasives coming in with these new regulations? No, it’s doesn’t.
But it dramatically reduces the risk.”

Congress is considering even tougher rules that would force shippers to
install cutting-edge ballast cleansing systems. The proposal could cost up to
a million dollars per vessel. The Bush Administration has threatened a veto.

For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links