Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air, water, or ground. This information is made available to the public. And proponents say this database has led to the cleanup of countless facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental
Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air,
water, or ground. This information is made available to the public, and
proponents say this database has led to the clean-up of countless
facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of
information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush
has more:
The EPA says it wants to make things easier on companies that are
required to file yearly reports on the toxic chemicals they work with.
Instead of filing a report every year, officials say they want companies to
file a report every other year.
Dr. Michael Harbut heads up the Center for Occupational and
Environmental Medicine in southeast Michigan. He says
epidemiologists rely on the annual reports for research into human
diseases:
“What’s being proposed here is a marked reduction in the data available
to persons who are involved in the fight against cancer, and to persons
who are involved in the fight against the most common killers in the
United States; heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes.”
EPA officials say having companies report every other year will help
improve data quality, and will allow them to conduct more analysis
on the data that’s submitted.
For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.
Host Tag: The EPA will take public comments on the proposed changes
until January 13th.
This is a private beach Charles Shabica developed for a homeowner on Chicago's North Shore. The grasses in the background are native to the area and help stabilize the beach and bluff. They also help trap and filter runoff. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Another shot of the private beach. The designer describes it as a "miniature" bay. The curve protects the sand without sending a structure very far out into the water (compare to the steel structure that juts out farther). (Photo by Shawn Allee)
A common development pattern along Chicago's North Shore. These "groins" are there to hold the beaches in place. If there are too many, or they're not configured correctly, they block the natural flow of sand along the shoreline. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:
Transcript
We’ve been bringing you reports from the series ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.’ Our
guide in the series is Lester Graham. He says the next report looks at protecting property
and protecting nature:
One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is changing how the shoreline interacts with
the lakes. Humans like to improve on nature. For example, we like to build things to
protect our property. Protecting a home from forces like wind, water and soil erosion can
be a tough job and expensive sometimes. But if your property is along the shore of a
Great Lake, it can be especially difficult. Reporter Shawn Allee looks at one engineer’s
effort to protect lakefront property and nature:
Great Lakes shorelines naturally change over time. Beaches erode. Dunes shift.
Sometimes, even the rockiest bluffs collapse.
That’s OK for nature, but maybe not for a house sitting on top of it. So it’s no wonder
that landowners try to stabilize their shorelines. To do that, they sometimes build walls
of steel or concrete to block incoming waves. It’s a tricky process. If the walls are too
short, they won’t stop erosion. But if they’re too long, they trap sand that moves
naturally along the lakeshore.
When nearby beaches can’t get sand, they degrade into muddy or rocky messes.
Charles Shabica is a coastal engineer. He’s been working at the problem for decades
now.
“My dream is to see the shores of the Great Lakes ultimately stabilized, but in a good
way and not a bad way where you’re causing problems.”
Shabica takes me to a small private beach north of Chicago. He engineered it to keep the
shoreline intact. The keys to that are two piles of rock that jut out into the lake.
The piles are just the right size – big enough to protect the shore, but small enough to let
some sand pass by. There’re other elements to the design as well.
Tall, blue-green grasses line the beach’s perimeter.
“Not only do waves tend to move sand around, but wind is also really an important agent,
too. So the beach grass and dune grass tends to stabilize the sand. And what will happen
is, you can see these things are seeding now, wind will blow the seeds and pretty soon
you get that stuff growing all over the place.”
A lot of homeowners and city planners applaud Shabica’s work. But not everyone does.
Some environmental groups say, once a landowner builds a wall or rock formation,
others have to follow suit, just to preserve their own sandy shoreline.
The environmental groups’ alternative? Keep development farther away from shorelines
and allow more natural erosion.
But that hands-off approach is not likely to happen. The majority of Great Lakes
shoreline is privately owned. And in many states, landowners often prevail in court when
they try to protect their investments.
Keith Schneider of the Michigan Land Use Institute says the question isn’t whether to
build near the shore, but how to do it.
He says, in the past, landowners tried to get off cheap. They didn’t pay for quality
construction or get expert advice on local geological systems.
“If you don’t pay a lot of attention to these systems, it’s gonna cost you a lot of money.
And if you build inappropriate structures or inappropriate recreational facilities, you’re
going to either be paying a lot of money to sustain them or you’re gonna lose them.”
A lot of coastal geologists agree that, for much of the Great Lakes coast, private
shoreline protection efforts – even the bad ones – are here to stay.
In urban or suburban areas, housing developments near the shore often include a buffer or
wall.
Michael Chrzastowski is with Illinois’ Geological Survey. He says, in these cases, the
shore can look natural…
“But it’s going to be a managed, engineered facility, because wherever you are on the
shore, you’re influenced by some other construction or historical development along the
shore that’s altered the processes where you are.”
That’s definitely the case along highly-developed, urban coastlines, such as Illinois’.
Other parts of the region are catching up, though.
“What’s going to happen is, other places along the great lakes as they become more
developed and they become more urbanized, they’re going to use Illinois as a model.”
That could bring more projects like Charles Shabica’s little beach. Shabica says that’s
not necessarily a bad thing.
It’s just a way to come to terms with our presence along the lakes.
“Human beings are here to stay. It’s our responsibility I think to make our environment
better for us, but not at the expense of the biological community, and your neighbors.”
That sounds reasonable enough. But it will ultimately mean the vast, natural coastlines of
the Great Lakes will be engineered, one beach at a time.
Several Midwest universities will be part of a controversial
effort to improve the recycling of nuclear waste. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Several Midwest universities will be part of a controversial effort to
improve the recycling of nuclear waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Spent nuclear fuel is piling up at many commercial nuclear power plants around the nation.
Scientists know how to re-process and re-use the fuel. but that’s currently not done
in the U.S. nuclear industry.
Michael Corradini is an Engineering Physics Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
He says the re-use of nuclear waste can be improved… and he contends this is the moment to do
it.
“And with the need for energy… particularly electrical energy… this is a way to more efficiently
deal with our spent fuel.”
Wisconsin and other Big Ten universities with nuclear engineering programs will team up with
the University of Chicago for a recycling project at the Argonne National Lab in Illinois. But an
anti-nuclear group contends that trying to recycle more nuclear waste makes it more likely some
spent fuel will be made into bombs. The university scientists say safeguards will be taken to
prevent that from happening.
Mayors from around the eight Great Lakes states met in Chicago this month and delivered a unified message: They want a voice in the future of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
Transcript
Mayors from around the eight Great Lakes states met in Chicago this month and delivered a
unified message: They want a voice in the future of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
The winter meeting of the Great Lakes Cities Initiative was hosted by Chicago Mayor Richard
Daly. Thirty-five Great Lakes mayors voted to push Congress to pass a 4-billion dollar clean-up
bill pending in the House. Superior Mayor Dave Ross says only the federal government has the
resources to do the job right.
“It’s a great burden on local governments and municipalities to take on the burden of water
quality because in any small cities such as Superior, that would be an enormous financial burden.
We certainly need financial help from outside sources, and of course the federal government
would be the prime source.”
Ross says mayors will lobby their members of Congress to support similar legislation in the
Senate.
“We can’t do it ourselves. We can’t do it alone. One new invasive species is being found in the
Great Lakes system each year. If this continues at the rate it is, we’re going to destroy the Great
Lakes.”
The mayors say until now local governments have been bypassed in Great Lakes decisions. Now
the mayors say they want to be part of the federal Great Lakes Advisory Board.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.
Parkinson’s Disease has been in the news a lot recently ever since
actor Michael J. Fox announced that he’s a victim of the disease.
Scientist have been studying Parkinson’s for years, but still haven’t
determined what causes the tremors and other symptoms. But now, one
researcher thinks he may know the answer…and beginning this January,
he’ll begin to test his theory. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Todd
Witter has more:
When the Chicago Tribune named Bayfield, Wisconsin as the best small town inthe Midwest last year, there was celebration and some reservation. Thispristine gateway to Lake Superior has seen steady growth since then. But agrassroots effort by residents of that area is trying to keep expansionunder control. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium Mike Simonson has more:
