Heavy rains can overwhelm sewer systems. The EPA's proposed solution, blending, is a topic of debate. (photo by Sarah Griggs)
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing
a policy that will allow sewage treatment operators to send largely untreated sewage directly into rivers and lakes. It’s a cost-savings effort pushed by the Bush administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing a policy that will allow sewage treatment operators to send largely untreated sewage directly into rivers and lakes. It’s a cost-savings effort pushed by the Bush administration. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The process is called blending. If too much sewage is coming in to treat completely, this policy allows operators to “blend” mostly untreated sewage with already treated waste water, then release it into the waterways. That saves the federal government money by not having to pay for sewage plant expansions.
Environmentalists don’t like it. Nancy Stoner is with the group Natural Resources Defense Council.
“They’re saying that they’re going to save money by providing less treatment now even though that pushes the cost onto the public by contaminating our drinking water supply, by killing fish, by contaminating shellfish so it cant be sold, by closing beaches.”
The EPA says blending untreated sewage with treated sewage dilutes it so that it meets federal standards. The agency also argues that the policy merely sanctions a practice that already happens every time a sewer system gets swamped by heavy rains.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Annex 2001 Agreement discusses how much and to whom the water from the Great Lakes is going. Ontario objects to the current Agreement in fear that it doesn't do enough to protect the Lakes. (Photo by Kym
Parry)
Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign
a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Great Lakes from diversion in its current form. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, observers say Ontario’s objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter
Annex:
Transcript
Ontario provincial leaders say they’re not willing to sign a draft agreement aimed at protecting the Lakes from water diversions in its current form. Observeers say the objections won’t sidetrack negotiations on the agreement known as the Great Lakes Charter Annex. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett has this report:
The Charter Annex would give the eight states and two provinces that surround the Lakes a say in how much water can be diverted out of the Lakes to other regions. But Ontario officials say they don’t think the current draft goes far enough to protect the Lakes. David Natzger is with the Council of Great Lakes Governors, which is coordinating negotiations bewteent he states and provinces to implement the Annex. Natzger says the announcement reflects healthy debate, and not a snag in the process.
“I think it says that there’s a lot of interest in this issue in Ontario, and certainly there were some concerns that were raised in the public comment period, and they will be taken into consideration as changes are considered and made, ultimately.”
In January, the staffs of the Great Lakes governors and premiers plan to start negotiating changes to the Annex. Natzger says the changes will reflect some of the concerns brought forward in ten-thousand public comments.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
While the idea of cleaning up the water with bacteria may be oxymoronic, Michigan State University is saying that it works. (Photo courtesy of the National Science Foundation)
Scientists in the Great Lakes region are seeing good results from a new method that fights groundwater pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has more:
Transcript
Scientists in the Great Lakes region are seeing good results from a new method that fights groundwater pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner has more:
Researchers at Michigan State University are using a process that introduces microbial bacteria into contaminated aquifers. Over time, the microbes break down hazardous waste, usually from industrial spills. Before this new technology, the most common cleanup technique was called “air stripping.” That requires groundwater to be pumped to the surface, where toxic chemicals are basically blown out of the water and into the air.
Professor Mike Dybas says the new process doesn’t leave pollution in the ecosystem.
“It’s treatment actually occurring where the pollution is, and it is physically destructive of the contaminant. So at the end of the day, the contaminants are broken down into harmless end products.”
Dybas says the process could be used in any type of industrial or agricultural spill. He says since the microbes move with the water, cleanup could stretch for miles underground.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.
The Duluth Seaway Port Authority's bulk cargo dock is typical of many in the port. Officials are troubled by corrosion appearing on the docks in the harbor - the steel is corroding much faster than normal. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
A piece of steel that has been removed from a dock
wall, showing extensive pitting. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Engineer and diver Chad Scott (left) discovered the dock corrosion in the late 1990's, and suspects a microbiological connection. Jim Sharrow (right), Duluth Seaway Port Authorities Facilities Manager, is hoping for some fast answers. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Corrosion is eating away at the steel walls that hold one of the Great Lakes’ busiest harbors together. The corrosion is unlike anything known to be happening in any other Great Lakes port. But other port officials are being encouraged to take a closer look at their own underwater steel. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher reports:
Transcript
Corrosion is eating away at the steel walls that hold
one of the Great Lakes’ busy harbors together. The
corrosion is unlike anything known to be happening in
any other Great Lakes port. But other port officials
are being encouraged to take a closer look at their own
underwater steel. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Bob Kelleher reports:
Some kind of corrosion is eating away at the Duluth
Seaway port’s docks. The docks are those long
earth-filled metal rectangles where ships from around
the world tie up to load and unload. Those docks are
lined with sheets of steel, and the steel is rusting
away. Jim Sharrow is the Duluth
Seaway Port Authorities Facilities Manager.
“It’s corroding quickly – much faster than people expect
in fresh water. And our main concern is that we’ll lose
the integrity and the strength of the dock long before
expected, and have to do steel replacement at $1,500 or
more per lineal foot, much earlier than ever would have
been expected.”
Corrosion should be a slow process in Duluth’s cold
fresh water. But, Sharrow says, there’s evidence it’s
been happening remarkably quickly for about thirty years.
“What we seem to see here is corrosion that started in
the mid 1970s. We have steel that’s 100 years olds
that’s about as similarly corroded to steel that is 25
to 30 years old.”
It’s a big problem. There’s about thirteen miles of
steel walls lining docks in the harbor that serves
Duluth, Minnesota and Superior, Wisconsin. There’s half
again as many feet of wooden docks, held together with
steel pins. There’s corrosion on the legs of highway
bridges and the giant
steel ore docks that ship millions of tons of taconite
– a type of iron shipped to steel mills in Gary,
Indiana and Cleveland, Ohio.
“We characterize this as a 100-million dollar problem in
the harbor. It’s a huge problem, and what is so odd
about this is that we only see it happening in the
navigational area of the Duluth-Superior Harbor.”
The harbor links the St Louis River with Lake Superior.
Go a few miles up the river and there’s little corrosion
. So it doesn’t seem like the problem’s there. But, back
in the harbor, at the current rate of corrosion, Sharrow
says, the steel will fail quickly.
“I figure that in about 10 years at the current rate,
we will have to start replacing steel.”
“Particularly marginal operators could decide rather
than repair their docks it would be better for them to
go out of business, and we’re hoping that that isn’t
the case here.”
While the cause is a mystery, there’s no shortage of
theories. It could have something to do with stray
electrical voltage; water acidity; or the kinds of
steel manufactured in recent years. Chad Scott
discovered the corrosion in the late 1990’s. He’s an
engineer and a diver. Scott suspects
a micro-biological connection. He says there might be
something growing in small round pits that form on the
steel.
“We cleaned up the water. That’s the main thing –
that’s one of the main changes that’s happened since
the 70s, is we’ve cleaned up our water. We’ve cleaned
up our harbor, which is a good thing. But, when we
cleaned things up we also induced more dissolved oxygen
and more sunlight can penetrate the water, which tends
to usually promote more growth – more marine
microbiology growth.”
A team of experts met in Duluth in September to share
ideas. They came from the U.S. Navy, The Army Corp of
Engineers, and Ohio State University. And they agreed
there’s something odd going on – possibly related to
microbes or water chemistry. They also recommend that
other Great Lakes ports take a closer look at their
underwater steel. Scott says they at least helped
narrow the focus.
“We have a large laundry list right now. We want to
narrow that down and try to decide what is the real
cause of this corrosion. And these experts, hopefully,
will be able to get us going on the right direction,
so we can start doing testing that will identify the
problem.”
With the experts recommendations in hand, port
officials are now planning a formal study. If they
do figure out the cause, then they’ve got to figure
out how to prevent it. They’re in a race with
something, and right now they don’t even know with
what.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bob Kelleher.
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to be controversial:
Transcript
Midwest states and Canadian provinces are conducting public forums this
fall on a plan to control large-scale water withdrawals from the Great
Lakes Basin. The plan is known as Annex 2001. And as the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports… it’s already proving to
be controversial:
The Great Lakes governors and Canadian provincial leaders have drafted
a plan setting standards for new water withdrawal requests. Thirsty
companies and communities outside the basin are expected to look at the
five lakes with increasing frequency. Environmental groups largely
like the proposal… though some want it made stronger.
But George Kuper of the Council of Great Lakes Industries says the plan
is too restrictive. At a regional hearing in Chicago, Kuper said
states and provinces that are competing to attract businesses could
block a diversion request.
“Regional review as now proposed would erode the ability of individual
governors and premiers to attract new jobs to their respective
jurisdictions. That’s a problem.”
In addition to the state meetings taking place, another regional
hearing is scheduled for September 20th in Toronto.
Many governments need to approve the Annex 2001 plan and the process is
expected to take a few years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
Heavy rains can overwhelm sewer systems. The EPA's proposed solution, blending, is a topic of debate. (photo by Sarah Griggs)
