A new report says that sewage systems respond inadequately to sewage spills. (Photo by M. Vasquez)
According to a new report, from an environmental advocacy group, city sewer systems around the Great Lakes are failing to meet federal Clean Water Act standards. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Carmody
reports:
Transcript
According to a new report, from an environmental advocacy group,
city sewer systems around the Great Lakes are failing to meet federal
Clean Water Act standards. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve
Carmody reports:
The Environmental Integrity Project analyzed data from federal, state and
other sources to compile its review of municipal waste water systems in the
region.
EIP’s Michelle Merkel says researchers found most municipal waste
water sewage systems failed to meet standards to prevent untreated sewage
spills; failed to adequately report the spills when they occurred; or had
inadequate plans to prevent such spills in the future.
Merkel adds, due to a lack of state and federal oversight, the problem may
actually be worse:
“The true extent of the problem is really unknown because the states just aren’t doing a good job of tracking it and making the cities track it.”
To address the problem, The EIP wants the EPA and state regulators to
enforce combined sewer overflow rules, require public notification of spills
within 24 hours and arrange for more federal-state financing for future
sewer improvement projects.
The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its plans to adopt a controversial policy for sewage treatment plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its plans to
adopt a controversial policy for sewage treatment plants. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
The EPA was planning to sanction a practice known as sewage blending.
Sewage blending is used when treatment plants are hit with large volumes of
storm water. Partially treated sewage is blended with fully treated
sewage, and then released into nearby waterways.
Mike Shriberg is with the Public Interest Research Group. He says the
announcement is a positive step for clean water.
“What would’ve happened if this policy had passed is that sewage blending
would’ve become the end game. It would’ve been what wastewater treatment
plants do to treat sewage anytime that it rains. Now that option is gone.
So the plants that are doing it now have just been told that they need to
fully treat sewage in the future.”
The EPA said it dropped its proposal after receiving more than 98,000 public
comments. The announcement came shortly before Congress
was to vote on a bill to stop the sewage blending proposal.
The EPA is being called to put regulations on ballast water discharges. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)
Ballast water discharges from ocean freighters must be regulated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That’s the ruling of a California judge.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
Ballast water discharges from ocean freighters must be regulated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. That’s the ruling of a California judge. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:
The ruling calls on the EPA to repeal a decades-old exemption for ballast water discharges from the
federal Clean Water Act. Discharges from ships’ ballast tanks have dumped foreign plants and
animals into coastal waters and the Great Lakes. The organisms have wreaked environmental and
economic havoc on native ecosystems.
Jordan Lubetkin is with the National Wildlife Federation.
“By this ruling, ballast water discharge is regulated as a biological pollutant. Ballast water is
treated like a discharge from an industrial facility, or a wastewater treatment facility, and in
this regard it’s no different.”
An EPA spokesman says the agency is reviewing the decision, and its options. The judge has ordered
an April 15th conference for the EPA and the environmental groups that sued to discuss how to move
Federal plans to reduce exposure to lead and copper in drinking water could mean more monitoring of public water supplies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Federal plans to reduce exposure to lead and copper in drinking water could mean more
monitoring of water from public water supplies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
The U.S. EPA says a lead contamination problem in the District of Columbia will prompt several
changes to federal rules on lead and copper in the nation’s drinking water supply. David Denig-
Chakroff is on a committee of the American Water Works Association that looks at lead
contamination. He says one of the biggest changes might be more monitoring of water when
local suppliers change water sources or the treatment process.
“They really need to go back and make sure that’s not changing the corrosivity of the water and
potentially increasing lead or copper corrosion.”
More corrosion from the pipes can lead to more lead and copper coming out of the tap. Lead can
build up in the brain, kidneys and red blood cells. The greatest risk is to young children and
pregnant women. The EPA says its formal proposals for updating the lead and copper rule will
be ready next year.
Members of Congress are pushing a bill that would stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from allowing sewage overflow to be released into lakes and rivers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Members of Congress are pushing a bill that would stop the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency from allowing sewage overflow to be released into lakes and rivers. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The EPA is considering a proposal that would allow some sewage treatment plants to blend
partially treated sewage with fully treated wastewater to dilute and then release it into waterways.
Environmentalists don’t like the idea. Now they’re getting support from some members of
Congress.
Adrianne Marsh is a spokesperson for one of the sponsors of the bill, Michigan Democrat Bart
Stupak…
“Well, it’s important that this bill is being introduced because it sends a strong message to EPA
that we will not stand for this proposal to be enacted and roll back 30 years of water protection.”
The bi-partisan bill called “Save Our Waters from Sewage Act” comes on the heels of a letter
signed by 135 members of Congress, urging the EPA to scrap its sewage blending proposal.
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.
To those who may recoil in terror from this picture, relief from peanut allergies may just be a vaccine away. (Photo by Mike Froese)
A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could
some day help people who suffer dangerous reactions to food like
peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more evidence in
support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
A new vaccine that reduces food allergies in dogs could some day help people who suffer
dangerous reactions to food like peanuts, milk and wheat. The vaccine is also more
evidence in support of the so-called “hygiene hypothesis.” The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Allergies to foods like peanuts have become much more common over the past 20 years.
Some researchers believe it’s because, as a hygiene-conscious society, we’re no
longer exposing our bodies to infections that stimulate the immune system and protect
us from allergies. Pediatrician Dale Umetsu of Stanford University mixed a component
of Listeria bacterium and peanuts into a vaccine. He then gave it to dogs
with allergies so severe that one peanut made them sick.
“After the treatment, the dogs could tolerate up, on average, to 30 to 40 peanuts,
so this was quite an increase and the effect lasted several months, at least,
after the treatment.”
Umetsu says it could be five years or more before a vaccine is available for human trials.
A vaccine could help millions of people with food allergies.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.
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.
(Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
many think that lindane is unsafe and are calling for its removal from the U.S. market. (photo by G & A
Scholiers)
An environmental group is calling for the United States to ban a pesticide used to treat head lice. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Transcript
An environmental group is calling for the United States to ban a pesticide used
to treat head lice. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Lindane is most commonly used as a pesticide for corn, wheat, and other grains.
It’s also used as a medication to kill lice and scabies. But the Food and Drug
Administration warns that lindane should only be used when all other treatment
options are exhausted. That’s because the FDA has found that in very isolated
cases, lindane can cause seizures or even death.
Kristin Schafer is the Program Coordinator for the Pesticide Action Network. The
group is seeking a ban on lindane in the United States.
“This is the type of chemical that there’s no reason not to get it off the market.
It’s dangerous, it builds up in our bodies. It’s particularly dangerous to children
and there are alternatives for all uses.”
Schafer says 52 countries and the state of California have already banned lindane.
Canada plans to eliminate agricultural uses of lindane by the end of the year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.
The proposed Annex 2001 agreement is the subject of lively debate as to whether it will help or hinder the conservation of the Great Lakes (Photo by Jeremy Lounds)
Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:
Transcript
Officials from the eight states and two provinces in the region have proposed two agreements
that would regulate the use of Great Lakes water. They’re known as the Annex 2001 Implementing
Agreements. Response to the proposed agreements has generally been positive. But for some in
the region, they’re seen as a slippery slope. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne
Elston is worried that the proposed agreements will lead to unlimited diversions in the future:
In theory, the proposed Agreements are supposed to provide a framework for using the water of the
Great Lakes. In reality, they’re about as leaky as a sunken lake freighter. The framework’s
there, but they fail to impose an overall limit on the volume of water that can be diverted,
or who can take it.
Not only that, but proposals to take less than a million gallons per day out of the basin won’t
require a region-wide review, several of these smaller withdrawals could eventually add up to a
whole lot of water. And whether it’s one large pipe or a lot of tiny ones, the end result is the
same.
Given that the Great Lakes basin contains 20% of all the fresh water on the planet, diverting
some of it shouldn’t be a problem. Unfortunately, only 1% of that water is renewed each year.
It would be a good idea to first figure out how much water can be taken without disrupting the
ecological balance of the Lakes. Only once that’s been done should we be looking at allowing
large-scale withdrawals.
And then there’s the threat of trade challenges. Each state or province that approves a water
taking permit won’t be paid directly for the water. Instead they’ll recieve a funding to upgrade
sewage treatment plants or to improve local habitats for example. Recently, a Canadian non-profit
asked for legal opinion about the Agreements. The response was that linking the approval process
to funding for public works basically means that the water is being sold, and under the terms of
NAFTA, once you’ve identified something as a commodity, you can’t restrict its sale.
Canadians should be particularly concerned about these Agreements. The Council of Great Lakes
Governors drafted them. And although the premiers of Ontario and Quebec have signed off on them,
in the end, neither province has the right to veto the decisions made by the Council. In my book,
that’s a lot like being invited to dinner and then being asked to leave before the main course.
And the reverse is true too. If Ontario or Quebec approves a withdrawal, states in the U.S.
wouldn’t have the ability to veto the decision. We share these lakes. If we are all called on
to protect the Great Lakes, then we all need to have an equal voice. That’s why our federal
representatives in Washington D.C. and Ottawa need to draw up a binding international agreement
on water withdrawals.
If nothing else, the proposed Agreements have made it clear that the Great Lakes must be
protected. And with 40 million users already relying on this irreplaceable resource, we clearly
need something better than these Agreements currently have to offer.
Host Tag: Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario.
A new report says that sewage systems respond inadequately to sewage spills. (Photo by M. Vasquez)
