The Environmental Protection Agency says it might impose new restrictions on airports. Officials with the EPA say de-icing chemicals used on planes and taxiways can contaminate surface water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency says it might impose new restrictions on airports.
Officials with the EPA say de-icing chemicals used on planes and taxiways can
contaminate surface water. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee
reports:
Many airlines spray ethylene glycol on planes to melt ice and frost. The EPA says that
chemical can endanger wildlife when it enters nearby water bodies. The agency
estimates that 21 million gallons of de-icing fluid are discharged from airports every year.
The EPA plans to study de-icing chemicals to determine whether any restrictions are
necessary. Claudio Ternieden of the American Association of Airport Executives
acknowledges de-icing chemicals may have an environmental impact, but says the issue
is not as simple as it seems.
“I think it’s important to remember, this is a safety-based industry and what we’re trying
to do is make sure folks are flying safely. That’s the primary goal of our industry.”
Many airports already use strict treatment or recycling programs for de-icing fluid. Last
winter, the Detroit Metro Airport recycled about 850 thousand gallons of the fluid, more
than any other airport in the world.
The EPA predicts it will complete its study of de-icing chemicals in three years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.
A government report has found federal agencies collect a lot of data on water quality, but don’t always share the information in a way that can help the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government report has found federal agencies collect a lot of data on water
quality, but don’t always share the information in a way that can help the
environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, looked at how
federal agencies and state governments gather water quality data. It found the
different agencies are either not coordinating their efforts or have difficulty
doing that. That’s because: 1) agencies collect the same data for different
reasons; 2) they use different methods; 3) each agency is unaware what the
others are collecting; and 4) coordinating the information is just not a big
priority for them. The problem is collecting water quality data is expensive,
so duplication is a waste of taxpayer money.
The General Accounting Office is recommending Congress designate a lead agency
to coordinate the water quality data and establish clear standards so everyone
is measuring the same things in the same way.
For the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a list of counties it says are out of compliance with new rules governing fine-particle pollution or soot. Dozens of the counties are in states in the Midwest, but many states are contesting the EPA’s list. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a list of counties it says
are out of compliance with new rules governing fine-particle pollution
or soot. Dozens of the counties are in states surrounding the Great
Lakes, but many states are contesting the EPA’s list. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports.
State environmental officials and the U.S. EPA agree about one thing:
fine-particle pollution, or soot, causes thousands of premature deaths
a year. But state officials say many of the counties on the EPA’s list
are actually complying with the new rules. Indiana says it only has
six counties out of compliance instead of 19. Southeast Michigan says
only two of its seven counties on the list are out of compliance.
Chuck Hersey is with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments,
which monitors air pollution. He says the EPA’s list could be both
costly and ineffective.
“Once the EPA puts a boundary around a larger area, you’re obliged to
put controls in that whole area even if they’re not necessary.”
EPA officials say they included many counties that they believe are
creating pollution that travels into nearby counties. That can be
because they have coal-fired power plants or lots of commuter traffic.
States have until September to convince the EPA to reconsider the list
before it becomes final.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m
Tracy Samilton.
A recent report indicates many of the problems troubling the Great Lakes are due to poor governance of the lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with the chief author of the report, Restoring Greatness to Government: Protecting the Great Lakes in the 21st Century. Dave Dempsey is a policy advisor with the Michigan Environmental Council, which published the report:
Transcript
A recent report indicates many of the problems troubling the Great Lakes are due to poor
governance of the lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with the
chief author of the report Restoring Greatness to Government: Protecting the Great Lakes in
the 21st Century. Dave Dempsey is a policy advisor with the Michigan Environmental
Council, which published the report:
Dave Dempsey: “Well, we have sick Great Lakes in part because we have a sick governance
system. We have an array of 21st century problems facing the lakes from climate change to
continued degradation of some of our waters with toxic chemicals, but we have a 19th century
system of government that’s trying to protect them and failing.”
Lester Graham: “Now, the International Joint Commission, which is a body made up of
appointees by the Canadian government and the U.S. government, is to watch over the water
quality agreement and the treaty between the U.S. and Canada as to how we treat the Great Lakes.
And the Great Lakes Commission is another group that’s made up of representatives from the
eight Great Lakes states and the two provinces in Canada that surround the Great Lakes. And
these are all 21st century people, I know some of them, and they’re bright folks, they’re doing an
earnest and fairly decent job. What’s holding them back? They’re not 19th century people.”
DD: “No, but the structures and the systems they use are 19th century. There’s two problems: with
several of the commissions, they’ve become very politicized. The International Joint Commission
used to have a tradition of independence from political pressures and looking at the long-term
health of the Great Lakes. That’s been compromised since the ’90’s. But maybe more
importantly, with all these institutions, they’re relying on the old fashioned way of dealing with
public input. We think, in the environmental community, that the way to restore healthy Great
Lakes is to make sure the citizen voice is heard. These institutions cover a Great Lakes basin
that’s hundreds of thousands of square miles, and they’re expecting people to show up at public
hearings, perhaps traveling hundreds of miles to get there. Today, what we need to do is take
advantage in governance of the Internet, and other ways of involving people that don’t require
that kind of commitment or sacrifice because people frankly don’t have the time.”
LG: “How would increased participation of the public help the health of the Great Lakes?”
DD: “Well, looking at the history of the Great Lakes, every time the public voice is heard
strongly in the halls of government, the Great Lakes recover. Every time the voices of special
interests are drowning out the public voice, the lakes begin to deteriorate and that’s what we see
happening now.”
LG: “The Great Lakes Commission has had some success recently in getting more money from
the government for the Great Lakes recovery, the IJC has done a good job recently of working
with the media to bring public awareness to invasive species because of the Asian black carp. So,
are those moves the kind of thing you’d like to see to solve this problem?”
DD: “I think it’s helpful. Both of these commissions can use their bully pulpit to publicize
problems and call attention. But if you took a poll of the average Great Lakes residents, very few
of them would ever have heard of these commissions. We need bodies that look out for the Great
Lakes that are really plugged into individual communities, and that doesn’t exist right now. The
Great Lakes Commission specifically was set up to promote commercial navigation in the Great
Lakes, and while it has broadened its agenda to look at ecosystem issues, it has been an advocate,
for example, for the Great Lakes review of navigation that could result in more invasive species
coming into the Great Lakes by allowing more ocean-going vessels. We need an institution that’s
looking at the health of the Lakes first, not at the health of the industries that sometimes exploit
them.”
LG: “Bottom line, what would you like to see done?”
DD: “I’d like to see a Great Lakes citizens’ commission building on the existing institutions that
plugs into the individual states and provinces around the Great Lakes and brings people and their
voices together so that their vision of healthy Great Lakes can be carried out by government.”
Host Tag: Dave Dempsey is chief author of a report on governance of the Great Lakes issued by
the Michigan Environmental Council. He spoke with the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham.
Lynn Scarlett is the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior's Office of Policy, Management and Budget.
Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. (Photo courtesy of the Sierra Club)
As the campaigns for President advance, President George W. Bush’s environmental policies are being examined. The Bush administration has been criticized by many of the large environmental groups. But Bush supporters say the White House approach to environmental protection is working well. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with one of the architects of the Bush environmental policy, Lynn Scarlett. She is Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior’s Office of Policy Management and Budget. Scarlett says the Bush approach to the environment goes beyond just punishing polluters, but encourages everyone to do more:
Transcript
As the campaigns for President advance, President George W.
Bush’s environmental policies are being examined. The Bush
administration has been criticized by many of the large environmental
groups. But Bush supporters say the White House approach to
environmental protection is working well. In the second of two
interviews, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
talks with the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior’s
Office of Policy, Management and Budget, Lynn Scarlett. She’s one
of the architects of the Bush environmental policy. Scarlett says the
Administration’s approach to the environment goes beyond just
punishing polluters, but encourages everyone to do more:
SCARLETT: “You know, our vision is one of cooperative conservation. Some years ago the
great conservationist Aldo Leopold talked about a nation of citizen-stewards, that we can’t get the
conservation job done and the environmental job done unless each person in their own backyards
and working together engage in conservation and environmental entrepreneurship, if you will.
So, for us, we’re trying to seek those partnerships, partnered problem-solving, we’re trying to
emphasize innovation and what I like to call environmental entrepreneurship, the imagination of
many minds creatively figuring out how to reduce our environmental footprint and then working
in cooperation across a mosaic of landscapes, public lands, with private landowners and across
the country.”
LG: “It would seem that an approach like that would require a lot of volunteerism in the private
sector and many times that volunteer effort has been lacking. It seems that we need some kind of
regulation from the federal government or from the state governments to make sure that the
environment is protected.”
SCARLETT: “You know, the vision is a multi-faceted one. Of course, we have, since Earth Day
1970, a whole suite of environmental laws that were unfurled, our banner environmental statutes,
and we are very committed to ensuring compliance with those statutes. So, the question is really
a matter of emphasis. As we go forward in the 21st century, I think the question we all have to
ask is: ‘How do we get to that next step of environmental progress?’ We build upon the
regulatory achievements, but we have to begin to ask ourselves ‘How can we work together to get
that next increment of progress. And when you look at what’s actually going on in the nation,
you see tremendous cause, I think, for optimism.”
LG: “There are no doubt some innovative ideas popping up out of the private sector to deal with
environmental concerns, but the Big Greens, the environmental organizations, are issuing scathing
reports about the record of the Bush administration. And they would disagree with your
characterization that we’re making progress. They would indicate that we’ve lost ground in
environmental protection.”
SCARLETT: “You know, I think that we have to look at the actual results on the ground.
There’s always politics at play, of course, in conversations about environment, but the real test of
success is on the ground and also the kinds of commitments that we’re tangibly making. I like to
say environmental progress is a journey not a destination. There’s always more to be done. But,
this administration has the highest dollars ever expended by any administration going towards
environmental protection whether it’s on the pollution side and pollution clean-up or on the land-
management and conservation side. We have a number of new programs. The President initiated
a landowner incentive program. It’s one patterned after what he had done in Texas to try to
stimulate and engage people to participate in species protection, particularly ‘at risk’ and
‘threatened’ and ‘endangered’ species. He inaugurated a private stewardship grant program with a
similar focus. So there’s an awful lot that is occurring that is getting results on the ground.”
LG: “Well, let’s try to get to the nut of the philosophical difference between the Bush
administration and many of these environmental groups who find great fault with the Bush
administration’s approach to environmental protection. What do you think the key differences are
between the White House perspective on the environment and these environmentalists?”
SCARLETT: “I think the fundamental difference, the major reorientation of philosophy is to say
‘You know what? Real success doesn’t reside necessarily in numbers of enforcement actions
taken, but rather results on the ground.’ And that there are a whole array of tools to achieve that,
many of which are outside Washington. All Americans want clean air. They want clean water.
And real success resides in inspiring them and working with them and partnering with them. And
I think the record will tell a very good tale.”
HOST TAG: Lynn Scarlett is Assistant Secretary of the Department
of Interior’s Office of Policy, Management and Budget.
Two electronics manufacturers say they are taking steps to significantly reduce the amount of lead in their products. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Transcript
Two electronics manufacturers say they are taking steps to
significantly reduce the amount of lead in their products. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris Lehman reports:
Items such as computers, cell phones and fax machines contain trace
amounts of lead. If these items are thrown out, the lead can find its
way into the environment.
Intel and National Semiconductor make processors and microchips used in
many of these products. Now, the two companies say they plan to phase
out the use of lead over the next few years.
Mike Brozda is spokesman for National Semiconductor. He says his
company’s move could take up to five tons of lead out of production
each year…
“In any product, the amount of lead is measured literally in
micrograms. It’s far less than the weight of a human hair. So we’re
talking about microscopic amounts of lead on any particular chip. But
when you make billions of chips, it adds up.”
Brozda says the move comes as many countries are enacting stricter
environmental regulations that require a reduction of lead in
electronic equipment.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chris Lehman.
A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
A new report says metropolitan Milwaukee is pumping so much groundwater, it’s
pulling water out of the Great Lakes basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:
Just west of Milwaukee runs a line that divides the Great Lakes basin from
the Mississippi River basin. Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey say
the fast growing-communities that sit along that line are pumping enough
groundwater that it’s actually reversed the underground flow that used to go
into Lake Michigan. Instead, that water is coming out of the lake.
Noah Hall is with the National Wildlife Federation.
“What’s most shocking and disturbing about this, though, is that this
groundwater pumping that’s been going on is having the effect of draining
Lake Michigan of ten million gallons a day, and diverting that water out of
the Great Lakes basin, never to return.”
Hall says that water is going into the Mississippi River basin. He says the
USGS report illustrates the need for Great Lakes governors to regulate
groundwater – not just surface water.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
A group of state legislators from the region are pushing for new laws aimed at limiting mercury pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
A group of state legislators from the region are pushing for new laws aimed at limiting mercury
pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports.
The multi-state effort targets coal-fired power plants, and products that contain mercury – including
thermometers.
Wisconsin and Ohio are looking to enact stricter pollution controls on power plants than what’s
being proposed in Washington. Other states, including Michigan, are calling for a phase-out of
products that contain mercury. They also want mercury parts and switches to be removed from
cars and appliances before they’re scrapped.
Former Maryland lawmaker Leon Billings is with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators:
“You’ve got to go at it from all perspectives. Power plants represent 30 to 40 percent of the
ambient mercury. But these other sources are significant, especially if they’re not controlled
properly.”
Mercury is a toxin that can affect the nervous system. It can be especially harmful to developing
children.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
State officials say the federal government is failing to do enough to stop invasive species of plants and animals from damaging the environment and the economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
State officials say the federal government is failing to do enough to stop invasive species of plants
and animals from damaging the environment and the economy. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The investigative arm of Congress, the General Accounting Office, surveyed state officials about
invasive species, the non-native plants and animals that sometimes stow away in shipments to the
U.S.
Many of the pests get loose in the wild and do a lot of damage, such as the zebra mussels that are
harming the ecosystems of lakes and rivers and emerald ash borers that are killing ash trees.
State officials say there are gaps in federal legislation, leaving no money or no requirements to
control the invasive species that have been here for a long time. State officials also say that
international trade agreements can make it difficult to regulate products that might harbor
invasive species because the trade agreements don’t address the problem.
The end result is often cheap imported goods that don’t consider or factor in the cost of the pest
that can be brought in with the cheap goods. Some state officials also noted that it would be more
effective to prevent the species from getting here in the first place instead of fighting them later.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Sludge being spread over a field with a manure spreader. (Photo by D. Seliskar, Halophyte Biotechnology Center, Univ. of Delaware)
The more people inhabit the earth – the more sewage there is. Something has to be done with it. Before chemical fertilizers were invented, farmers used human manure to improve their crops. Some still do. About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – fertilize sod, pasture land and even food crops every year in the United States. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Amy Tardif looks at what the practice may be doing to the environment:
Transcript
The more people inhabit the earth – the more sewage there is. Something has to be done with it.
Before chemical fertilizers were invented, farmers used human manure to improve their crops.
Some still do. About three million dry tons of treated sewage – called sludge – fertilize sod,
pasture land and even food crops every year in the United States. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Amy Tardif looks at what the practice may be doing to the environment:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says using treated human waste as fertilizer is the
most environmentally sound way to get rid of it. It used to get dumped in the oceans. The
pollution caused dead zones.
Now, using it on land is becoming controversial. As people move closer to rural areas, they
discover what’s happening. It smells. It might also cause damage. Tommy Drymon insists the
creek near his Florida home has changed because farmers near his house use sludge as fertilizer.
“This was the most beautiful place I’ve ever settled down to. And the creek just looks awful now.
It used to be clear and now it’s just black and mucky all the time.”
Drymon says not only has the color changed – there’s more icky residue on the shore. He rarely
sees otters, deer and other wildlife any more. He definitely stopped swimming in it. Drymon and
his neighbors think the human fertilizer nearby farmers use – known as sewage sludge – is to
blame.
Sludge is made at sewage treatment plants. The water people flush down their toilets gets pretty
clean with today’s methods. That means more of what’s leftover stays pretty dirty. It resembles a
thin pudding or a powder depending on how it’s treated. It can contain viruses, bacteria,
chemicals and cancer-causing heavy metals.
“Now this sewage sludge includes not just human waste, it includes Pine Sol if you clean your
toilet bowl with Pine Sol, or if you do oil painting and you flush the paints down the drain or if
you work in a chemistry lab….”
Eric Giroux is an attorney for Earthjustice. He’s handling a lawsuit for Tommy Drymon and his
neighbors. It claims sewage sludge dumped on farms there is wafting through the air making
them sick and running off into the creek.
There are federal, state and county rules meant to prevent runoff. There are buffer zones from
water bodies and rules to protect groundwater. But sludge is not always applied according to the
rules. And there are things missing from the rules – according to The Cornell Waste
Management Institute. They don’t deal with poisons such as flame retardants, the drugs we take
and toxic chemicals that harm fish and wildlife and inhibit plant growth.
But those who use sludge as fertilizer like it.
“It’s a product that has to have something done with it. And if it’s done properly there are no
problems.”
Dennis Carlton has used the free product on his cow pastures for ten years. He says the calves
raised on those pastures end up weighing more than others. Sludge saves him sixty to 160 dollars
an acre on expensive chemicals.
“It’s cost effective and it does a better job than the commercial fertilizer because it last longer
because of the slow release qualities.”
Sludge contains lots of nitrogen – which is food for plants. It’s organic. Plants absorb it very
slowly. And that’s good.
Since 1997, University of Florida Soil scientist Martin Adjei has compared typical commercial
fertilizer – ammonium nitrate – with sludge. He says his studies show the good stuff in sludge gets
into the plants very nicely, and he says plants don’t seem to absorb the heavy metals.
“We measured lead, barium, cadmium, nickel in the plant. They were all point zero, zero two or
something parts per million in the plant.”
That’s lower than the EPA says it has to be. Adjei says only trace amounts of metals sunk into the
groundwater. He doesn’t know yet whether the metals drift into the soil. But he found too much
of the nutrient phosphorous builds up in the soil when fertilized with sludge year after year. He
admits there are many more tests to be done.
This year the EPA responded to complaints about sludge. It plans to test it for 50 chemicals – far
more than ever before. Geff Grubbs is the EPA’s Director of Science and Technology.
“We’re focusing on a couple of things, one is beginning to ramp up some of the research
investments to strengthen our understanding of some of the processes and nature of the
contaminants that could be present in sludge and what risk they might or might not pose. And we
do have a number of things that are in the works both near and longer term that might lead to
changes in the underlying regulations about what can be in biosolids before they are applied to
land.”
And, the EPA and a few industry groups have created a best practices program for willing
utilities. They pledge to control the odor and dust as well as manage the nutrients in their sludge.
The utilities are then audited by impartial, independent, third parties. There are only 48
municipalities participating nationwide.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Amy Tardif.
