Cold War Toxin in Drinking Water?

A toxic leftover from the Cold War is polluting soil and water at sites across the country. More than two dozen sites in the Great Lakes region could be contaminated by a chemical used in rocket fuel. The chemical was either used or stored at the sites. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Pollution Hot Spots Get the Scoop

Polluted sediments sit at the bottom of rivers and lakes across the Great Lakes region. They can affect water quality, wildlife and human health. More than 40 highly contaminated areas in the region have been identified by the EPA’s Great Lakes Office. But so far, only about half of those sites have been cleaned up. This summer, dredging is taking place in at least three of those hot spots, all on rivers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on the challenges of cleaning up a river bottom:

Long Road to River Recovery

  • Aerial view of industry along the Fox River. Photo by Great Lakes United.

One of the rivers that flows into Lake Michigan is polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site…an environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up, and some environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

One of the rivers that flows into the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan) is
polluted so badly that it’s being treated much like a Super Fund site –an
environmental disaster. It’ll be decades before it’s cleaned up. And some
environmentalists think it might never be cleaned up properly. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


(Sound of fish splash)


It’s late at night. The moon’s out. And the fish are flopping on the Fox
River. In downtown Green Bay, Wisconsin, Robert Hageman and a few of his
friends have been fishing. A couple of the guys are bragging about the big
fish they caught. But they’re not taking any home with them tonight.


LG: “Had any luck?” RH: “Yeah, I caught 23 fish.”
LG: “And wwhat did you do with them? RH: “Let ’em right back.” LG: “why?” RH: “Because it’s dirty. Fox River’s dirty.”
LG: “What have you heard about the Fox River?” RH: “The fish ain’t good for you. They can’t hurt you, but they ain’t good for you.
(friends in background say “PCBs, man.”) “yeah.”
LG: “What do you know about PCBs?
RH: “I don’t know nothing about it. That’s why I ain’t eatin’ them.” (all laugh)


Hageman and his friends are right when they say there are PCBs in the Fox
River. But apparently they haven’t heard that eating fish from the river
probably can hurt you in the long run. There are 60-thousand pounds of
PCBs, or poly chlorinated byphenyls, in the 39 mile run of the Fox
River. Of that, 50-thousand pounds – that’s 25 tons – is in the sediment of
the last seven mile stretch just before the river flows into Green Bay and
on into the rest of Lake Michigan. It’s that final stretch where Hageman
and his friends have been fishing.


The Environmental Protection Agency says seven paper mills along the Fox
River are the likely polluters. The EPA says PCBs were produced as a
by-product of the paper manufacturing process, and from the 1950s to the 1970s
they were dumped into the river. Now, the agency intends to make those
mills pay for cleaning up the contaminants.


Dennis Hultgren works for Appleton Papers, and is a spokesperson for a group
that represents the seven companies. Hultgren says the paper mills want to
clean up the pollution. But they don’t want to pay more than they have to.


“What we want to do is make sure that the money that we do spend
is spent wisely and it does the most environmental good for the region. And
so, we have one chance to do it right and we want to do it right the first
time.”


The paper mills have been working closely with government agencies to try to
determine where the PCBs are concentrated and how best to clean up the
pollution. Some of the companies have spent millions of dollars on tests in
the river. Just recently, Hultgren’s firm offered 40-million dollars… ten-million dollars a year for four years… for data collection and preliminary clean-up tests. The government agencies praised the decision and some environmental groups voiced their approval. But a local grassroots group, the Clean Water Action Council of Northeast Wisconsin, does not approve. Rebecca Katers is with the council and says it’s a delay tactic by the paper mill companies.


“It makes the company look generous. But, in fact, they should be doing this anyway. They should have done this ten years ago.”


Giving the money now, Katers says, only manages to delay legal action
against the company for four more years. Besides, she says, while
40-million dollars might seem like a lot of money, the estimated clean-up
could cost as much as 30 times that amount.


The Clean Water Action Council says this money and the government’s
willingness to accept it are representative of the cozy relationship the
companies seem to have with regulators. But Katers says the state and
federal agencies are forgetting about the people who live here. She
bristles when she hears the government agencies talk about how close they
are to the paper mills.


“They talked at the announcement about ongoing discussions they
have on a daily basis with the paper industries on this issue. But, they
haven’t met once face-to-face with the public. They haven’t held a public
discussion or debate on this issue.”


And it appears there won’t be many opportunities in the future. Although
the Fox River is not a Superfund site, the EPA is generally following the
process used for Superfund sites. The EPA says that means the public can
submit comments in writing. But there won’t be a lot of public discussion
until the EPA actually has a proposed plan. Katers thinks the people
should have a voice a lot earlier in the process.


But, the paper mills’ representative, Dennis Hultgren says it’s better to
let the experts work first.


“It’s complicated. For the normal citizen, it’s going to be very difficult to comment on it because they’re going to be looking at the technical merits
of their comments. And a general citizen, not having been involved, it’s going to be very difficult to have germane comments.”


The companies say they’ve been studying and testing and they’ve found
disturbing the sediment by trying to remove it proves that the PCBs should
be left in the sediment, allowed to slowly break down… a process called
natural recovery. And where there’s risk that sediment laden PCBs might
be disturbed by the river’s currents, engineered caps could be put in place.


The Clean Water Action Council says the paper mills tests were designed to
end up with that conclusion because that would be the cheaper way to deal
with the PCBs. The council wants the PCBs removed from the river and
disposed of safely… a much more expensive job.


The acting regional administrator for the USEPA, David Ullrich, says
there’ll likely be some combination of natural recovery, capping, and
removal. But, Ullrich says none of that will happen anytime soon. It’s a
big job, and it looks as though it will take up to ten years to deal with
the PCBs. And Ullrich says that’s just the beginning.


“The actual recovery of the resource, getting fish contaminant
levels down to acceptable levels and getting the PCB loadings to Green Bay
and out to Lake Michigan down, could take a longer period of time than that,
perhaps up to twenty years.”


And over that 20 year period, experts say that contamination will
naturally spread farther and farther into Green Bay and Lake Michigan.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

State to Force Mercury Reductions?

Mercury emissions from more than 150 coal-burning power plants across the Great Lakes are coming under greater scrutiny this summer. Several states are considering ways to reduce those emissions. Wisconsin could become the first state in the nation to issue rules requiring large mercury reductions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has the story:

LONG ROAD TO RIVER RECOVERY (Short Version)

The Environmental Protection Agency says it could be a decade before a river that feeds Green Bay and Lake Michigan will have tons of PCBs cleaned up. And a lot longer before the river recovers from the effects of the pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Regulations Hurt Small Town Economies

  • Service stations that went out of business rather than pay for upgrades of underground storage tanks have left some small towns without anyplace in town to buy gasoline. That's affected some small towns' economy.

Across the nation some small towns are hurting because of
environmental regulations that have led to economic problems. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

REGULATIONS HURT SMALL TOWN ECONOMIES (Shorter Version)

  • Service stations that went out of business rather than pay for upgrades of underground storage tanks have left some small towns without anyplace in town to buy gasoline. That's affected some small towns' economy.

Some rural communities are struggling because environmental
regulations hurt their economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports:

Airport Thaws De-Icing Problem

Each winter, airports around the country use more than 30 million
gallons of deicing fluid. The gooey substance prevents ice and snow from
building on a plane’s wings. However, the fluid can also seep into the
ground and pollute groundwater. It’s a costly problem for airports. But
now, one has found a unique solution. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Each winter, airports around the country use more than 30 million gallons of deicing fluid. The

gooey substance prevents ice and snow from building up on a plane’s wings. However, the fluid can

also seep into the ground and pollute groundwater. It’s a costly problem for airports. But now, one

has found a unique solution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


(sound of plane)


It’s a cold, overcast day in Albany, New York as a passenger plane lifts off the runway. It’s one

of the hundred or so planes that take off from here every day. At this time of year, they’ll all

have to be deiced. Steve Lachetta is the Albany airport’s planner and environmental manager.


“We’re in the Hudson River basin and our winter season extends for over 214 days, from early

October through late April or early May. Albany, being a typical small hub, uses 100 thousand

gallons of PG per year.”


PG is propylene glycol, the main ingredient in deicing fluid that makes it gooey. Any time the

temperature dips below 40 degrees, airports are required by the FCC to use PG. The problem is,

propylene glycol also seeps into the ground.


And in Albany’s case, it started showing up in the nearby Mohawk River – a local source for

drinking water. So, Albany became the first airport in the country to receive a state mandate to

clean up its deicing fluid.


“We were spending one million dollars to dispose of our winter storm water after collection. So we

tried every form of recycling the fluid, trucking it off airport. And we took a common sense

approach to cost control and became very interested in establishing biological treatment.”


In other words, Lachetta turned to microorganisms for help. He added bacteria to the dirty storm

water. And found they started digesting the propylene glycol. The bacteria broke it down into

acidic acid and then carbon dioxide and methane. The process gives the microorganisms fuel to grow.


“The manufacturers refer to propylene glycol as the filling of the Oreo cookie of the microbe world

and very readily digested so we did much experimentation and found total removal. Byproducts are 85

percent pure methane and 15 percent carbon dioxide.”


(sound inside treatment plant)


That pure methane is put to use here – providing heat for the airport’s storm water treatment

plant. It looks like something out of Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. The room is filled

with a jumble of brightly colored pipes. There’s deep purple, vibrant green and canary yellow. Each

one has a special purpose.


“The large blue pipes are cycling 22 gallons per minute through the large vessels outside standing

35 feet high, 14 feet wide, and the brown pipes are the dirty storm water directly off the aircraft

aprons and the light blue pipes are for the clean water.”


Those pipes run to and from a pair of giant mixing vats. They stir up a brew of dirty storm water,

microorganisms, and some extra nutrients. It’s all cooked at a temperature of 85 degrees. And the

result is clean water.


Shelly Zuskin-Barish is the project manager for the EPA’s Airport Deicing Operations Study. She

says Albany has the most stringent treatment program in the country.


“I was very impressed when reviewing their treatment system. We found they were getting very good

removal in terms of not only propylene glycol but also an additive called tolyltriazole.”


Zuskin-Barish says there’s growing concern about tolytriazole because of its impact on aquatic

life. This is the first system she’s seen that removes it. As for propylene glycol, most airports

use a combination of recycling it and trucking it off site. Albany’s system removes more of the

pollutants, and it’s cheaper. Zuskin-Barish says Albany is on the cutting edge because it had to

be.


Albany airport has a local limit through their own state of 1 part per million propylene glycol.

For the different airports we’ve seen, that’s a very tight limit and I think in large part, pushed

them to go to this technology, which is helping them achieve those levels on a daily basis.


But now, other states – and countries – are starting to crack down as well. And Albany’s Steve

Iachetta is getting lots of visitors.


“We’ve been visited by Tokyo International, some European airports, the Department of Defense, much

larger airports, Denver, Nashville, other hubs that have come to see our early pioneering efforts.

It’s great to be on the leading edge. It’s nice to know we can contribute to improving the

environment.”


Right now, airport pollution controls differ from state to state. But next winter, the EPA will

consider national regulations to govern the disposal of deicing fluid. That may bring even more

visitors to Albany – to find out how a small airport ended up with the country’s most innovative

system.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly in Albany, New York.

Controversy Over Clean-Up Funds

The most toxic hot spots around the Great Lakes would receive an extrafifty million dollars in clean-up funds, if a Clinton administrationbudget proposal goes through. But some environmental groups don’t wantthe money dribbled out in small doses. They argue the best thing to dowould be to spend all the cash on comprehensive clean-up projects atjust a few sites. The idea is controversial, as the Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The most toxic hot spots around the Great Lakes would receive an extra fifty million dollars in

clean-up funds, if a Clinton Administration budget proposal goes through. But some environmental

groups don’t want the money dribbled out in small doses. They argue the best thing to do would be

to spend all the cash on comprehensive clean-up projects at just a few sites. The idea is

controversial, as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’ s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The most polluted parts of the Great Lakes are known as Areas
of Concern. There are over 40 of these hot spots in harbors and
bays, or in rivers that dump into the lakes. At many sites, the
pollution has led health agencies to tell people to be careful
about eating certain types of fish.
But that hasn’t stopped some anglers from doing their thing.


“That was the best cast I’ve
seen today.”


Marl and his buddy Paul are standing underneath an elevated
freeway in Milwaukee. They’re casting their fishing lines into
Lake Michigan for brown trout, perch or whatever wants to bite.


Through Milwaukee’s estuary, that’s the harbor and nearby rivers, is a toxic hot spot, Marl says he

pays little attention to fish consumption warnings.


“Whatever I catch I eat, I eat it on whatever basis I feel like eating it. If I want to eat fish

every night for a week, I eat it… doesn’t seem to affect me in any way.”


But nearby in the Milwaukee harbor, researchers point to pollution that seems to make the casual

approach to fish consumption here quite risky.


(sound of horn)


This tugboat is pushing a barge that’s about to take a load of coal from a huge coal pile at the

water’s edge. The pile is uncovered and during heavy rains or snowmelt, there’s runoff from the

coal into the harbor. Great Lakes researcher Jeffrey Foran says that’s hardly the only pollutant in

the area.


“It’s a virtual alphabet soup of pollution and we can name a few. PCBs, PAHs, contaminants from

sewage runoff historically, metals, cadmium chromium.”


Foran heads the Great Lakes Water Institute at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee. He says

there’s actually been some improvement in the surface water quality over the last couple decades.

But Foran warns the sediment in the Milwaukee harbor by and large remains toxic muck, and those

toxins make their way into the food chain. Foran says Milwaukee’s problems aren’t unique.


“If you took the problems and simply dropped the name Milwaukee harbor, you could insert those

problems into probably the majority of areas of concern throughout the Great Lakes basin.”


Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on cleanup work at the various sites, but only one

project – at Waukegan, Illinois – is largely done. So environmental groups hope Congress during its

EPA budget deliberations this spring will approve the extra 50 million dollars in cleanup funds

President Clinton proposed. But Great Lakes United executive director Margaret Wooster says the

money should be targeted to just a few hot spots.


“And do the complete cleanup right. From soup to nuts kind of thing. That is the initial making

sure if there’s a polluter, polluter pays their fair share as has happened in many cases, to good

dredging techniques.”


Wooster also says there needs to be good places to dump the dredged material. Then should come

monitoring to make sure the water body doesn’t become fouled again, if there are more
success stories around the Great Lakes, environmentalists believe
lawmakers will then allocate additional money to finish work on
the other sites. But the Great Lakes community isn’t completely
sold on the targeting of funds. William Smith is a citizen
advisor to the Clinton river area of concern north of Detroit.
He wonders how fast news of complete clean-ups would spread.


“And when these one demonstration projects are done,
they’re distant. You hear about them the transfer of information
is long is coming. And sure it’s nice for some harbor to go after
this. But if you’re looking across the board on the Great Lakes
it would be much better used to go after problems in individual
Areas of Concern instead of 2 to 3 separate sites.”


Smith says
funneling just a million or two dollars to some of Michigan’s
smaller hot spots would move clean-up of those sites forward in a
big way. That’s because state officials would probably match the
federal funds. But whether the federal money is targeted to a
couple sites or divided evenly in all the areas, Smith does agree
with the large environmental groups on one thing. He says the
recreation and drinking water needs of Great Lakes citizens
should prompt Congress to approve the president’s plan.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Chuck Quirmbach in Milwaukee.

Potato Farms Create ‘Super-Sized’ Problem (Part 1)

Ron Offutt grows more potatoes than anyone else in the
world. He grows them for the French Fry market. Press reports call him
the Sultan of Spuds and the Lord of the Fries—but his success has an
environmental price, as people in small towns near his potato farms have
learned to their dismay. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary
Losure reports in the first of a two part series: