Tag: public comment

Epa Drops Sewage Blending Proposal

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.


For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Fda to Phase Out Cfcs in Inhalers?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration may soon take a step that could help the ozone layer. Health officials say they might phase out certain types of asthma inhalers that use chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley has more:

Transcript

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration may soon take a step that could
help the ozone layer. Health officials say they might phase-out certain
types of asthma inhalers that use chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley has more:


Since the early 1990’s, CFCs were banned from use in things such as car
air conditioners and aerosol cans. But they were still allowed to be used in
devices deemed medically necessary.


These include some types of asthma inhalers that contain very small
amounts of CFC gas to propel medicine into the lungs.


Now, health officials say there might be an alternative to the ozone-
depleting gas. They say hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, gas works just as
well.


Doctor Robert Meyer evaluates drugs for the FDA. He says the new ban
may seem like a small step, but the overall picture matters most.


“We’re not really in the business of questioning whether this individual use
is in and of itself impacting much on the environment, we’re really looking
at the overall picture, and this action is a part of that picture.”


The FDA is asking the public for feedback on the possible phase-out.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Christina Shockley.

Related Links

Proposals to Limit Great Lakes Water Diversion

  • The Great Lakes from space (Color satellite photo courtesy of NOAA).

Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released two draft agreements to manage the region’s water supply. The proposals’ aim is to block any attempt to divert water from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

Leaders of the states and provinces around the Great Lakes have released a draft agreement to
manage the region’s water supply. The proposal’s aim is to block any attempt to divert water
from the lakes to drier parts of the world. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett
reports:


There’s no immediate threat by outside interests to ship or pump large amounts of Great Lakes
water to the arid Southwest, or to any other part of the world that needs freshwater. And the
draft agreements aim to keep it that way.


There are two documents up for consideration by the public and policy makers. One would be a
binding compact between the states. The other would be a voluntary agreement between the
states and provinces.


Ohio Governor Bob Taft co-chairs the Council of Great Lakes Governors – which released the
plans.


“The whole effort is premised out of our concern that we have a legally enforceable framework,
and a clear standard.”


There’s already a federal law on the books that allows any one Great Lakes governor to veto a
diversion of water from the lakes. But there are concerns about challenges under the U.S.
Constitution, or free trade agreements.


The Great Lakes Charter Annex would require the approval of all eight states for any proposal to
divert more than a million gallons a day out of the basin. Even if a diversion is approved, there’s
a catch: whatever’s taken out of the basin would have to be returned once it’s used.


Noah Hall of the National Wildlife Federation says the practical effect of those requirements
would be a guarantee that the lakes don’t get pilfered by drier parts of the U.S….


“…Where they have growing populations and dwindling supplies of water, and they’ve been
looking at using the Great Lakes to meet their water needs for some time. I think they’ll
obviously see this agreement for what it is, which is a pretty large barrier – perhaps an
insurmountable barrier – to accessing Great Lakes water down the road.”


The agreement would also allow any three states to block withdrawals from within the basin of
more than five million gallons a day. Existing users would be grandfathered in, so only the most
mammoth project would likely come up for consideration – a new power plant, for example.
Hall says that means at most one project a year that would come up for review.


“But what it guards against is the threat of the absolute largest diversions. The massive
withdrawals. The ones that could by themselves harm or impact the Great Lakes, and lower lake
levels.”


Eventually, states would be required to put rules in place for managing smaller withdrawals
within the basin. Even under a best-case scenario, that wouldn’t happen for at least a dozen
years. But Ohio Governor Taft says the end result will be preservation of the lakes for future
generations.


“We have a responsibility as stewards of this precious resource – 20 percent of the world’s fresh
water supply – to protect and preserve it for the benefit of the people within the region, and that
is what the draft agreement is intended to accomplish.”


The plan is up for public review over the next three months. Each Great Lakes state would have
to sign off on the interstate compact. It would also require the approval of Congress. And the
fast-growing arid southwest has more representation in Congress every term.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Canadian ‘Species at Risk’ Law Criticized

A Canadian environmental group is protesting Canada’s decision to seek public comments before giving protection to endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A Canadian environmental group is protesting Canada’s decision to seek public comments before
giving protection to endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly
reports:


Representatives of the Sierra Club of Canada say they were blindsided by the federal
government’s decision.


The government announced public consultations to consider adding 63 new species to Canada’s
Species at Risk Act.


The Sierra Club’s Rachel Plotkin says endangered species should be chosen by scientists, not by
the public at large.


“Either a species is becoming endangered or its not becoming endangered. It’s not whether or not
someone wants it to be on the list because they recognize that might impact their profit and their
industry.”


Plotkin says socioeconomic issues are already considered when action plans are developped to protect a species.
Unlike the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Canadian law only protects species on federal land.

However, new listings in the U.S. are also subject to public comment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Woman Fights Uphill Battle Against Water Diversion

  • Upstream on the Glen Tay River in the Fall of 1999. Residents fought against a Swiss company (OMYA) who wanted to draw water from the river to make slurry for products like toothpaste and paper. (Photo courtesy of Carol Dillon)

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being drained from her local river:

Transcript

In many communities, there are increasing demands for the limited
supply of water. But people often feel there’s little they can do to protect that
water from outside interests. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on one
woman who fought to stop millions of gallons of water from being
drained from her local river:


(sound of crunching leaves)


It’s been a wet spring. But the leaves along the shore of the Tay River in Perth, Ontario
crunch beneath your feet.


Carol Dillon walks a path that was once submerged in water. She stops at a maple tree, and
points to a ring of greenish bark around its trunk.


“This is where the water comes to normally in the spring…
This was sort of the natural shore line, but the water has not
been this high, this would be the fourth year now.”


(sound of wind, crunching of leaves)


Carol Dillon and her husband, Mel, bought this piece of land in
1999. They came here to retire. Then, in the fall of that year, the Tay River dried up.


Four months later, they were shocked when a manufacturer applied
to take 1.2 million gallons of water out of the river every day.


“We simply looked out the window at this very dry river and
said, well how are they going to do that?”


Dillon soon found out they weren’t the only people asking that
question. Six thousand residents depend on the river for drinking water.
Another six thousand draw from wells in the river’s watershed. People worried there wouldn’t be
enough clean water during the dry season. And that wildlife would suffer.


(sound of truck)


An 18-wheeler pulls out of the OMYA plant in Perth, carrying a
load of calcium carbonate sludge. The Swiss company needs water to make the sludge, which
goes into products like paper and toothpaste.


They already draw about 400 thousand gallons out of the area’s
groundwater each day. But OMYA wanted to triple its water consumption so it could step
up production, with a promise of new jobs.


The public had 15 days to comment on the company’s plan.


As a consultant with the federal government, Dillon knew a bit
about bureaucracy. So she started helping out neighbors, who weren’t sure what they
could do.


“At one of the public meetings, a farmer stood up and said,
‘I’ve been a farmer on the Tay River for 40 years, but I don’t know
what to write in a letter to the minister.’ He said, ‘well, we have
to be careful with the water.’ And I said, ‘that’s your letter.'”


Dillon says she wanted to convince people that their voices do
matter. So she dropped off envelopes for them, faxed their letters, and
answered lots of questions. Before she knew it, she had kick-started a grassroots
movement.


“I was not a tree hugger in my life and I never was a
political person, either, but always believed in responsibility…
This is a democracy and when people have an opinion on something,
your government should hear it.”


People were inspired by Dillon. Jackie Seaton is one of the many who got involved.


“She simply spoke to the issue of water. If you’ve ever read
any of her memos or heard her speak at a council meeting, I mean
everybody can understand what’s she saying because it’s in the
plainest and simplest terms. And I must say that was very, very impressive.”


Typically, the ministry of environment receives fewer than 10
letters. But 283 townspeople wrote in to oppose the water taking.


Despite that, the ministry granted OMYA its permit.


The residents could appeal the decision to a quasi-judicial panel. But without money or a lawyer,
they decided it would be impossible.


Dillon, however, disagreed. She forged ahead on her own, and won the right to a hearing. She
relied on scientists who had retired in the community to help her prepare. It would be her word
against lawyers representing the company and the government.


(ambient sound)


Dillon pulls a thick plastic binder off a bookshelf that’s packed
with evidence used in the hearing.


She insists she wasn’t against the water taking per se. She just wanted the government to make a
decision based on good science. The company was granted the initial permit based in part on 75-
year-old data. Dillon argued more research needed to be done.


Over the past eight years, 46 community groups have challenged
decisions by the Ministry of the Environment.


No one had ever won – until now.


The panel granted the company just one third of the amount of
water it requested, with a potential for more in the future. And it directed the province to conduct
more research on the river.


“First, we were…it was unbelievable and then we were
ecstatic that it was all worth it.”


But the citizens’ celebrations were short-lived.


In April of this year, Ontario’s environment minister, Chris
Stockwell, reversed the tribunal decision and reinstated the full
permit. He cited new information that predicted the river would drop only
a few inches when the water was removed. The minister won’t comment on the outcome, other
than to say he stands by his decision.


But OMYA’s plant administrator, Larry Sparks, says the decision
was based on science. And while he recognizes that citizens have a right to question the
government, he says it shouldn’t come at the expense of business.


“And it’s very difficult to make
business decisions when you apply for a permit and have to wait three
years for approval and conclusion of the process. Our concern was not with the people, but rather
with the fact that the process was allowed to go on for three years.”


For Carol Dillon, the minister’s decision was a disappointing end to a
long struggle.


“You can have this two and a half year-long process and the
minister can just overturn it, politically, then what’s the point
of it all? So I’m back to where I started.”


(sounds by the river)


But Dillon hasn’t given up. Now she’s lobbying Ontario to adopt new standards for water use.
She doesn’t care if she has to write letters, battle lawyers or
lobby politicians – she just wants her community, and everyone in
Ontario, to have a say in the future of their water.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Jet Ski Debate Heats Up

Personal watercraft, also known by their trade name “jet skis,” are the hottest sellers among watercraft in the Great Lakes region. They’re causing some heated debate as well. They’ve been banned in many National Parks, and some Great Lakes states are also regulating their use. Last summer, New York passed a law allowing towns to make their own rules for jet skis. Some have already banned them on local lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports on the controversy jet skis are provoking:

Transcript

Personal watercraft, also known by their trade name “jet-skis”, are the hottest sellers among watercraft in the Great Lakes region. They’re causing some heated debate as well. They’ve been banned in many National Parks, and some Great Lakes states are also regulating their use. Last summer New York passed a law allowing towns to make their own rules for jet-skis. Some have already banned them on local lakes.


The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports on the controversy jet skis are provoking.


When Jay Schecter relaxes in the quiet of his home on Hannawa Pond in northern New York, there’s one sound he can’t stand.


(Sound of jet ski starting up and driving away)


It’s a personal watercraft, or Jet Ski. It’s easy to get Schecter to talk about last summer when young kids driving jet-skis nearly drove him crazy.


“…y’know, weaving in and out of traffic and wake jumping. The awful noise, going uuuuuuuuuuuuu for literally hours on end.”


(Sound of buzzing Jet Ski)


Jet-skis are different from other motorized boats, not just because they sound different. They ride high on the water’s surface and can easily make sharp turns. So they can come closer to shores and docks at higher speeds than traditional motorboats can.


Schecter heard about the new “home rule” law in New York that allows towns to make their own jet-ski rules. At the same time, he started to hear from his neighbors.


“I started to hear complaints about jet-skis from recreational boaters, big time water-skiers, older gentlemen who’d been on the pond for many years.”


So Schecter spearheaded a campaign over the winter to get the machines banned from the water. The town Board compromised with what amounted to a jet-ski curfew from 6 in the evening to 9 in the morning. The proposal sparked a controversy on the pond that’s divided neighbors into pro- and anti-jet ski camps.


(Sound of motor boat approaching dock; then sound of guys under track)


Just down the shoreline from Jay Schecter’s place, a few motorboats idle up to Alex Vangelo’s dock. Alex and his friends like to get together on hot days like these – maybe get in a little water-skiing after work. None of them own jet skis, but they don’t want any new rules, either. Alex says most jet skiers on this pond are responsible users.


“They’ve got three or four jet skis and they get home from work and they like to get on it and ride up and down the river a couple times. Well, God bless ’em, I say”


Alex’s friend Mark Luthauser loves to cruise around in his motorboat and says his neighbors should have the right to enjoy their jet skis.


“I’d be happier without jet skis on here, but it’s just not fair for me to support something just because I personally don’t like it.”


New York’s “home rule” law is the first of its kind in the country. Other Great Lakes states have a range of Jet Ski laws on the books. But most of them don’t restrict where and when they can be used – they just regulate unsafe and risky operation.


Some people say the problems with jet skis go well beyond noise, safety, and personal freedoms. The two-stroke engines in jet skis are heavy polluters, dumping up to a third of their fuel into the air and water. The most often cited statistic says that one day of Jet Ski play emits as much pollution as a new car driven 100,000 miles. Shawn Smith of Blue Water Network, a national environmental group, says jet skis endanger fish and birds, too.


“The way they’re designed, they don’t have propellers; they’re powered by a jet pump. That allows them to get into waterways where traditional boats cannot. Often these waterways are very shallow and represent some of the most sensitive habitat for wildlife – breeding grounds, nesting areas, that type of thing.”


Groups like Blue Water Network are pushing for more states to consider “home rule” laws like New York’s.


But Industry representatives say advances in technology will soon silence the complaints against the watercraft. Monita Fontaine directs the Personal Watercraft Industry Association. She says new personal watercrafts are already 75% cleaner and 70% quieter than the older models.


“People will have to look at what it is they don’t like about personal watercraft because it certainly will not be the fact that there are any environmental impacts. And people will have to see if, in fact, it’s simple prejudice.”


(Sound up)


Back on Hannawa Pond, John Ohmohundro, another jet-ski opponent, says the jet ski controversy is similar to other “man and machine” vs. “nature and neighbor” conflicts, from snowmobiles to boom boxes to ATVs.


“Where does your right to play any way you want to interfere with my right for peace and quiet, clean air, clean water, safety…I’m interested in that issue.”


(Sound of jet ski)


So are many other people. Across the region this summer, residents will be crowding public meetings to consider their own Jet Ski restrictions.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.