In order to provide safe drinking water for a community, water pipelines have to be properly maintained. (Photo by Keith Syvinski)
The Environmental Protection Agency says it will cost more than a quarter trillion dollars over the next 20 years to ensure safe drinking water in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Carmody reports:
Transcript
The EPA says it will cost more than a quarter trillion dollars over the next twenty years to ensure safe drinking water in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Carmody reports:
Benjamin Grumbles is the assistant EPA administrator for water. He says
the primary obstacle faced by most communities to providing safe drinking
water is the age of the pipes and other infrastructure through which the water
must pass.
Grumbles says replacing transmission lines and distribution pipes accounts
for two-thirds of the 277 billion dollars the EPA estimates will need to be
spent between now and 2025.
“Sometimes the materials will just break down due to age or other stresses.”
The biggest obstacle communities will face is paying for upgrades of their
existing infrastructure.
The federal government only provides a small amount of seed money for
upgrading local water utilities, amounting to only 850 million dollars this
year.
A new process called alkaline hydrolysis is forecasted to be a cheaper, safer way to dispose of animal carcasses. (Photo by Dr. Beth Williams, University of Wyoming, courtesy of CWD Alliance)
Animal research labs usually get rid of carcasses by burning them in incinerators. Now, a new more environmentally friendly technology is being used to dispose of the diseased dead animals and the lab supplies they contaminate. The new method has worked well enough that hospitals are considering it as a way to dispose of medical waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports:
Transcript
Animal research labs usually get rid of carcasses by burning them in incinerators. Now, a new more environmentally friendly technology is being used to dispose of the diseased dead animals and the lab supplies they contaminate. The new method has worked well enough that hospitals are considering it as a way to dispose of medical waste. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert reports:
Until recently, the only safe way to destroy diseased tissue and other infectious waste was to burn it in an incinerator. But dangerous chemicals such as dioxins spew from the incinerator smokestacks, and burning leaves behind a toxic ash.
(sound of machine whirring)
Now, there’s an alternative to burning. Dr. Gordon Kaye stands in a spotless room beside one of the units manufactured at a company he helped found, WR Squared, in Indianapolis, Indiana. The unit will eventually be used to dispose of 5,000 pounds of dead animals – about the equivalent of five large cows – that were used for veterinary research.
But there will be no smoke. There’ll be no fire.
Kaye’s idea for a new type of disposal technology began 12 years ago when he was a pathology professor at Albany Medical College. He was frustrated with how much it cost to dispose of dead research animals. So, he started experimenting with a new technology. And alkaline hydrolysis was born.
“Well, there are no air emissions from it. It’s a sealed system. It takes place in a hermetically sealed pressure vessel. No dangerous products are produced in it because of the temperature which it takes place.”
Alkaline hydrolysis works like this: infectious waste goes into a tightly sealed vessel, along with strong alkalis which are very caustic. The waste is then cooked at temperatures well above boiling. A chemical reaction causes the waste to break down. The infectious components are neutralized. When it’s over, you end up with two products: a sterile, water-like solution, that can head to a sanitary sewer system, and sterile crushed bones, the consistency of powder, that can be used as fertilizer. Because the end products are clean, they don’t require complicated disposal, so the process is cheaper than incineration.
WR squared now has 60 units in 15 states, primarily at research facilities. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has purchased several of them. New York was the first state to allow use of the technology. Ira Salkin directed that state’s medical waste program when it approved WR squared’s process.
“It has less potential problems than is being found with incineration and the use of incineration in the U.S. is decreasing and therefore their system holds great promise. As the numbers of incinerators decrease, one finds they have this alternative to be used to treat pathologic material.”
Environmentalists agree with Salkin that the technology is sound. Horhay Emmanuel is with Health Care Without Harm. He notes that it’s especially effective for one troublesome type of waste, cattle dead from Mad Cow disease.
“Not only does it destroy infectious agents, but it also destroys prion-contaminated waste. And prions are what are believed to cause things like Mad Cow disease, which are difficult to destroy, even by incineration, so WR squared has been shown to destroy these prions in the contaminated waste.”
Last April, The Environmental Protection Agency approved alkaline hydrolysis, along with incineration, as a way to treat Mad Cow diseased waste. And WR Squared’s Gordon Kaye sees that as a big future market.
Horhay Emmanuel, with Health Care Without Harm, says while alkaline hydrolysis is generally good for the environment, there is one concern. The fluid that’s produced could overwhelm some small town’s sewer systems. The company says in communities with small sewer systems, the solution can be released more slowly or during off-peak hours.
So, alkaline hydrolysis process is cheaper, it pollutes less, government agencies like it, and environmentalists find little to criticize.
Now, the company is broadening its reach to treat hospital waste. Many hospitals are using smaller, not very efficient incinerators that pollute more.
WR Squared’s Gordon Kaye says he expects big growth with this new method to dispose of medical and infectious waste as labs and hospitals look for ways to replace their incinerators over the next several years.
In the United States, low-level nuclear waste is stored in landfills. An Ontario town is proposing to put Canada's low-level nuclear waste in an underground chamber a mile from Lake Huron. (Photo courtesy of the NRC)
In Canada, just across Lake Huron from
Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of
Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive
material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake
Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann
Colihan reports on the town’s work to
get the site and the concerns about putting it close
to one of the Great Lakes:
Transcript
In Canada, just across Lake Huron from Michigan, a small town is offering to be the home of Canada’s first permanent dump site for radioactive material. The proposed site is a mile from Lake Huron. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan reports on the town’s work to get the site and the concerns about putting it close to one of the Great Lakes:
Right now, Canada has nowhere to permanently store its low-level and intermediate-level nuclear waste. This waste is not spent nuclear fuel from power plants. It’s contaminated material that’s been exposed to radioactive substances. It could be anything from the protective clothing workers wear at nuclear power plants to parts from reactors, anything that’s been exposed to radioactivity.
The Ontario town of Kincardine – located about 250 miles north of Detroit – has proposed that it be the site of a nuclear waste dump.
So why would a beach town want a nuclear dump?
Kincardine is also a company town. It’s home to the Bruce Nuclear Power Plant. Eighty-percent of the folks who live there work in the nuclear industry. Larry Kraemer is the former mayor. He explains why the permanent dump is essential for the local economy.
“The Bruce nuclear power plant, which is the biggest nuclear power development in North America as well as the largest local employer and one of the largest Canadian investment in any industry that there is.”
Because Kincardine knows the nuclear industry, the residents aren’t afraid to take on these jobs.
But no one ever asked the question if burying nuclear waste a mile from Lake Huron was the best location in Ontario to put the waste site. Frank King is the Director of Nuclear Waste Management and Engineering Technology for Ontario Power Generation, also known as OPG. He says Kincardine does not have to be the best site for the dump.
“It’s not an issue of whether it’s the best. Nobody has to say it’s best. It just has to be shown that it’s safe; that it’s a good site. There is no requirement to show that it’s the best site.”
OPG already stores low and intermediate-level waste from all twenty Ontario reactors at the Bruce Power plant in Kincardine. But above ground storage is getting tight. OPG began looking at its options and with Kincardine’s “bring it on” attitude it seemed like a good place to start.
OPG paid for members of the Kincardine city council to visit nuclear waste storage sites around the world. Councillors came back especially impressed with how the Swedes do it. They bury their nuclear waste in solid granite.
But the stone below Kincardine is not granite. It’s limestone – and no place in the world uses limestone to contain nuclear waste. William Fyfe is Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences at the University of Western Ontario. He has spent decades studying geology and nuclear waste around the globe.
“Limestone can be much more porous than granite. It has no ability to absorb nasty elements, like you get with some clay minerals and things, to absorb all the dirty chemical species like uranium, for example.”
He does not like the idea of a man-made cavern full of nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.
“Just because you made the waste doesn’t mean you should put it in your backyard. There may be a better place.”
Local environmentalists agree. Given OPG’s record, they don’t trust that the waste dump will be safe. Jennifer Heisz is a founder of the public interest group, Woman’s Legacy, which is focused on the impact of the Bruce nuclear plant on Lake Huron. She says when she requested environmental records from Ontario, she found evidence that the regulators haven’t done a good job of stopping pollution at the plant.
“I received approximately 10 or 15 reports regarding leaking waste sites and the levels coming from the plant were very high – sometimes at 45 times the provincial level for chromium. Vanadium was also one of the chemicals that was contaminating the groundwater and it’s found to be mutagenic to animals.”
Heisz says if OPG is polluting at its existing dump sites, what’s to keep the agency from doing a poor job of storing nuclear waste underground? Ontario regulators say they plan to conduct an environmental assessment. Heisz and her environmental group are raising money for an independent review of deep nuclear storage. The geologist, Professor Fyfe, thinks Kincardine should hold an open house to get the opinions of experts.
“Before we start putting stuff away, let’s invite the bosses of the Swedish group to come and take a look. They are using hundreds of scientists, technicians, and engineers which we are not doing in Canada.”
Few outside the Kincardine area are aware of their nuclear waste dump plans… and fewer still know the site is planned for so close to Lake Huron.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.
Three major cosmetics companies have announced they’ll stop using certain chemicals that have been linked to health concerns. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Three major cosmetics companies have announced they’ll stop using certain chemicals that have been linked to liver and kidney damage, and reproductive system problems. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
L’Oréal, Revlon and Unilever say they’ll comply with a European Union policy that requires cosmetics companies to stop using chemicals that are suspected of causing cancer, birth defects or impaired fertility. Those banned chemicals include phthalates, which are used in some hair and nail products and fragrances. Bryony Schwan is with The Breast Cancer Fund, the group leading the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. She says phthalates are just the first step.
“There are a lot of chemicals in cosmetics that are potentially dangerous. We have a lot of chemicals that have not been tested. We have other chemicals that are linked to cancer and reproductive health effects. So removing phthalates is just the beginning.”
The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics is asking all cosmetics companies to sign a pledge to remove all EU-banned chemicals, and replace them with safer alternatives within three years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.
Ford has started converting some of the traditional, gasoline-fueled engines into hydrogen-powered engines. (Photo by Szekér Ottó)
Automakers from around the world spent last week showing off their latest concepts and production cars at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Many car companies announced plans to begin producing more hybrid vehicles. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports other environmental technologies got some attention as well, including a new way to use hydrogen to fuel the vehicles of the future:
Transcript
Automakers from around the world spent last week showing off their latest concepts and production cars at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Many car companies announced plans to begin producing more hybrid vehicles. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports other environmental technologies got some attention as well, including a new way to use hydrogen to fuel the vehicles of the future:
Many automakers now say that cars ultimately will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells consume hydrogen to generate electricity to power a motor, while leaving on water as waste. There are problems with cells. They’re really expensive right now. And there aren’t many hydrogen re-fueling stations. Ford Motor Company thinks it has a solution. It’s converting some standard gasoline engines to burn hydrogen. Ford’s chief engineer for the system, Vance Zanardelli, says the new engine is a necessary step.
“In order to get people familiar with hydrogen as a fuel, realizing it is a clean, safe fuel, in order to help spur the development of more hydrogen fueling stations, the development of revised codes and standards, and really lay the groundwork, so that when fuel cells are ready for primetime, the world is ready for them.”
Ford plans to begin testing some of the new hydrogen-burning engines in shuttle busses next year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
States are competing to have FutureGen, a power plant that claims to be pollution-free, built in their state. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)
Coal-burning power plants from Great Lakes states are often blamed for much of the pollution that hits the East Coast. But now, the federal government is proposing a massive research project that they say could eventually perfect a way to burn high-sulfur coal without sparking pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has this report:
Transcript
Coal-burning power plants from Great Lakes states are often blamed for much of the pollution that hits the East Coast. But now, the federal government is proposing a massive research project that they say could eventually perfect a way to burn high-sulfur coal without sparking pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Cohen has this report:
The feds are proposing a massive one-billion-dollar plant that’s billed as the world’s first non-polluting, coal-burning power plant. About twenty states say they’ll compete for it. Ohio is one of them. Mark Shanahan of the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority says the plant will first turn coal into gas. And then either recycle or safely store the by-products.
“And when it turns to gas, it’s able to pull out the pollutants much more efficiently and economically. It will pull off hydrogen for fuel cells and it will also test the ability to put carbon dioxide into very deep geology to basically bind it up forever deep in the earth.”
The U.S. Energy Department will pay for most of the plant, but it will be several years before it’s actually online.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Cohen in Columbus.
PVC is used in many building materials, including pipes like these. However, due to health problems that can be caused by PVC and the emissions created in production, the expansion of a PVC plant along Lake Erie is worrisome to some environmentalists. (photo by Jason
Krieger)
A new PVC manufacturing plant is being built in the region,
and that has some environmental groups alarmed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak reports on efforts to halt production of polyvinyl chloride:
Transcript
A new PVC manufacturing plant is being built in the region, and that has some environmental groups alarmed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, Joyce Kryszak reports on efforts to halt production of polyvinyl chloride:
Environmental groups are protesting the construction of a new PVC plant near Buffalo. They say manufacturing PVC releases toxic chemicals into the environment. The group recently released a report highlighting the dangers of PVC and are calling on companies to phase out production of the popular manufacturing material. Mike Schade heads the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition in western New York. The region is home to CertainTeed, a PVC plant that will soon expand to a site along Lake Erie. Schade says it’s a step backward.
“I think it’s outrageous that, given the fact the Great Lakes have seen so many environmental problems, that CertainTeed is coming in and citing a PVC plant right on the lake,” said Schade, “It certainly isn’t my vision for a clean and safe and healthy waterfront.”
Schade says residents near other Certain Teed plants show increased levels of cancer and other serious disease. But company spokesperson Dottie Wackerman disputed the claims. And she says the company’s new plant will have virtually no emissions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Joyce Kryszak.
Researchers from the University of Illinois have discovered a way to remove arsenic from drinking water at its source. (photo by David
Guglielmo)
Researchers believe they have found a way to reduce
arsenic levels in drinking water. They say, for people to drink water from wells or aquifers, the solution starts at the source. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jeff Bossert explains:
Transcript
Researchers believe they have found a way to reduce arsenic levels in drinking water. They say, for people to drink water from wells or aquifers, the solution starts at the source. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jeff Bossert explains:
Chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking water has been linked to a variety of health concerns, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.
Researchers from the University of Illinois collected groundwater samples from 21 wells. They found that the wells with almost no arsenic in the water also contained high levels of sulphate-reducing bacteria, which convert the arsenic into a solid, where it drops out of the water. Dr. Craig Bethke led the study.
“What we’re saying is that if there’s sulfate in the water, then there’s probably sulfate-reducing bacteria active in the subsurface, and that means that a simple field test, which is very inexpensive and very rapid to protect sulfate, could identify safe water sources.”
Bethke says places where aresenic levels are high, sulphate salts, such as gypsum and calcium sulphate, can be injected underground to reduce arsenic levels.
Researchers say this information could prove to be invaluable in places where aresenic contamination is a major problem, including parts of the U.S., Australia, and Mongolia. The researchers’ findings were published in the journal Geology.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jeff Bossert.
Trash and toxic waste cross the U.S.-Canada border every day, and untreated toxic waste often ends up at the Clean Harbors facility. Some are trying to restrict this practice and purge the idea that waste is a commodity.
There’s only one place in North America that still dumps
toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:
Transcript
There’s only one place in North America that still dumps toxic waste straight into the ground without any kind of pre-treatment. A legislator from Ontario, Canada wants this landfill to clean up its act. But trade in toxic waste is a big business. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Ann Colihan follows some trucks to learn more:
(Sound of trucks)
6,000 trucks cross the Blue Water Bridge every day between Canada and the United States. Just under the bridge, Lake Huron funnels into the skinny St. Clair River on its way to south to Lake Erie. The Blue Water Bridge connects Port Huron, Michigan with Sarnia, Ontario. This is the second busiest truck crossing between the United States and Canada. With post 9/11 security, the border can get backed up for miles in both directions. A lot of these trucks are carrying garbage back and forth across the border. Canadian trash and toxic waste is going to the U.S. and American toxic waste is going to Canada.
During her first month in office, Ontario Member of Parliament for Sarnia-Lambton, Caroline Di Cocco, found out just how much toxic waste was coming into her district.
“In 1999 that year, it was over 450,000 tons. To put it in perspective, the Love Canal was 12,000 tons.”
Di Cocco went on a five year crusade to change the Ontario laws that govern the trade in toxic waste. She adopted the U.N. resolution known as the Basel Agreement, as her model.
“The notion from that Basel Agreement is that everybody should look after their own waste and it is not a commodity.”
Di Cocco is not alone in her fight to slow or stop the flow of garbage and toxic waste from crossing the border. Mike Bradley is the mayor of Sarnia, Ontario. He can see the backup on the Blue Water Bridge every day from his home.
“One of the ironies on this is that while Michigan is very much upset, and rightly so, with the importation of Toronto trash, there are tens of thousands of tons of untreated toxic waste coming in from Michigan crossing the Blue Water Bridge into the Clean Harbors site.”
The Clean Harbors facility is the only place in North America that does not pre-treat hazardous waste before it dumps it into its landfill. Frank Hickling is Director of Lambton County Operations for Clean Harbors. He says imports from nearby states in the U.S. accounts for about forty percent of its volume.
“It’s from the Great Lakes area. We do reach down and take waste that our facility is best able to handle. We’re right on the border.”
Rarely do lawmakers on both sides of the border agree on an environmental issue. But pre-treatment of hazardous waste is the law in all fifty states, Mexico and every other Canadian province and territory except Ontario. Pre-treatment reduces the amount of toxic waste or transforms it into a less hazardous substance. But Hickling says disposing hazardous waste in Clean Harbors is a better economic bet.
“Obviously, if you don’t have to pre-treat it, it is cheaper there’s no doubt about that. But what isn’t obvious is the security of the site. Pre-treating waste doesn’t help immobilize the material forever.”
Clean Harbors’ company officials say their landfill won’t leak for 10,000 years. They say that the U.S. pre-treats hazardous waste because they expect their landfills to leak in hundreds of years or less. Hickling says the blue clay of Lambton County that lines Clean Harbors landfill gives them a competitive edge as a toxic dump.
“The facility is in a 140-foot clay plain and we go down about 60 feet. So there’s 80 feet below.”
But Clean Harbors has had big environmental problems. When volume was at its peak in 1999 the Clean Harbors landfill leaked methane gas and contaminated water. Remedial pumping of the landfill is ongoing.
Caroline Di Cocco found other ways to deal with toxic waste rather than simply dumping it in her district.
“First of all, there has to be a reduction of the amount of generation of this hazardous material. The more expensive you make it for industry to dispose of it, the more they are going to find creative ways to reduce it. Then there are what they call on-site treatments and closed-loop systems. You see technology is there but it’s expensive and again we go to the cost of doing business. And so a lot of the hazardous waste can be treated on site in a very safe way. And then what can’t be, well then you have to have facilities to dispose of it. But I believe that the days of the mega dumps have to end.”
Meanwhile, Clean Harbors looks at what the new Ontario regulations for pre-treatment will cost them.
“Certainly when you’re making the investment in pre-treatment and you’re adding all that cost for no additional environmental benefit we’re going to have to be getting larger volumes to ensure its profitability.”
Until we see a reduction in the loads of toxic waste that need to be dumped in Clean Harbors, it’s likely the trucks will roll on down the highway.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Ann Colihan.
One of the first genetically modified foods to reach the grocery store was a tomato. (Photo by Rainer Berg)
According to a new report, Americans’ opinions about genetically modified foods haven’t changed much in three years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
According to a new report, Americans’ opinions about genetically modified foods haven’t changed much in three years. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
The report says about a third of Americans think genetically modified foods are basically safe. Roughly another third think they’re basically unsafe, and most of the rest say they don’t know enough to form an opinion.
That’s about the same as three years ago.
Mike Rodemeyer is Executive Director of the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. The group conducted the opinion polling. Rodemeyer says from the perspective of those who support genetically modified foods, the lack of firm convictions isn’t necessarily bad.
“It could be if there doesn’t appear to be consumer problems with accepting this technology perhaps it makes sense just to let things lie where they are.”
Regardless of whether they support GM foods, most Americans want a strong regulatory system to oversee their development and use. About half the corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified varieties.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tracy Samilton.
In order to provide safe drinking water for a community, water pipelines have to be properly maintained. (Photo by Keith Syvinski)
