Much of the industry in the nation’s mid-section relies on
shipments of raw materials on the Great Lakes. Great Lakes ports in the
U-S and Canada handle more than 200-million tons of material annually.
The Lakes are also a source of water and recreation for nearly a third
of
the nation’s population. But, during the last two years, water levels
have
been falling at a record breaking pace. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Tag: transportation
Commentary – A Neighborly Dispute
Earlier this month, the Department of Energy announced that
spent nuclear fuel from American research reactors will be melted down
and stored, rather than reprocessed and reused. The announcement comes
at the same time that Canadian researchers are planning to recycle
nuclear
waste into reactor fuel. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator
Suzanne Elston says that this is one time when recycling shouldn’t be an
option.
Demand Is High for Hybrids
For the first time, demand is high for an environmentally friendly
car. Honda’s new Insight now has a two-month waiting list. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has the story:
Is Big Money Driving Ethanol Subsidies?
For decades, big political donations have influenced big tax breaks. Lobbyists, backed by money from political action committees, heavily influence the legislative process. In one case a multi-billion dollar program is supposed to help the environment. But… many believe it doesn’t. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Validity of Corps Study Questioned
The Upper Mississippi River is a key navigation route for
commercial vessels traveling to and from the Great Lakes. The U-S
Army Corps of Engineers is studying ways to enhance the river’s traffic
capacity. One option is to expand some of the locks. That would reduce
the time it takes for barges to travel between ports. But one Corps
economist says the benefits of lock expansion don’t outweigh the costs.
Now, he’s blowing the whistle on those whom he says have fixed the
numbers to justify a one billion-dollar construction project. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Kevin Lavery reports:
Transcript
The Upper Mississippi River is a key navigation route for commercial
vessels traveling to and from the Great Lakes. The U-S Army Corps of
Engineers is studying ways to enhance the river’s traffic capacity. One
option is to expand some of the locks. That would reduce the time it takes
for barges to travel between ports. But one Corps economist says the
benefits of lock expansion don’t outweigh the costs. Now, he’s blowing the
whistle on those whom he says have fixed the numbers to justify a one
billion-dollar construction project. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Kevin Lavery reports:
Lock and Dam number 25 near Winfield, Missouri straddles the upper
Mississippi 40 miles north of St. Louis. Last year, 39 million tons of
grain, soybeans and other cargo passed through here. Though it’s winter,
water continues to rush through the dam. However, ice on the river farther
north has slowed barged traffic here to near non-existence.
A lock is essentially a watery elevator that raises and lowers boats to
different depths. Each lock is 600 feet long, but a typical 15-barge tow is
12-hundred feet long. Walter Feld is with the Corps of Engineers’ St.
Louis District. He says a tow has to break apart to negotiate the lock’s
narrow chamber:
“One lockage would take about 30 minutes. When you break that tow
apart and put two pieces together, it takes probably closer to 90 minutes.
So all that delay adds up to triple the length of time to get through
it.”
In 1993, the Corps began a 58-million dollar study of the upper
Mississippi in an attempt to plan for the needs of the navigation industry
over the next 50 years. Dr. Donald Sweeney was named the lead economist
for the study:
“The feasibility study is a planning and implementation
study.
You’re required to investigate the economic effects and environmental
consequences of whatever actions you might propose.”
At the start of the study, Sweeney says his team was told to give its best
unbiased estimate of the situation:
“And I believe that was truly the spirit of the study up
until
late 1997, at which it turned 180 degrees.”
Among other alternatives, the Corps looked at doubling the size of seven
locks to reduce congestion on the river. But the economics team concluded
the benefits gained would not be worth the cost of construction. Sweeney
says the analysis showed such a project would result in a loss of up to
20-million dollars a year.
In a written affidavit, Sweeney testified that top Corps officials
the economists to alter their analysis to justify spending a billion
dollars to expand the locks. The report points to a number of internal
memos indicating the Corps’ desire to appease the barge industry. In 1998,
Sweeney was relieved as head of the economics team, five years after the
study began.
Corps spokesman Ron Fournier says the media has underplayed the full scope
of the navigation study, and that lock expansions are not the only option at
the agency’s disposal.
“The study is actually navigation improvements, which is
variety of alternatives for the river. We have alternatives such as
extending the guide walls, adding mooring cells or buoys for barges to
tie up to, and then again also the expansion of the lock chambers
themselves.”
Fournier says Sweeney failed to take into account some of those
alternatives, many of which he says were added since the economist left the
study team.
“The navigation study has been evolving for the past seven
years; and as new data is received from the shipping industry, from the
farm growers and from a variety of other economists throughout the
country, new calculations are being used and different results are
being obtained.”
Aside from the financial issues associated with large-scale construction,
environmentalists say lock expansion would jeopardize wildlife on the river.
Washington D.C. based Environmental Defense has taken a leading stance in
the issue by releasing many of the internal Corps documents to government
officials. Senior attorney Tim Searchinger says the papers clearly show
most of the people in the study had a great deal of professional integrity,
and that some may have been pushed into doing the wrong thing.
“There is a top ranking leadership that’s willing to cause
environmental harm, even when the analysis clearly shows that from a
purely economic standpoint, the project isn’t justified either.”
Another reason why economist Donald Sweeney says the Corps is pushing
expansion is because such projects would bolster the agency’s stagnant budget.
“They’re trying to become a bigger, more vital agency.
And
sometimes that conflicts with a purely unbiased scientific analysis of
potentially a billion dollars worth of expenditures.”
Late last month, the Office of Special Counsel declared the Corps likely had violated the law in
catering to the interests of commercial navigation. The OSC is the independent federal agency with
whom Sweeney filed his affidavit. The office has ordered Defense Secretary William Cohen to
conduct an investigation and report back by the end of April. Spokesman Ron Fournier says from the
start, the Corps has been forthright about the
study both with Congress and the public.
“We feel that when this investigation is complete,
they’ll
find there’s no wrongdoing, and of course the
study has been done in an above
Corps will prove that the
board, upright manner.”
The investigation has also reached the congressional level. The Senate
committee on Environment and Public Works is conducting a number of public
hearings on the study this month.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium,
I’m Kevin Lavery in St. Louis.
Commentary – Gasoline Hike a Good Thing?
Earlier this month, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration made headlines when it announced that the winter of
1999-2000 was the warmest one in 105 years. But Great Lakes Radio
Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston thinks that the real news is at
the gas pumps:
Reducing Road Noise
Efforts to reduce road noise pollution are making progress in
Indiana. Last year, Purdue University opened the Institute for Safe,
Quiet, and Durable Highways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
David Naylor reports:
Transcript
Efforts to reduce noise pollution are making progress in Indiana.
Last year, Purdue University opened the Institute for Safe, Quiet, and
Durable Highways. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David
Naylor reports:
In the past, measuring road noise meant measuring the sound of a
car’s mechanical systems, primarily engine and muffler noise. Now,
with the development of more efficient engines, researchers have
identified the tires and road surface as the newest problem.
So, Purdue researchers are looking for the quietest combination of
tire treads and pavement. They say the most promising surface so far is
one developed in Europe: a thick layer of asphalt, with pits one and a
half to two inches deep.
It reduces road noise by about 50% and does well in the
freeze-and-thaw cycle. But the major problem is keeping oil and dirt
out of the deep pits.
Lab director Bob Bernhard hopes a double layer of pavement will
help.
“One which has the properties that they think are optimal for acoustics, and then put a second
layer below it, which has bigger spacing. In that way, they can flush the dirt and the things that
are plugging, out of the top layer, where the acoustics are affected, in the bottom layer, and
then flush it out.”
Research on the porous pavement continues in Europe and the U.S.
There are no plans yet for commercial production.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Naylor.
Plutonium Shipment Outrages Activists
Activists in Canada and the U-S are trying to stop plutonium from
dismantled warheads from being shipped to Canadian nuclear power
plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… the
first shipment was recently slipped into Canada and another is coming
this spring:
Transcript
Activists in Canada and the U.S. are trying to stop plutonium from dismantled warheads
from being shipped to Canadian nuclear power plants. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports the first shipment was recently slipped into Canada
and another is coming this spring:
The Canadian government plans to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium from dismantled
nuclear warheads from Russia. Canada suggested it could mix the weapons-grade
plutonium with uranium and use it for fuel in its nuclear power plants.
Protestors in the U.S. and Canada vowed they’d stop the shipments. During public
hearings in Michigan, some environmentalists and politicians said they’d lie down in
the road to stop trucks. So, when the U.S. Department of Energy planned a shipment of
sample material, the DOE made the shipment classified. Nobody was told when or where
the plutonium would be shipped. This month, the secret shipment left Los Alamos and
entered Canada at Sault Sainte Marie.
Verna Lawrence is the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. She’s outraged her town was
not notified the shipment was coming.
“We’d have barricaded I-75. I had people that would go with me. How dare they do that
to us in our area with the Great Lakes Basin. It’s crazy!”
Mayor Lawrence says the federal government is shipping the plutonium against the
wishes of the people.
“See, the Canadian government and the United States government are in cahoots. They
don’t give a damn about anybody else. And let me tell you another thing: the governors
are not protecting their citizens. If I was the governor and I had the National Guard
and the State Police, they would not set foot on the state of Michigan.”
Just on the other side of the border, the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario also was
not notified.
Once in Canada, the shipment was put on a helicopter and flown to the Chalk River
Nuclear Power Plant where the fuel is being tested. Protestors say it was flown to
avoid blockades by activists and native people. The only road from Sault Ste. Marie to
the Chalk River Nuclear Plant runs through the Garden River Reservation. Cathy
Brosemer is with a coalition of environmental groups in Ontario called “Northwatch.”
She says the shipment was kept secret and the helicopter was used to avoid angry
peopole along the route.
“What we’ve been dealing with right now is the utter contempt the government holds its
citizens in. The government decided to ignore the public’s views on this issue and
literally fly over our heads.”
Canada’s nuclear industry says that’s not the case. Larry Shewchuck is a spokesperson
for Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL). AECL operates Canada’s nuclear power
plants. He says avoiding protestors was not the reason AECL used the helicopter.
“Quite frankly, AECL was just as happy to leave the shipment on the road. It was the
government of Canada that asked us to put it in the air because that’s what Canadians
were asking for. So, in the end, we did what the politicians wanted.”
Shewchuck says at public information stops this past fall, many people suggested if
the shipments were as safe as AECL and the Canadian government said they were, they
ought to fly them to the nuclear plant.
Protestors question whether a last minute switch from ground transportation to air was
a regulatory shell game to trick opponents of the plutonium shipments. Shewchuck says
the change was proper and followed the rules.
“The regulations in Canada did not have to be changed to accommodate air transport.
Air transport was made under existing Canadian regulations. Everything was done by the
book and nothing had to be changed.”
Environmental activists in the area don’t believe it. Cathy Brosemer says that flight
might have violated regulations and might be key in an effort to get an injunction.
“We believe that there have been some breaches in the way that this was handled and we
are going to try to get something to stop the test of the substance at the CANDU
reactors in Canton/Chalk River.”
The AECL plans to go ahead with tests of the plutonium mix fuel. Brosemer says the
environmentalists will also seek an injunction to stop future shipments. This spring,
Russian plutonium is scheduled to be shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway, on
through the Great Lakes and finally to the Chalk River plant in Ontario.
The U.S. Department of Energy says there won’t be any more shipments from the States.
And official with the DOE spoke on the condition his name not be used. He says while
the United States is helping to pay for the disposal of plutonium from dismantled
Russian nuclear warheads, the U.S. has decided to use its plutonium in American
nuclear power plants.
The mayor of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Verna Lawrence, doesn’t believe the Energy
Department. She says she and other people opposing the shipments have to be more
vigilant.
“We got to get somebody on the inside, I think. You know, that’s the only way we’re
going to – If you can’t lick ’em, trick ’em, you know. But we’ll figure out a way
because that’s just the first shipment. There’ll be many, many, many more.”
Officials in Canada and the U.S. say it’s ironic that the shipments are causing so
much controversy among some of the same people who opposed the nuclear arms race.
Canadian officials say the nuclear material as fuel is a safe and efficient way to
dispose of weapons-grade plutonium. If the mixed fuel works well in Canada’s nuclear
plants, regular shipments of plutonium from Russia’s dismantled warheads will travel
through the Great Lakes region for at least the next ten years.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Commentary – The Public’s Right to Say No
Earlier this month, the U-S completed a controversial shipment of
weapons grade plutonium to Canada. Despite considerable protest
before the event, the material was shipped without any public
knowledge.
As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston points
out, this sets a dangerous precedent:
Transcript
Earlier this month, the U.S. completed a controversial shipment of weapons-grade
plutonium to Canada. Despite considerable protest before the event, the material was
shipped without public knowledge. This sets a dangerous precedent, as Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s commentator Suzanne Elston points out:
Proponents of the plan think it’s a good idea. Take plutonium from dismantled nuclear
weapons, mix it with uranium and use it for fuel in nuclear reactors. The process
doesn’t destroy the plutonium, but what it does do is make it very difficult to use.
Supporters hope that this will prevent the plutonium from falling into the wrong
hands.
The plan had been in the works for several years. The problem was getting the stuff
from Los Alamos, New Mexico to an experimental nuclear facility in Chalk River,
Ontario. As soon as the public got wind of the trucking routes there were howls of
protest, particularly from a group of activists in Michigan. They were concerned about
the risks of an accident when the plutonium was shipped through their community. They
were desperately trying to get a court injunction to stop the plutonium from being
shipped when it was discovered that the stuff had already been sent.
There was no public input, no warning – nothing. Even the mayors of Sault Ste. Marie,
the towns where the plutonium crossed the border into Canada weren’t notified until
after the event. And because the whole thing went off without any problems, officials
were rather pleased with themselves. They duped the public, nobody got hurt – mission
accomplished.
I find this really scary. Whether the shipment was safe or not isn’t the issue here.
Not only does the public have a right to know what was going on, they also have the
right to stop it, if that’s the will of the people. But that right was taken away by
the boys at the Department of Energy and Atomic Energy Canada who seemed to think they
know better somehow.
Well guess what? That’s not what the democratic process is all about. Public input –
regardless of how inconvenient – has got to be considered. Just because a plan is
proposed, doesn’t mean that it should go ahead. Debate is the cornerstone of
democratic process. One of the possible outcomes of that debate is that the public
will exercise its right to say no.
But that wasn’t allowed to happen here. We the people are supposed to decide. That’s
called democracy.
Suzanne Elston is a syndicated columnist living in Courtice, Ontario. She comes to us
by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.
Automakers Unveil Green Concept Cars
Ford and General Motors each plan to unveil new
environmentally friendly concept cars at this year’s North American
International Auto Show in Detroit. The cars are the outgrowth of an
initiative between the federal government and the big three auto
companies to develop a car that could fit a family of five but get 80 miles
to the gallon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Edelson Halpert has more:
Transcript
Ford and General Motors each plan to unveil new environmentally friendly concept cars at this
year’s North American International Auto Show in Detroit. The cars are the outgrowth of an
initiative between the federal government and the big three car companies to develop a car that
could fit a family of five but get eighty miles to the gallon. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Julie Edelson Halpert has more:
A mid-sized vehicle that triples the fuel economy of today’s cars. That was once only a pipe dream
for domestic auto makers. But after six years of research, they’ve done it. Using a combination
diesel and electric engine, Ford and General Motors have developed cars that get gas mileage up to
eighty miles per gallon. Jeff Coleman is a spokesman for General Motors. He says GM’s car, the
Precept, makes great environmental strides. but one big obstacle remains: cost.
“Many of the technologies that are on the GM Precept are not in high volumes today, and so you’d
expect the vehicle to be quite expensive. And the job over the next few years is to learn more
about these technologies, put these into use in real vehicles that are on the road today.”
Coleman says that as the technologies become more widespread, costs will come down. The auto
companies hope to develop an affordable high mileage car by 2003.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Julie Edelson Halpert.