Great Lakes water issues/news.....

[Jennifat]

Whatever the case may be right now, Asian carp are going to find their way to all the major waterways in North America. There's simply no way to stop them.

Has it ever occurred to anyone how freshwater fish wound up in completely isolated lakes? Birds and other animals carry them in via eggs. It's unavoidable. They will all inevitably end up in the Great Lakes.

Asia sure has its fair share of devastating pests. First it was Eurasian Milfoil, then the Emerald Ash Borer, and now this jumping devil carp. You know it's something terrible if a Minnesota winter can't kill it.

[Mudhen419]

Your forgetting about the Goby as well......

From what I have heard the carp were in farm ponds near the mississippi river and when the river flooded the carp got into its waters and moved north towards the great lakes

[nomarandlee]

==

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_great_lakes

Feds outline plan to nurse Great Lakes to health

By JOHN FLESHER, AP Environmental Writer John Flesher, Ap Environmental Writer – 46 mins ago
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. – The Obama administration has developed a five-year blueprint for rescuing the Great Lakes, a sprawling ecosystem plagued by toxic contamination, shrinking wildlife habitat and invasive species.

The plan envisions spending more than $2.2 billion for long-awaited repairs after a century of damage to the lakes, which hold 20 percent of the world's fresh water. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the document, which Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was releasing at a news conference Sunday in Washington.

"We're committed to creating a new standard of care that will leave the Great Lakes better for the next generation," Jackson said in a statement.

Among the goals is a "zero tolerance policy" toward future invasions by foreign species, including the Asian carp, a huge, ravenous fish that has overrun portions of the Mississippi River system and is threatening to enter Lake Michigan.

Others include cleanup of the region's most heavily polluted sites, restoring wetlands and other crucial habitat, and improving water quality in shallow areas, where runoff from cities and farms has led to unsightly algae blooms and beach closings.

Also promised is a strategy for monitoring the ecosystem's health and holding federal agencies accountable for carrying out the plan.

During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama pledged $5 billion over a decade toward fulfilling a Great Lakes cleanup wish list developed by a coalition of agencies, scientists and activists.

Congress last year approved his request for a first installment of $475 million. The newly released plan assumes yearly appropriations of the same amount through 2014, except for the $300 million President Obama requested this month in his 2011 budget.

The 41-page plan sets out ecological targets and specific actions to be taken by 16 federal agencies working with state, local and tribal governments and private groups.

Among the goals it seeks by 2014: finishing work at five toxic hot spots that have languished on cleanup lists for two decades; a 40 percent reduction in the rate at which invasive species are discovered in the lakes; measurable decreases in phosphorus runoff; and protection of nearly 100,000 wetland acres.
It also will help save species such as the lake sturgeon, a prehistoric fish that can reach 8 feet long and 200 pounds but is endangered because of overharvesting and habitat degradation. The plan promises to provide 25,000 young sturgeon for stocking programs.

Combined with enforcement of environmental rules and new ones where needed, officials said the plan would help make Great Lakes fish safe to eat, their waters suitable for drinking and swimming, and their native plants and animals thriving.

The lakes provide drinking water to more than 30 million people and are the backbone of a regional economy dependent on tourism, outdoor recreation, shipping and manufacturing.

"We now have a golden opportunity, even a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, to make huge progress," Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, co-chairman of the Council of Great Lakes Governors, said in a telephone interview Saturday. "We've been talking about this for a long time. Now the federal government is putting some real resources behind it."

Jeff Skelding, director of the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition, which represents environmental groups across the region, praised the plan's commitment to long-range funding for the restoration but said Congress should boost Obama's 2011 spending request to $475 million.

The coalition also says too much restoration money is being diverted to fighting Asian carp, which could endanger the region's $7 billion sport fishing industry by gobbling plankton and unraveling the food chain.

An "all-out effort" is needed to keep the carp out of the lakes, but funding should come from elsewhere in the federal budget, the coalition said.

Cameron Davis, EPA's senior adviser on the Great Lakes, said about $58 million in restoration funds would go to the carp battle this year. But invasive species programs are getting less restoration money than other needs such as toxic cleanups and habitat improvements, he said.

[MilwaukeeMark]

Amazingly well-designed website describing in great detail the problems facing the Great Lakes - http://waterlife.nfb.ca/

[jpIllInoIs]

Chicago News Cooperative
Carp Solution Could Provide Financial Benefits
By DAVID GREISING and DANIEL LIBIT
Published: March 5, 2010


Proposals to block Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes have largely focused on the costs and inconvenience of closing off Chicago-area waterways into Lake Michigan. But now business and environmental groups are exploring a possible upside: a broadly based infrastructure investment that would benefit much of northern Illinois.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/us/07cncimpact.html

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,1465884.story

Price tag of closing locks to Asian carp: $4.7 billion, new study says
Illinois-commissioned study sees much more economic damage than Michigan-backed study

By Joel Hood, Tribune reporter

6:39 p.m. CDT, April 7, 2010

A study released Wednesday by a DePaul University professor projects a $4.7 billion economic blow to the Chicago region over the next 20 years if navigational shipping locks close to prevent movement of Asian carp, a figure far exceeding an earlier study that minimized the financial impact.

The six-week study, commissioned by the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, attempted to examine the "true cost" to the Chicago-area cargo shipping industry, recreational boaters, river tourism, storm water management and other businesses directly and indirectly tied to the river system.

"You start looking at the combined effects of tourism and economic development and you start to understand why the city is concerned about the prospects of closing the locks," said Joseph Schwieterman, a public policy analyst at DePaul University.

The study contradicts a report commissioned by Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox that estimated the economic impact to the Chicago region of about $70 million a year — roughly $1.4 billion over 20 years — if the locks were permanently closed. That study is central to Cox's claim that closing the locks would not destroy Chicago's economy.

Schwieterman called the earlier study "a very useful piece of research," but said it was too limited because it focused primarily on the amount of barge traffic passing through locks at the mouth of the Chicago River and the Calumet-Sag Channel.

Schwieterman said the real economic loss would be broader than that, saying it would affect recreational boaters who no longer would have access between the Great Lakes and the Chicago river system; popular tour boats through downtown; the construction of new infrastructure to alleviate flooding; the cost of transferring barge cargo to truck or rail; and roads and public safety.

The combined economic loss would be about $580 million in the first year, Schwieterman said, and roughly $530 million annually over the next seven years.

Cox spokesman John Sellek said Schwieterman's numbers are inflated because Michigan is not asking Illinois to keep its locks closed in times of flooding, a cost Schwieterman estimated at $220 million a year.

"They are trying to raise the price tag, and people's fears, with the threat of flooding," Sellek said. "However, our lawsuit already addresses that issue, and they know it."

Cox filed a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court in December to force closure of the locks to stop the advance of Asian carp into Lake Michigan. The Supreme Court, which twice has rejected Cox's pleas for an immediate closure, is expected to consider the legal merits of the lawsuit in conference on April 16.

..

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/business/215...wind11.article

Evanson to consider proposals for turbines
WIND WIN proposition | Would be first offshore farm in United States

April 10, 2010

PIONEER PRESS

Could an offshore wind farm be blowing in Evanston's future?

City of Evanston officials have endorsed a plan to look for partners to build offshore wind turbines six to nine miles east of the Northwestern University campus.

If built, the wind blades not only would be the first on Lake Michigan but the first offshore farm in the United States.

The City Council is expected to consider the proposal Tuesday night.

Citizens for a Greener Evanston -- a volunteer advocacy group -- developed the proposal as part of a climate action plan for the city to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A report by the group said the 1.5 nautical square-mile area it selected has average annual winds of 18 mph, more than enough to support a wind farm.

The group concluded that the lake "is a viable site for wind power generation," City Manager Wally Bobkiewicz and Carolyn Collopy, the city's Sustainable Programs Coordinator, wrote in a report to the council.

The officials stressed that while many have proposed wind power generation in the lake, no precedent exists for developing such a project.

To get built, ocean or lake-based turbines face a thicket of environmental regulations from local, state and federal authorities.

One of the projects closest to starting, off Cape Cod in Massachusetts, has drawn the ire of landowners who say their views would be spoiled, especially at night when the turbines would be lit to prevent collisions with vessels.

But on Lake Michigan, in the daytime humid haze and pollution would obscure the view during most of the summer months, according to Robert Owen, Jr., a Madison, Wis., engineer who has studied wind energy in Lake Michigan.

"In the vicinity of the lake in the summertime, we frequently can't see more than three miles," he said.

In clear weather, the offshore turbines, which are typically 80 to 100 meters high, would be visible -- but would only appear as specks, Owen said.

A six-inch underground cable could link the turbines to land, tunneling under the beach or shoreline before connecting to the power grid, according to Owen, who is not affiliated with the Evanston project.

Another concern -- that birds might be killed by the spinning turbine blades -- is less serious offshore than on land, because migrating birds typically stay close to shore, Owen said.

So does anyone have an opinoin on this. Do you think that the Great Lakes should be used for wind power? Does it matter if the wind farms are near urban areas or not?

[Coldwake]

I don't see it being a problem, especially if they arn't that visible. The only issue I see is that the Lake is a shared resource, so if a city wants to benefit from the lake they should share the benefits that they are extracting as well. It should be more of a coalition of cities and states that do a project like this.

[Steely Dan]

breaking news from the chicago tribune. this is great news for chicago!


Supreme Court steers clear of Asian carp dispute
April 26, 2010 10:32 AM

LANSING, Mich. -- The U.S. Supreme Court decided today not to get involved in a dispute over how to prevent invasive Asian carp from making their way into the Great Lakes.

The justices turned down a new request from Michigan to consider ordering closure of Chicago-area shipping locks to prevent the fish from threatening the Great Lakes. The locks could provide a pathway to Lake Michigan for the unwanted carp.

The court had previously declined twice to order the locks closed on an emergency basis while it considered whether to hear the case. This time, the court rejected a proposal by Michigan and six other states to use a long-standing case involving water diversion from Lake Michigan as a vehicle for seeking to permanently sever a man-made linkage between the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin.

full article: http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2...eaking+News%29

[Coldwake]

Great news for Chicago... potentially horrible news for the rest of the great lakes.

[Steely Dan]

^ not really, despite the hysteric fear-mongering, the asian carp will never thrive in the lakes. these are primarily river fish and they are not accustomed to living in cold deep water lakes. sure, they will live in the lakes, most likely in shallower shore areas and use the lakes to get to other rivers and tributaries in the great lakes basin, but the wholesale destruction of the lakes' ecosystem alarmist tripe being put forth by mike cox is not based on any science. regular carp have lived in the lakes for decades now, did they usher in wholesale destruction of the great lakes?

don't believe the hype.


and anyone who is in favor of shutting down chicago's locks to prevent invasive species from entering from the mississppi basin MUST also advocate for the closure of the st. lawrence seaway and welland canal and their connections to to oceanic shipping if they want to have any shred of intellectual honesty about this issue. FAR more invasive species have entered the lakes from that route than through the chicago sanitary and ship canal, and yet michigan and the other great lakes states, who all enjoy the economic benefits of oceanic shipping from the welland canal and st. lawrence seaway, all want to demonize and single out chicago for punishment. hypocrisy!

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...097,full.story

Obama, U.S. EPA push for cleaner Chicago River
Water district, industries fighting tougher standards, saying river is clean enough and upgrades would be too costly

By Michael Hawthorne, Tribune reporter

7:41 p.m. CDT, June 1, 2010

Walled and fenced off from most of the city, the Chicago River for decades was widely seen as a putrid eyesore where fish and wildlife weren't welcome, let alone people.

But in a significant policy shift, the Obama administration is calling for a once-unfathomable idea: The Chicago River, an erstwhile prairie stream engineered into a sewage canal that flows backward from Lake Michigan, should be safe enough for swimming.

The administration's position, outlined in a letter quietly filed with a state rulemaking panel, goes far beyond new water quality standards proposed by Illinois regulators. The state's plan would limit disease-causing bacteria in the river for the first time and require other steps to help fish thrive in concrete-lined channels that stretch through the city.

Until now, though, state officials assumed that any human contact with the water would be brief — and accidental. Go ahead and dip a canoe paddle into the river, they have said. Just don't fall in.


Get the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week >>

The Obama administration's letter sets the bar even higher. Though it doesn't outright order the changes needed to make the river safe enough for swimmers, it notes that the federal Clean Water Act requires all waterways to eventually be clean enough for "recreation in and on the water."

"This river system is worth protecting," said Linda Holst, chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's regional water quality branch. "We might not be able to attain these standards now, but we need to look toward the future and what is possible."

It wasn't that long ago that the river was considered just a quirky part of Chicago's history, a festering waterway that had been diverted away from the lake to separate the city's waste from its source of drinking water. Because it always has been treated differently than most other rivers, Chicago is the nation's only major city that doesn't disinfect its wastewater before pumping it back into the environment.

Meeting the standards outlined by the Illinois EPA would require a multimillion-dollar investment in new treatment technologies. If the even tougher requirements proposed by the Obama administration are adopted, the region also would need to overhaul aging sewers that spill raw and partially treated waste into the river after heavy rainstorms.

Three decades of improvements already have transformed stretches of the river into sort of a second lakefront. Most of its murky flow still is treated sewage, but the river now draws clusters of kayakers, restaurants and housing developments, and more than 60 species of fish where as few as five once survived.

As part of a comprehensive effort to restore the river and make it more pleasant for people, certain parts could be open for recreation at specific times and reserved for barge and boat traffic at other times, Holst wrote in an April 15 letter to the Illinois Pollution Control Board. The EPA has not publicized the letter, which the Tribune found buried in a state rulemaking docket.

"Recreation in and on the water is likely to be attainable, if the water quality limitations impacting the use are remedied," Holst wrote.

Polluters that use the river to get rid of sewage, move commodities and cool machinery are fiercely resisting the proposed changes. They contend that cleaning up the Chicago River would cost too much. Besides, they say, the river has been altered so dramatically over the years that trying to improve water quality further is pointless.

"That letter from the (federal) EPA kind of floored everybody," said Louis Kollias, director of monitoring and research for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, the agency that oversees the river and treats the region's sewage.

"We think the river is clean enough for how it is used today," Kollias said. "Why should we be spending millions of dollars to do this?"

The district estimates it would cost taxpayers $623 million to disinfect wastewater from its three treatment plants. The U.S. EPA commissioned its own study that concluded the cost would be considerably less — about $242 million, or about $2 a month per household spread out over two decades. There is no estimate on the price tag for making the river safe enough for swimming.

The cleanup debate reflects changing attitudes about waterways that for decades were seen as little more than industrialized sewage canals linking the Great Lakes to the Mississippi River system. It also echoes long-standing efforts to clean up the Los Angeles River, the Hudson River in New York and the Charles River in Boston, all of which once were considered too polluted to save.

If officials follow through on their proposals, the 1972 Clean Water Act finally would catch up with the Chicago River. The act requires that all waterways eventually should be safe enough for fishing and swimming.

As part of the effort to move closer to federal standards, lawyers for the state and industry and environmental groups have spent hours in hearings and filed dozens of legal briefs about the more stringent water quality standards proposed by the Illinois EPA. After five years of study and two years of debate, the proceedings have gone on longer than any other environmental rule-making in state history.

The state's changes would require the Water Reclamation District to disinfect its wastewater, improve the flow of the river and create more oxygen in certain sections to help break down bacteria and make the waterways more habitable for fish.

"This river belongs to the people, not the government or the barge industry or the coal industry," said Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It's a plumbing fixture now, but any investment you make in the restoration of this waterway is going to have reverberations for the city as a whole."

Officials at the Water Reclamation District want to keep the focus on finishing the Deep Tunnel, a multibillion-dollar network of tunnels and reservoirs that captures storm runoff.

The system is designed to reduce flooding and largely is responsible for making the river the cleanest it has been in a century. But the tunnel project still is years from being completed, and virtually every time it rains, raw and partially treated human and industrial waste pours into the river from aging sewers.

Last year alone, pipes in Chicago and the suburbs spilled at least 23 billion gallons of sewage-laden runoff into the river, according to district records. During three storms, the deluge was so intense that officials were forced to open a sluice gate on the North Shore Channel in Wilmette and allow more than 400 million gallons to escape into Lake Michigan.

The U.S. EPA and Department of Justice recently reopened an investigation into those sewage spills that could end up requiring costly fixes. The agencies already have brokered legal agreements with several other cities — including Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Nashville, Tenn. — that ordered extensive sewer improvements.

Even without chronic sewage overflows, federal and state officials say, the Chicago River is teeming with unsafe levels of microscopic bugs. Wastewater pouring out of the North Side treatment plant, for instance, contains bacteria levels that are more than 400 times higher than disinfected wastewater that Philadelphia pumps into the Delaware River.

Opponents have filed several legal challenges to delay the proposed river standards.

The Water Reclamation District commissioned a study to examine whether people are getting sick from the river and then, even before scientists were done reviewing the data, issued a news release saying there is nothing to worry about. Officials also have argued that requiring the district to disinfect sewage would require more electricity and therefore increase the district's global warming pollution.

Meanwhile, officials at Midwest Generation, the company that owns four coal-fired power plants on the river, suggested they should be allowed to increase the river's temperature to kill Asian carp, an invasive fish threatening to pass into the Great Lakes.

The power company wants to avoid expensive upgrades that would reduce the amount of warm water it churns back into the channels after drawing most of the river's flow to cool its massive turbines. The aging electrical generators are exempt from a state law that bans the process at newer plants because it can kill fish or discourage them from sticking around.

In another legal filing, Midwest Generation and other industries argued that nothing should be done until federal officials decide whether the Chicago River should be permanently separated from Lake Michigan to block invasive species from spreading.

"It seems premature to make the river fishable when we have federal and state officials organizing massive fish kills," said Doug McFarlan, a Midwest Generation spokesman, referring to recent poisonings of the river to determine if Asian carp already are present.

But as Mayor Richard M. Daley and others encourage people to view the Chicago River as a civic attraction, it appears more likely that changes are on the way.

Three decades ago, the mayor's father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, occasionally mused about downtown workers being able to go down to the river during their lunch hour, catch a fish and cook it up along the bank.

People laughed, until they realized he was serious.

mhawthorne@tribune.com

...

[Coldwake]

Wow... disbelief, shock, anger, hoplessness. Those are the emotions I felt reading that article. I can hardly belief the things that the opponents were saying. Seriously... who in their right mind can say things like they were saying with a straight face?

I would have a lot more respect for them if they just said, "This will cost a lot of money that we can't afford" instead of making excuses and outright saying they don't care and will do what they want.

Why Chicago has been getting away with this for so long is beyond me. There are hundreds of miles of rivers and people that are affected by this. What's even worse, is Milwaukee gets ragged on for dumping partially treated wastewater (that is disinfected) into lake Michigan far less then Chicago dumps into the river (and lake apparently. I didn't even know about that) and yet Milwaukee gets a bad rap.

I'm not eco warrior, I question man-made global warming, but I'm a rational person. If these issues are actually tackled in an intelligent way, and over time so it's not too expensive, then it can be done!

[hoosier]

Originally Posted by Coldwake

I'm not eco warrior, I question man-made global warming, but I'm a rational person. If these issues are actually tackled in an intelligent way, and over time so it's not too expensive, then it can be done!

You question man-made global warming? So you question science then. Do you also question evolution?

The cost to restore ALL of the nation's waterways to a state safe for human use is minimal compared to the cost of wars and tax cuts and bank bailouts. This country can afford to do a lot of things, if it spent it's money correctly.

[socrates#1fan]

The Great Lakes are a precious resource, we have the LARGEST body of FRESHWATER in the world, we need to take better care of these lakes so that our descendants can take care of them and live off of them.
The Great Lakes should be so clean that we can drink directly from the shore!

[Coldwake]

Originally Posted by hoosier

You question man-made global warming? So you question science then. Do you also question evolution?

As if this is the thread to discuss man made global warming... grrr. But to respond; yes I question it. I do not question science and in fact I celebrate the scientific method and scientific debate. Both of which are in question on this topic. Scientists are doubting the issue as well. No, I don't question evolution.

Satisfied?

[nomarandlee]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/electio...nate22.article
Senate rivals chart separate courses on Chicago River
Going with flow OK with Kirk; Giannoulias wants to head in new direction

June 22, 2010

BY KIM JANSSEN Staff Reporter kjanssen@suntimes.com

They've clashed over exaggerated resumes and alleged mob ties.

Now Senate candidates Mark Kirk and Alexi Giannoulias disagree on which way the Chicago River should flow.

Heralded since its 1900 completion as the city's greatest engineering feat, the reversal of the river kept sewage out of Lake Michigan, providing clean drinking water for Chicago to grow.

Republican Kirk wants to keep the river flowing backward. But Democrat Giannoulias wants a massive federal project to re-reverse it to its natural course.

"We lose about 500 million gallons of purified water because of the way the river flows," Giannoulias said at the Metropolitan Planning Council's annual luncheon downtown Monday.

"Long-term, it's smart to try to re-direct that water, to clean it up first and redirect it into Lake Michigan."

The project would split the Chicago River from its link to the Mississippi River, blocking the route of Asian carp, which threaten Lake Michigan's $7 billion fishing industry, supporters say.

But Kirk -- also speaking at the luncheon -- said "we should not reverse the direction of the Chicago River so that it dumps into the source of our water supply."

He favors increasing the voltage of the electric barrier near Romeoville, which is designed to keep carp at bay..................

..

[Steely Dan]

^ and i think kirk just officially earned my vote. i was leaning towards him anyway because i think we're all a little fed up with illinois democrats by now, and also because kirk is what i call a "normal republican", ie. he's not some backwards batshit-crazy redneck fundie-nutjob retard like palin and her ilk. and throw in all the controversy with the giannoulias' family banks, and now his unfathomable support for reversing the flow of the river again, well, he's gone off the deep end.

[nomarandlee]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,4764900.story

Ind. OKs landfill permit for ArcelorMittal plant
Associated Press
5:59 p.m. CDT, July 7, 2010

BURNS HARBOR, Ind. — Indiana regulators have issued a landfill permit allowing ArcelorMittal to dispose of more than 2 million tons of steel-making waste at the company's sprawling complex along Lake Michigan.

The state announced its decision in public notices received Tuesday, more than two years after ArcelorMittal applied for a permit to build and operate a restricted-waste landfill.

The Luxembourg-based steel company said in a statement that the landfill at its Burns Harbor site would be used primarily to store a type of sludge produced by the mill's manufacturing processes.


"We look forward to beginning landfill construction activities in the near future," the company's statement said.

Valparaiso lawyer Kim Ferraro of the Legal Environmental Aid Foundation of Indiana said the permit answers some of the questions she and other activists have been asking for more than a year about the proposed landfill.

But she said the document fails to address what steps, if any, ArcelorMittal must take to prevent wastes stored outdoors a few hundred feet from Lake Michigan from entering the lake until it is moved to the landfill.

"That's been one of my concerns all along," Ferraro said Wednesday. "It's going to take several years still to put all of that waste into the landfill, so what are they going to do to address the open dumped waste that's still sitting there?"

The permit issued by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management allows ArcelorMittal to build a landfill at its Burns Harbor site, which spans five square miles some 10 miles east of Gary.

In the landfill's initial phases, the company will dispose of 1.5 million to 1.8 million tons of stockpiled sludge from secondary wastewater treatment plants and 700,000 tons of blast furnace filter cake waste.

ArcelorMittal also expects to dispose of 200,000 tons of process waste, generated annually, in landfills.

Ferraro said the permit clarifies for the first time that the 75-acre landfill will accept wastes that had been open dumped, or stored outdoors, at the site for more than six months in violation of Indiana law.

Those wastes are stored in a large pile near Lake Michigan that the Post-Tribune of Merrillville has reported ArcelorMittal representatives call "Easterly's Pile" after Tom Easterly, the state Department of Environmental Management commissioner.

Easterly was the top environmental manager at Bethlehem Steel Corp., from 1994 to 2000. Mittal Steel acquired Bethlehem Steel's parent company in 2005 and merged with Arcelor to become ArcelorMittal the following year. Easterly became IDEM commissioner in January 2005.

Ferraro and other critics have urged IDEM to sample and test the waste in "Easterly's Pile" to see how toxic it is, rather than relying on test results Bethlehem Steel submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1999.

Under the permit announced Tuesday, ArcelorMittal won't be required to weigh the waste it places in landfills, but will be required to submit quarterly estimates of how much waste is disposed of.

State inspections of some of the plant's waste piles have found that some of that waste has been stored outdoors for more than six months in violation of Indiana law. An April report by IDEM found that one pile of waste had been stored outside for at least five years.

That inspection report said IDEM wasn't taking enforcement action against ArcelorMittal for open dumping because the company has periodically recycled some waste and had applied for a landfill permit to dispose of the waste.

..

[Mudhen419]

http://toledoblade.com/article/20100715/NEWS16/7150346

Indiana moves to block Asian carp from Maumee


Thanks Indiana, for helping keep this nuisance out of the waterway that I play in!