While they now have 2 more years to operate as they have been (disposing the coal ash into the lake) they have now signed a consent decree that gives them a drop-dead to stop dumping the ash into the water, and these agreements always have stiff automatic penalties if they don't follow thru. Previously the ferry owner said that they looked for ways to contain the ash (which is mixed with lake water to flush it out of the boiler compartment) but could find no feasible way to capture and store it on board. It will be interesting to see now what they come up with.
The Chicago Tribune has a picture of the Badger with black smoke coming out of its stack. The first sentence of the article says:
"The last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes will be allowed to dump toxic pollution into Lake Michigan for another two years under an agreement announced today by federal officials."
Here is a link to the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-badger-ferry-to-stop-dumping-ash-in-lake-michigan-20130322,0,7611577.story
The days of unbiased reporting ended long ago. The article should mention that a single traditional fever thermometer has more mercury, the primary contaminant, than decades of coal ash discharge from the Badger would.
It's at such small levels that they can't even read the presence of it with scientific instruments.
John WR The Chicago Tribune has a picture of the Badger with black smoke coming out of its stack. The first sentence of the article says: "The last coal-powered steamship on the Great Lakes will be allowed to dump toxic pollution into Lake Michigan for another two years under an agreement announced today by federal officials." Here is a link to the article: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-badger-ferry-to-stop-dumping-ash-in-lake-michigan-20130322,0,7611577.story
Not to mention all the toxic pollution involved in printers ink and the paper making process that are the backbone of the Chicago Tribune.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Some years ago there was a major 'scare' regarding the levels of mercury in the Great Lakes. Fingers were pointed every which way.
Then an archeologist discovered a fish fossil from the area with comparable levels of mercury, indicating that said levels were most likely a natural occurance. The hoopla ended shortly thereafter.
That's not to say that we shouldn't recognize high levels of any substance and react accordingly, but not all pollution is the fault of human intervention.
Reporting such as this just shows the bias that can exist in the media.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Perhaps the paper was referring to the fact that as part of the consent agreement, the ferry operator has agreed that they had exceeded safe mercury levels in their ash dumping last year and would pay a $25,000 fine.
Mike,
The report did give information about the $25,000 fine and about the fact that originally the company asked for a much longer period of time than two years. But over all the general theme of the article follows from the first sentence.
John
tree68 Some years ago there was a major 'scare' regarding the levels of mercury in the Great Lakes. Fingers were pointed every which way. Then an archeologist discovered a fish fossil from the area with comparable levels of mercury, indicating that said levels were most likely a natural occurance. The hoopla ended shortly thereafter. That's not to say that we shouldn't recognize high levels of any substance and react accordingly, but not all pollution is the fault of human intervention. Reporting such as this just shows the bias that can exist in the media.
Unfortunately, the danger was/is real. Mercury levels in the Great Lakes were reduced substantially, overall by a factor of 2-3 from mid-1970's to ~2000, and have plateaued since. The problem is when relatively harmless elemental mercury becomes (probably through bacterial action) the highly toxic form, monomethylmercury, and it then concentrates as it moves up in the food chain. The highest concentrations are in walleyes and lake trout. Coal ash represents the source of approximately half of the mercury pollution.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Where did you read that coal ash, which means primarily coal burning steamships, was responsible for approximately half of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes?
As for the Chicago Tribune and Senator Durbin, their readers were having nothing with that nonsense of an article. The vast majority disagreed, pointed out glaring inconsistencys with his positions, his close relationship with the Badger's business competitor, and accused him of being a hypocrite and failing to grasp the issues at hand.
Leo_Ames Where did you read that coal ash, which means primarily coal burning steamships, was responsible for approximately half of mercury pollution in the Great Lakes?
Actually, it's utility boilers that generate a significant amount of coal ash. The biggest culprit in 1990, though, was incinerators, municipal and medical, according to this report from the Great Lakes Commission. Those incinerators are no longer a major factor, leaving the utilities as a major culprit.
Industrial boilers are a mere fraction of the overall total.
US emmissions of mercury in the great lakes region have dropped 48% over the past 25 years. Pollution from outside the US has increased 17%, however, meaning that the small amount of pollution created by the badger is likely far overshadowed by that from sources beyond US control.
What has not been established, however, at least to my knowledge, is how much mercury enters the waters of the Great Lakes naturally. Is it possible that even if all new mercury pollution were to cease, and all traces of man-made pollution could be erased, that the Great Lakes might remain polluted by mercury above acceptable levels?
I'm not sure why anyone would interpret my statement about coal ash as referring only to the Badger. Obviously it refers to coal-fired boilers from utilities: (from the GLC)
"In 2005, coal-fired power plants were by far the largest source of anthropogenic mercury emissions to the atmosphere in the Great Lakes states and Ontario, accounting for an estimated 57 percent of total anthropogenic emissions (Figure 4a). They are also the single largest sources in Ontario and most of the Great Lakes states except Minnesota and New York (GLRC 2010). Among the Great Lakes states, Pennsylvania has the highest annual emissions of mercury followed by Illinois, Ohio, and Indiana. However, the mapping of major and minor sources indicates that there is a high density of anthropogenic mercury emission sources across the region (Figure 4b).Total mercury emissions to the atmosphere from inventoried anthropogenic sources in the Great Lakes states declined by approximately 50 percent between 1990 and 2005 (NEI 1990, NATA 2005). This decline reflects the leadership the region has demonstrated in controlling mercury emissions through state, regional, binational, and voluntary actions (Cain et al. 2011). Approximately 43 percent of anthropogenic emissions from sources in the Great Lakes basin are reactive gaseous mercury (RGM) or particulate mercury (PHg), the forms that are most likely to be deposited within the region (Denkenberger et al. 2011). This emissions profile suggests that regional and local scale mercury emissions are undoubtedly important to mercury deposition and effects in the Great Lakes basin (Denkenberger et al. 2011)." http://www.watershedcouncil.org/learn/mercury-in-the-great-lakes/files/glmercuryconnections_finalreport.pdf
As to the question about source of atmospheric mercury: http://www.chem.unep.ch/mercury / However, the large reduction in industrial emissions in the great Lakes from 1970-2000 and the corresponding reduction in methylated mercury levels in fish strongly implies that the man-made source is key. And obviously, it is the only one within our control.
Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
BaltACDNot to mention all the toxic pollution involved in printers ink and the paper making process that are the backbone of the Chicago Tribune.
Balt,
As you point out the objection is not necessarily to causing pollution. It is rather to causing pollution in ways that we, the public, do not. Clearly, few ordinary citizens have coal fired steam engines. However, florescent lamp bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. They should be safely disposed of but I have to wonder about how many are not.
Blackhawk NRHS Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
I suspect you would find those who would be opposed to such a conversion. They might buy into LP or LNG, but there's no guarantee.
Of course, many of those foes don't really care about keeping the boat in service anyhow... To them it's an anachronism not worth saving.
tree68 Blackhawk NRHS Converting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy? I suspect you would find those who would be opposed to such a conversion. They might buy into LP or LNG, but there's no guarantee. Of course, many of those foes don't really care about keeping the boat in service anyhow... To them it's an anachronism not worth saving.
The NIML's
There were a few oil fired steam lake freighters operating, but they were laid up during the recession for lack of traffic. The problem with the oil fired It seems is there was some concern with smoke stack air quality (rather than the ash dumping problem with the coal fired car-ferry). Leo Ames could probably give a more detailed history.
schlimmI'm not sure why anyone would interpret my statement about coal ash as referring only to the Badger. Obviously it refers to coal-fired boilers from utilities: (from the GLC)
Because the issue at hand isn't emissions. It's the coal ash mixed with boiler water and then flushed into the lakes that is at question. If the Badger develops and installs a system to contain that onboard, she's free and clear to continue as a coal burner.
So unless powerplants and such do the same thing around the Great Lakes with their ash which they most certainly don't (For one reason, fly ash is a commodity and not a waste... but on a steamship there are space and operating constraints that traditionally have made it not be practical to store onboard), naturally I just assumed that you were referring to coal fired steamships. And since the Badger is the last such vessel on the Great Lakes in operation, naturally I made that very small leap and assumed.
I just assumed you were actually talking about the subject at hand and responded as such. My mistake...
John WRAs you point out the objection is not necessarily to causing pollution. It is rather to causing pollution in ways that we, the public, do not. Clearly, few ordinary citizens have coal fired steam engines. However, florescent lamp bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. They should be safely disposed of but I have to wonder about how many are not.
As I understand it, the EPA's objection is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here.
The statistics are out there for the Badger's discharge. If you're to believe that the inert discharge is a real problem, be aware that the component in question here as the biggest issue is the mercury component of the ash. And then visualize an ordinary citizen with a old fashioned mercury thermometer breaking it over one of the Great Lakes and in doing so dumping much more mercury all at once and in a concentrated location then decades of the Badger operating over a long water route as is would. If the Badger was such a real problem, imagine the environmental catrosophe then compared to decades of the Badger continuing to dump inert coal ash into the lake.
Does anyone really believe if some loser intentionally broke a thermometer into the lake to dump some mercury that it would be some sort of ecological diasaster? I'm sure it's not going to do any favors, but I personally really doubt it would be some sort of diasaster. But if the Badger is a real problem, then that citizen could easily eclipse decades of the Badger operating all at once with the snap of their fingers.
Think of that comparison to visualize the numbers at play with the Badger's ash output and the threat of it.
Blackhawk NRHSConverting railroad steam locomotives from coal burners to oil burners has been accepted practice for decades; what would be so difficult to convert the Badger to an oil burner and put an end to all of this controversy?
To an organization like the Union Pacific burning diesel fuel in the boiler of their steamers, the increased operating cost is insignificant compared to the other cost involved. It's not economical compared to coal based on the price of each unit of fuel burned, but the program is subsized and the point isn't to make money and fuel cost is a small factor in the overall program. If they wanted to make money or minimize the loss, they'd be sticking GE Evolution diesels and such at the front. But they see intangible benefits of steamers and are willing to pay a premium for the past. That includes paying extra for fuel for the convenience, operating advantages, and ready supply that diesel represents.
And just the savings alone in being able to fuel right where the rest of the fleet does with the same fuel more than saves enough I suspect to justify the increased fuel cost of what they're burning compared to the days when they still burned coal back in the 1980's. I'm sure the savings in logisitics more than justifys the extra cost.
But the Badger is a business out to make a profit and not a relic giving people joy rides. Her boilers would be far too inefficent because of their design if they had to burn diesel if it's even an option engineering wise. It's a non option for the Bunker C powered steam freighters out there that will have to be retired or repowered by the time the decade is out due the EPA. Diesel is just too expensive even if it was an option, but the boilers in vessels like the Wilfred Sykes weren't engineered in mind to withstand it according to the Lake Carriers Association, the trade group for the Great Lakes merchant fleet. So when Bunker C goes, so do their steam plants.
And there's no point in easily converting to Bunker C because they're going to just be facing the same deadline. Plus the existing vessels were grandfathered in when the fuel was set to be banned and then extended a few years ago. So it's probably a nonoption even if they wanted to.
Plus part of the allure of the Badger is that she is a coal burner.
MidlandMikeThere were a few oil fired steam lake freighters operating, but they were laid up during the recession for lack of traffic. The problem with the oil fired It seems is there was some concern with smoke stack air quality (rather than the ash dumping problem with the coal fired car-ferry).
The problem is the airborne emissions leaving the stack of the steamers burning Bunker C (like Union Pacific's turbine fleet burned back in the 50's and 60's). But steamships are still sailing for now. The Montrealais, a Canadian vessel, was one of the first vessels to start the season this year over the past couple of days for instance.
On the American side, there are seven oil fired bulk carriers that will be sailing as the season starts and one laid up until increased tonnage demands later this year call her out after some drydock work. And for steamers that stand a chance in the future that are held in reserve these days due to the lack of cargos over the past half decade from this recession, there are three self unloaders and one straight decker that are very unlikely to sail this year. And there are two intact steam powered freighters used for powdered cement storage that were retired half a decade ago by a new articulated tug/barge unit that could sail again but are highly unlikely ever to.
And on the Candian side, in addition to the Montrealais, the Quebecois is supposed to sail in the Fall grain rush before sadly supposedly calling it quits after this year. And the Algoma Provider is a long shot not currently planned to sail as a flood of newbuilds from China sees the Canadian fleets revamping their fleets and retiring their 30-50 year old fleets over the next few years. Last Fall was probably the end of her 49 year career that won't make her 50th anniversary of entering service this May. But the same was said a decade ago so I'm keeping my finger's crossed for her.
If anyone lives around the shipping lanes of the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway, this is steam's equivalent in the US and Canada to just about of 1958 or so for American & Canadian railroads. Now's the time to catch the sounds, sights, and smells of the last steam turbine powered freighters. The window of opportunity to enjoy the survivors is growing ever smaller and chances are barely anything will be left soon.
And of course enjoy the last active coal fired steamship, last active Uniflow steam engine outside of possibly a few WWII Naval relics in Taiwan and Vietnam (I believe they still have a Uniflow powered ship captured from South Vietnam) whose navy's often have had the appearance of museums, the last active Great Lakes carferry, and last commercial passenger steamship on the Lakes. In other words, enjoy the Badger while you can.
Even if compliance goes smoothly over the next two seasons, the EPA will be back someday. She burns coal and that in itself is a problem in the eyes of the EPA, NIMBY's, and environmental groups "protecting" the environment that don't take into account all the fuel and emissions saved by the Badger that otherwise would occur if she wasn't there. Then you have the additional rounds of emission standards if she's repowered with a modern powerplant that she'll have to meet even afterwards since I can assure you that Tier 4 for railroads for instance isn't going to be the end of it. Rather, this is just the beginning.
And who knows what SOLAS could do to her down the road even if the American EPA doesn't manage to scuttle her.
Leo_AmesAs I understand it, the EPA's objection [to the Badger] is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here.
Leo,
You make an interesting assessment of the EPA. In this case, then, you suggest a regulatory agency is not interested in actually controlling and reducing harm to the environment. Rather, it is interested in making an example of a company that is doing no significant harm. It all sounds rather cynical.
The amount of elemental mercury in a thermometer (which is being phased out in much of the world) is approximately 0.5 to 3.0 grams. By contrast, the Detroit Edison coal-fired plant in Monroe, MI emits 1631 pounds. Nationwide, 491 coal-fired power plants emit 78,367 lbs. of toxic mercury each year. The Badger emits 500 tons of coal ash annually. @ an average of 0.1 ppm Hg, that works out to 50 mg Hg, just under two ounces. Contrast with Bob Manglitz, LMC CEO and president, who has said the total amount of mercury discharged through a season is less than a half-ounce. So the amount of mercury is small, though almost four times what he claims. One exacerbating factor is that the release into water rather than into the air or on the ground is that the elemental mercury (a less toxic state) converts to the dangerous methyl mercury form more rapidly and completely.
does coal have any radioactivity? Like if it comes from wyoming? there was the radon scare a couple of years ago and coal been the ground a lot longer
Bonasdoes coal have any radioactivity? Like if it comes from wyoming? there was the radon scare a couple of years ago and coal been the ground a lot longer
You name it and in all probability some coal has it. It all depends on what kind of stuff was around the coal when it was being made. But of course not all coal has all other elements.
John WR Leo_AmesAs I understand it, the EPA's objection [to the Badger] is the poor example it sets. It's not important how safe the discharge is, what's important to them is that any waste is being dumped in the first place (Despite dozens of heavy polluters doing far worse with the EPA's consent around the Great Lakes). It's essentially the principle of the deal here. Leo, You make an interesting assessment of the EPA. In this case, then, you suggest a regulatory agency is not interested in actually controlling and reducing harm to the environment. Rather, it is interested in making an example of a company that is doing no significant harm. It all sounds rather cynical.
While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert".
It's the fact that the coal ash is being dumped in the first place that is their primary objection rather than the very small amount of pollutants present in the material. In their eyes, the Badger sets a poor example and if they let the Badger continue unhindered, my assumption is that they worry that it might lead to a real problem being able to continue when approached by the EPA in the future (Even though dozens pollute far worse than the Badger could ever dream about around the Lakes with their permission).
If there was a major problem, that Great Lakes water basin would be completely poisoned by mercury pollution at this point. The Badger is just doing what thousands of other vessels from tug boats and the yaucts of the rich once did right up to the giant bulk carriers and passenger ships that plied the lakes. From about 1840 until the 1970's, coal was the fuel of choice for most of the fleet. The Badger even had company as recently as the 1990's when the last few remants of the coal powered bulk carrier fleet sadly finally died out.
As for the mercury content, in an earlier thread I brought up several amounts listed both by the EPA and the Badger's operating company themselves and compared them mathmatically to several statistics I found for mercury content in several common household items of the past and today. I don't believe my comparison between a thermometer and the Badger's output of mercury is incorrect, but stranger things have happened.
According to Schlimm's post, I made a mistake somewhere with my conversions that night I did that. My apologies to the community if I did things incorrectly.
The calculations are fairly easy but the hard part was finding the concentration of Hg in coal ash and how much mercury is actually in a thermometer.
Leo_Ames While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert"...
While I'm certainly cynical about the EPA, I believe I was just paraphrasing statements that have been made by the EPA in the past about the Badger. While there hasn't always been agreement that the testing methodology has been perfect, the amounts of contaminants that the Badger puts out during an operating season is very small and the output is scientifically classified as "inert"...
I don't know who said it was "inert", but in EPA's recent complaint they determined that the Badger exceeded both Michigan's and Wisconsin's water quality standards for mercury throughout 2012 based on samples supplied by the ferry company. The company agreed by signature of the consent decree and will pay a hefty fine. See page 6 of the complaint, paragraph 42 and following:
http://www.justice.gov/enrd/ConsentDecrees/ENV_ENFORCEMENT-2344260-v1-LAKE_MICHICAN_TRANS-LAKE_COMPLAINT.PDF
The last time I saw the Badger in person in Ludington, Michigan, the CSX had removed the railyard.
How long after the 1987 CSX merger of the C&O did they stop tranporting freight cars on the Badger?
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
The Badger's last trip as a railroad car ferry was November 16th, 1990. Her current career as a vehicle ferry started on May 15th, 1992.
Does anyone know when her and her fleetmates stopped carrying passengers? Did the Michigan-Wisconsin Transportation Company, the company that bought C&O's remaining three ferrys (Which included the Badger's sistership the Spartan and the City of Midland 41) and continued the rail service for several years, ever carry passengers?
M-WT continued to carry passengers and autos after it took over the service sometime in the late 1980's. I rode "City of Midland 41" twice in that period from Ludington to Kewaunee (the only route in operation) and rail service was minimal, apparently freight cars were carried only on the overnight trips with nothing but passengers and autos on the day trips. "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up at the time.
Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
CSSHEGEWISCH ... Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
...
They are not actually violating the law until a court determines that. The consent decree is a sort of settled-out-of-court agreement that the company will do the work, and there are stipulated penalties if they miss deadlines and are on an enforcement fast track. Up until now it has only been the EPA saying one thing, and the company saying something else. Among things the Badger must do long before the 2 years is up: submit schedule of coal ash mitigation by this June; reduction of coal ash by 15% each year; and reduction of sulfur.
CSSHEGEWISCH M-WT continued to carry passengers and autos after it took over the service sometime in the late 1980's. I rode "City of Midland 41" twice in that period from Ludington to Kewaunee (the only route in operation) and rail service was minimal, apparently freight cars were carried only on the overnight trips with nothing but passengers and autos on the day trips. "Spartan" and "Badger" were both laid up at the time. Why have the current operators of "Badger" been given an additional two years to violate the law?. They already have had plenty of time to come into compliance and it appears to me that they are trying to postpone a financial day of reckoning that will eventually come when major repairs are needed to the propulsion system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.