Vote Green for the MWRD

MWRD Board Meeting of Sept. 2

On September 3, 2010, in Board meetings, by jjailey

0

By Jack Ailey

I have two comments regarding the MWRD board meeting I observed this morning.

1. Some board members objected to piecemeal cuts to expenses in 2010 without seeing the whole proposed budget. Thus a couple of proposed cuts were postponed. This seems justified to me. The board does have overall responsibility for the budget so they should see the whole budget before agreeing to specific cuts. In general it is clear that the board is reluctant to override proposals from the MWRD management. Certainly we don’t want the elected commissioners to be micromanaging. However, it is their responsibility to decide if what the managers propose is really the best course of action.
Certainly I think the board should have long ago abandoned the fight against the IEPA’s proposed rule forcing disinfection at all plants regardless of what the management at MWRD thought.

2. One contract did bother me as I think about it more. It was an item to pay an outside electrical contractor to perform preventive maintenance on synchronous motors. I wonder why the electrical maintenance people employed by the MWRD can’t do this. My background is in electrical maintenance. I worked in this field for Acme Steel until it closed in 2001. I then worked in the same field for the CTA until I retired in 2008. I also teach classes in this at Prairie State College. I feel I know something about this.

At Acme Steel we had a number of these synchronous motors. They are big, expensive motors. They need to be maintained. They cost a lot to replace. If they are old, you may not even be able to get an exact replacement which means modifying whatever they are running. But at Acme the maintenance electricians did the normal preventive maintenance on these motors. I don’t recall us ever calling in an outside firm to do this work. I don’t understand why the MWRD electricians can’t do this work.

If the MWRD really doesn’t have electricians capable of doing this work, it needs to hire a firm to come in and train some of the MWRD electricians to do it. This should save money in the long run.

An awful lot of the contracts that the MWRD board considers involve hiring outside companies to do things that I wonder why the MWRD personnel can’t do themselves. All this contracting out means less permanent jobs for MWRD employees and more temporary jobs. As a union member at Acme and at the CTA, I didn’t like that trend then and I don’t like it here either.

Nadine Bopp Endorsed by IVIIPO

On August 24, 2010, in Endorsements, by jjailey

0

By Jack Ailey

As she was in 2008, Nadine Bopp has been endorsed by the IVIIPO. We all know that Nadine is totally qualified for this position. The IVIIPO is just recognizing the obvious. More endorsements will be coming. Congratulations to Nadine.

Congratulations to all the Green Party candidates who were endorsed.

Here are the IVIIPO questionnaires filled out by all three of us. Judge for yourself who deserves endorsement.
Nadine Bopp
Diana Horton
John “Jack” Ailey

Chicago Tribune Says Vote Green for the MWRD (well, not exactly:))

On August 22, 2010, in Disinfection, by jjailey

0

By Jack Ailey

On Friday morning, August 20, the Chicago Tribune ran a front page story highlighting the backward policy of the current MWRD board in fighting disinfection.

The Illinois Pollution Control Board has issued a preliminary rule that would require the MWRD to disinfect the effluent before sending it back into the Chicago Area Waterways. The article points out that nearly all other cities in the U.S. do disinfect their waste water before releasing it. Clear data is presented showing the unsafe levels of bacteria in the Chicago River downstream from the waste treatment plants.

We Green Party candidates for the MWRD have been highlighting the demand that disinfection is clearly necessary since the 2008 campaign. The article doesn’t actually mention the current political campaign, so we can’t exactly claim that the Tribune is saying vote Green. BUT I urge those of you who think this is an important issue to vote for the candidates of the Party which has been highlighting this issue since we became ballot-qualified in the 2008 election.

The article’s author, Michael Hawthorne, has been doing excellent reporting on environmental issues for many years. This current article makes clear why disinfection is necessary.

The basic points, in my opinion, are just the high levels of bacteria in the River and the fact that people are using the River for recreation.

At the same time, Hawthorne allows the current MWRD administration to have their say. They just demonstrate how convoluted and ridiculous their arguments against disinfection are.

So, let’s put environmental priorities at the top of the list at the MWRD. Vote Green for the MWRD.

MWRD Sludge is not safe.

On July 24, 2010, in "Black Box", by jjailey

0

by Jack Ailey

MWRD sludge is unsafe for farmland regardless of whether it is pelletized.

The Tribune has run a couple of articles about the MWRD’s “Black Box”, a plant associated with the Stickney waste treatment facility that turns sludge into dried pettets. The Tribune’s main point is that this plant is an expensive, wasteful boondoggle that probably was the result of political influence. This is probably true.

However, the main point is that this sludge produced at the Stickney plant, or at any other MWRD facility, is unsafe for application to any fields, especially ones where food is grown. The MWRD doesn’t do what is called “tertiary treatment” which would remove dangerous heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals from the sludge. Thus the sludge which the MWRD gives away is not safe and neither is the pelletized sludge produced at the “Black Box”.

Until the MWRD implements new, state of the art, treatment processes, the sludge is not safe for application to any open fields. We don’t want these dangerous heavy metals, hydrocarbons, or other contaminants making their way into our food supply or into our water.

Yes! Clean Up the River!

On June 3, 2010, in Disinfection, by jjailey

0

By Jack Ailey

Wednesday, June 3, the Chicago Tribune published a front page article pointing out that the U.S. EPA has stated that the Chicago River should be cleaned up to the point where it is safe for people to swim in. In the context of Chicago politics this is a radical idea. Mayor Daley is quoted on the radio as pooh-poohing it. In 1900 the Chicago River was reversed to keep sewage out of our drinking water. Even 110 years later the basic attitude at the MWRD is that the Chicago Area Waterways are sewers. They ask why would want to spend money cleaning it up.

BUT, now even the U.S. EPA has said that the Chicago Area Waterways need to be cleaned up. We Green Party MWRD candidates have been calling for this since the 2008 campaign. All the major environmental organizations have been calling for this for years. As the EPA has pointed out, the Clean Water Act requires that plans be made to bring the Chicago River up to level where it is safe for people to recreate in and on.

A major step in this direction would be to institute disinfection for bacteria at the three sewage treatment plants which do not do this. Yes it will cost some money, but this is people’s health we are trying to protect. The river is a lot cleaner than it was 30 years ago. Many people are out on the river in canoes and kayaks. They come in contact with this water. We need to make it safe.

What to do about the Asian Carp

On May 22, 2010, in Asian Carp, by jjailey

0

Comments by Jack Ailey

On February 12 I attended the EPA hearing about plans to deal with the threat of Asian carp getting into the Great Lakes. Most of the crowd was people whose livelihoods would be threatened if the locks were closed. The sentiment was overwhelmingly against closing the locks. I would presume that the hearing in Michigan was dominated by people who fear losing their livelihoods if, or more likely when, the Asian carp makes it into the Great Lakes. The greatest passion comes from those who fear loss of their businesses or jobs.
The short version of my conclusions is that closing the locks is not going to solve this problem. In fact, I think that sooner or later the Asian carp are going to make it into the Great Lakes. We should do what we can to delay and mitigate this. Also, in particular there are things the MWRD needs to do to to stop the occasional discharge of stormwater and raw sewage into the lake, which also has the potential to dump invasive species into the lake.
The facts:
1.This has been a disaster in slow motion. It has been know for at least a decade that these fish were on their way to Lake Michigan. Now that they are either already in the lake or soon to be in the lake it has become an issue of urgent action. Now a comprehensive plan to forestall this has been hurriedly put together.
2.The two species of carp that are of concern certainly are a potential threat to the ecological balance of the Great Lakes. It is not certain that that can establish themselves in the Great Lakes, but there seems to be a good chance that they can. We probably aren’t going to know for sure until it is too late. If they do, they could cause big harm to the commercial and sport fishing business.
3.The potential for these species to reach the Great Lakes was created by the reversing of the Chicago River which was completed in 1900. There are five water connections between the Illinois River and Lake Michigan. Only three of them have locks. Neither the Little Calumet nor the Grand Calumet have any locks. Thus if these two species of carp make it past the electric barrier, they have routes to Lake Michigan which can not be blocked just by closing the locks.
4.There is substantial commerce, tourism, and recreational boating which would be disrupted or wiped out by closing the locks.
5.Ten times in the last ten years the locks have to be opened by the MWRD because a heavy rain has filled up the Deep Tunnel (the TARP) and the overflow of rainwater and sewage has to be dumped into the lake.
My conclusions:
1.All the heat about closing the locks is misplaced. Closing them will not keep the Asian carp out of the lake. The proposals put forth in the draft plan presented at this meeting seem to have merit, but I don’t expect them to succeed in the long run. Eventually these two species of carp are going to make it into Lake Michigan. We can delay this and perhaps mitigate the impact, but it seems unlikely that we can permanently keep these fish out of the Lake.
2.The MWRD needs a much more aggressive program to keep storm water out of of the sewer system. We can not just rely on the TARP to do this. There are a whole series of measures that need to be pushed much harder, including lots more rain barrels, stricter requirements for stormwater management for new development, transitioning to separate sewer and stormwater systems, rain gardens, green roofs, permeable paving,
3.As a number of environmental groups have stated, the goal should be ecological separation of the Mississippi watershed and the Great Lakes watershed. The Chicago River needs to be re-reversed. Planning on how to do this needs to be started right away. Besides the need to impede the migration of invasive species, water from Lake Michigan should not be diverted into the Gulf of Mexico. This project will take too long to be of use in stopping the Asian carp.
4.It should be noted, however, that there was never an absolute separation of these two watersheds. Chicago was settled because there was partial connection between these two water systems (Mud Lake) which flooded at times of high water. A complete ecological separation would require much more than just re-reversing the Chicago River.

Notes on Illinois Pollution Control Board hearing

On May 19, 2010, in Disinfection, by admin

0

Notes on Illinois Pollution Control
Board hearing, 6-16-08

Jack Ailey

Background: The Illinois EPA has
proposed a rule which would force the MWRD to institute treatment for
bacteria at all its treatment plants. Currently three of the MWRD
plants do not treat for bacteria before releasing water back into the
river. Before this rule can take effect the IPCB must approve this
rule. The ICPB is holding hearings at various locations and times to
get public comments about this proposed rule. Monday evening’s
hearing was at the headquarters for the MWRD at 100 E. Erie.

All the major environmental
organizations in the Chicago area are pushing that this rule needs to
go into effect. The MWRD has proposed that the IPCB delay its
decision. The MWRD is currently funding a public health study to show
whether or not people are currently getting sick from contact with
water in the Chicago River, the Cal-Sag channel, or the Calumet
River.

By the time the hearing started at 5:30
PM, the MWRD board room was standing room only, probably at least 100
people. The Friends of the Chicago River appeared to have been a
major force in bringing people to the hearing. 70 people had signed
up to testify. Not all of them showed up, but my notes show 43 people
speaking.

All but one person spoke in favor of
the rule to force the MWRD to treat for bacteria. Many people pointed
out that because the river is so much cleaner than it used to be many
people are using it. Thousands of people, probably tens of thousands,
canoe and kayak on the river. Hundreds of people practice rowing on
the river. Many people fish in the river. Children has been seen
swimming in the river. This is despite the presence of signs warning
people not to come in contact with the water.

Many people testified that in spite of
attempting not to fall into the water, every now and then, problems
come up and kayakers and canoers end up in the water. Any time
someone canoes, kayaks or rows on the river, he or she will
automatically come in contact with the water to a certain extent.
Some people talked about times when they fell into the water. Some of
them did not notice any health effects, but others did get intestinal
problems, skin rashes, or eye infections.

The basic conclusion is clear –
all the effluent discharged by the MWRD needs to be treated for
bacteria. The only arguments against doing this are that it costs
money and that there has not been a rigorous scientific study proving
that people are currently getting sick from contact with the river
water. But, there is no question that having that level of bacteria
in the water can make people sick. It is also clear that more and
more people are using the river in ways that bring them into contact
with the water. Why would people in the Chicago area want to allow a
clear health hazard to flow through their communities?

A related point that many of the people
testifying also made is that the river is an asset for Chicago,
economically and for quality of life. We have a very fine lake front
and the river is already another asset for Chicago. If it is made
much safer, the river can be a much bigger asset. Already hundreds of
people make their living from activities related to the river. Having
a view of the river is now an asset for homes and apartment
buildings.

Here are the photos of the great candidates:

Jack Ailey

Thus it is clear that the MWRD does
need to treat for bacteria. It is an issue of public health, it is an
issue of economic development, and it is an issue of the quality of
life in Chicago.