June, 1998
Table of Contents
Anti-Superfund Corporations Gave $96 Million
To Candidates
Key findings of the reportPublic Hearing on the Great Lakes Water Quality between Canada and the U.S.
And That’s Not All
Lobbying as Well
What Do Polluters Want?
Local Impacts
What You Can Do
What is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?Great Lakes United 16th Annual Meeting
How does the Agreement benefit Northeast Wisconsin?
Why is it important now?
What Can We Do?
Timeline
Fort James --- Air Pollution Permit
Important Public HearingVictory and Beyond -- a benefit for Wisconsin Stewardship Network
Fort James AIR Pollution Allowed Yearly
Fox River Demo Project
Minergy Incinerator --- NeenahIndustry Tries to Hotwire Permits
Bayport Project --- Green Bay
Glatfelter Permit --- Neenah
Takings Bills --- Statewide
Dirty Secrets Bill --- Statewide
Mining Update
Key issuesChildren at Risk Conference
Anti-Superfund Corporations Gave $96 Million To Candidates
Companies seeking to dismantle Superfund, the nation’s toxic waste clean-up
law, gave $96 million to congressional candidates between 1991 and 1997,
according to a report released today by the Public Interest Research Group,
a national citizen organization.
The report “Polluter Pay-Off: the Multi-million Dollar Campaign to
Roll Back Superfund” details how 188 political action committees (PACs)
of some of the nation’s largest oil, chemical, mining and insurance companies
as well as trade associations of their industries use money to influence
congressional votes on issues.
The list includes the American Forest & Paper Association, the
major trade group for the paper industry, and Monsanto, the original chemical
manufacturer of PCBs polluting the Fox River.
• Congress members who co-sponsored the bill (HR 3000) to dismantle Superfund received an average of “$140,305 from anti-Superfund PACs, more than 3 times the $45,319 average received by co-sponsors of the pro-Superfund bill (HR 3262).
• In Wisconsin, where there are 40 Superfund sites, Rep. Scott Klug (a Republican representing south-central Wisconsin) was the top recipient, with $209,876 --- and he co-sponsored the anti-Superfund bill.
• Rep. Thomas Barrett (a Democrat representing the Milwaukee area) co-sponsored the pro-Superfund bill and received only $34,683 from the polluter PACs. (None of the other 7 Wisconsin Congress members sponsored Superfund bills pro or con.)
• Two Wisconsin Congress members serve on subcommittee of the House Transportation Committee, which voted recently on another anti-Superfund bill (HR 2727). Rep. Thomas Petri, (a Republican representing the Fox Valley and central Lake Michigan shoreline) voted against Superfund, and received $138,369 from the polluter PACs. Rep. Jay Johnson (a Democrat representing Northeast Wisconsin) voted for Superfund, and received only $4,250.
• The average Congress member who voted anti-Superfund received $107,518 from anti-Superfund PACs, compared with an average of only $39,485 received by Congress members who voted in favor of Superfund toxic waste clean-ups.
• It’s getting worse. In the House, contributions from the anti-Superfund PACs to congressional candidates have more than doubled over the last few years. The 1992 election cycle yielded roughly $8.7 million for House candidates, whle the 1996 cycle topped $18.7 million. Off-year election contributions also show an alarming increase, from $2.8 millioin in 1991 to $7.5 million in 1997.
• In the Senate, members of the Envi-ronment Committee who voted for another anti-Superfund bill, S.8, received an average of $302,054 from polluter PACs, compared to an average of $165,930 received by Committee members voting against the bill.
In addition to their contributions through PACs, many corporate polluters also give many additional milliions in soft money, through conduit organizations like the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, and through a multitude of large individual contributions from the top officers, managers and board members of the polluting corporations, their law firms and their insurance companies.
The insurance industry donates millions to weaken Superfund, because they don’t want the liability of paying to clean up toxic messes created by their client corporations.
In the last year, 99 companies and trade associations have hired at least 150 lobby firms, either “in house” or “outside,” to lobby for rollbacks to the Superfund law.
Cleanups under the Superfund law are primarily paid for in two ways,
first, by polluters and their insurance companies and second, by a small
tax on the oil and chemical industries.
However, the tax collected to pay for Superfund cleanups expired in
December 1995. Industry Superfund opponents have used money and influence
to block restoring the tax unless the law is weakened in exchange.
Every day the Superfund tax is not restored, $4 million to clean up
the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites goes uncollected.
After attacks on environmental laws proved unpopular with the public,
many Congress members have simply softened their rhetoric and pursued slightly
refined but essentially identical anti-environmental legislative agendas.
Some common themes of anti-Superfund bills are:
1. Eliminate cleanup liaibility for various categories of large polluters, such as those who dumped hazardous wastes prior to 1986, those who sent hazardous wastes to dumps which also accepted municipal wastes, mining companies and all oil recyclers. These exemptions would force clean-up costs back onto taxpayers, or drain money too rapidly from Superfund.
2. Retroactively pay polluters who have already agreed to clean up. These proposals would allow polluters to reopen past settlements and demand money from Superfund, which would divert money from clean-ups into paying polluters.
3. Drop preference for permanent solutions which emphasize treatment rather than landfilling. Polluters would rather be allowed easy and cheap temporary fixes which still leave toxic sites for our grandchildren to deal with. The preference for treatment is designed to prevent polluters from simply fencing off contaminated sites, handing out bottled water and walking away. This law change is one of the major goals of the polluter PACs and lobbyists.
4. Use Future Landuse to Limit Cleanup Goals. Polluters want EPA to base cleanup decisions on the anticipated future land use, yet it’s impossible to predict land use needs 100, 500 or 1,000 years in the future, when the toxic chemicals could still pose problems. Our decendents may need the land for growing food or building homes --- and they may forget the land was industrial in the past.
5. Drinking Water Not Protected. Various industry proposals would limit the instances when polluters would be required to protect uncontaminated groundwater. They want clean up remedies to include dilution over hundreds of years, instead of preventing groundwater contamination or actively treating a contaminated water supply.
6. No Compensation for Natural Resource Damages. Superfund currently holds polluters responsible for damages or injuries to natural resources including land, fish, wildlife, air and water. Polluters want to escape responsibility for restoration of the resource and interim losses. This change alone would gut the Fox River cleanup effort.
7. Limit federal oversight and reduce public participation. The anti-Superfund bills shift authority over cleanups back to the States without ensuring that a State has the financial, technical, or enforcement resources in place to monitor or conduct clean-ups, or (as in the case of Wisconsin) the political will to make sure that cleanups occur. In addition, polluters want to limit public opportunities for comment and public hearings.
Several of these law changes are direct threats to the proposed Fox River Clean-up because Superfund is our only hope for funding and enforcement after 12 years of industry foot-dragging and DNR ineffectiveness.
Please write your 2 Senators and 1 Congressman and tell them how you feel about Superfund and campaign contributions from industry PACs.
Senator Russ Feingold
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Senator Herb Kohl
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Congressman Jay Johnson or
Thomas Petri
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Please Write Today!
Up to Top
Public Hearing on the
Great Lakes Water Quality between Canada and the U.S.
Special Event!
Tuesday, June 23
anytime from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m.
at the Neville Public Museum, Green Bay
We are hosting one of 10 hearings around the Great Lakes region, to take public comments on whether water quality is being adequately protected by the U.S. and Canadian governments.
We need your help! Your attendance at this public hearing would help show public support for clean Great Lakes.
What is the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement?
The Agreement (GLWQA) was first signed by Canada and the United States in 1972. It is a promise by the two governments to reduce pollution and clean up contamination in the Great Lakes.
In its own words, the purpose of the Agreement is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem."
In order to achieve this, the two governments agreed that:
• the discharge of toxic substances in toxic amount will be prohibited,
• the discharge of any or all persistent toxic substance will be virtually eliminated, and
• the waters will be free from substances produced by humans that are toxic or harmful to human, animal or aquatic life.
Both governments committed to a series of standards and programs to be implemented through Environment Canada and the US Environmental Protection Agency. The International Joint Commission is responsible for collecting and analyzing data on the quality of Great Lakes waters and advising the governments on the measures needed to achieve the purposes of the Agreement.
The Agreement applies to the five Great Lakes, the connecting channels (St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, Niagara River) and the St. Lawrence River up to where it ceases to be an international boundary (near Cornwall, Ontario and Massena, New York)
The Agreement uses the "Great Lakes System" to mean all the streams,
rivers, lakes, tributaries and other bodies of water that drain into the
Great Lakes. It uses "Ecosystem" to mean "the interacting components
of air, land, water, and living organisms, including humans."
How does the Agreement benefit Northeast
Wisconsin?
The GLWQA called for the construction and upgrading of sewage treatment
plants around the Great Lakes. It required the clean up of Areas of Concern
or toxic hotspots in the Great Lakes Basin. It called for programs for
contaminated sediments, soils, groundwater and air. It fostered the tactic
of zero discharge, or nil human input of persistent toxic substances, to
achieve the goal of virtually eliminating these toxics from the Great Lakes.
We who live in the Great Lakes Basin are fortunate in having
the Agreement as our baseline for demanding that our governments protect
and restore Great Lakes waters.
If your answer to any of the following questions is "No," it is time
to remind the governments of their commitments.
* Is it safe to swim in your Great Lake or in the river or creek flowing to it?
* Can you eat freely of the fish and ducks from these waters without worrying about health risks to you or to your unborn children?
* Is the water safe to drink?
* Have contaminated sites along the water's edge or polluted sediments in the lake or river been cleaned up?
* Have industrial and municipal releases of toxic pollutants to the
water and air in your community been eliminated?
Here in Northeast Wisconsin we can answer “no” to all these questions
--- at several locations along Lake Michigan and its tributary rivers.
In 1998, the Agreement is due for review and possibly renegotiation
by the two governments. We fear the Agreement may be in danger.
The GLWQA calls for a high level of protection for those living in
the Great Lakes Basin. Given the fact that, over the past decade, governments
throughout the Basin have cut back their environmental programs and weakened
many environmentally protective laws, revisions now will likely weaken
the Agreement.
Let's protect the Agreement.
What Can We Do?
The Agreement was developed because of public
outrage over the state of our lakes and rivers in the mid 1960s. Our job
is to keep the governments on track towards meeting the commitments they
made in the agreement. They need to hear from us that the job of cleaning
up and protecting the Great Lakes and surrounding rivers is not yet finished.
They need our support for strong standards that protect this priceless
heritage --- 20% of the world’s fresh water.
Great Lakes United’s summer and fall public hearings in communities
around the Great Lakes afford one way for all of us who live in the Great
Lakes region to remind our governments to finish the job. Clean Water Action
Council is one of 10 local partner organizations across the Lakes who are
helping to organize these local hearings.
Clean Water Action Council and Great Lakes United will gather your
testimony into a citizen’s “state of the lakes” report and deliver it to
our local, state, provincial and federal government leaders, all of whom
have a role to play in restoring and maintaining the health of the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Please come to the hearing and bring family and friends!
Volunteers Needed
We’re planning several activities in conjunction with the June 23rd hearing in Green Bay on the Agreement.
Could you spare a few hours to help us with the preparations and staffing
of the event? We’re looking for help at the registration tables,
distributing posters, mail processing, tour guiding, audio-visual management,
exhibit preparation, etc.
We’re also planning a Rally and children’s activities.
If you’d like to help, please call our offices at 920-437-7304.
1909 --- Great Britain and the U.S. signed the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Treaty states that "the boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other." The Treaty also created the well-known International Joint Commission (IJC), which consists of 3 Commissioners appointed by the U.S. President, and 3 Commissioners appointed by the Canadian government. The IJC assists the governments in carrying out their promises under the Treaty.
1972 --- Canada and the U.S. signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, focussed on saving Lake Erie. Untreated sewage which flushed into the lakes caused massive algae growth, closing beaches and killing fish. The construction of sewage treatment plants brought Lake Erie back to life.
1978 --- The Agreement was strengthened to cover all five Great Lakes. The public pushed governments to recognize the devastating health consequences from industrial chemicals releases. The governments pledged to achieve Zero Discharge of toxic industrial releases into the Great Lakes.
1987 --- The Agreement was revised again. The public won the requirement for governments to regularly report on progress. Governments recommended the cleanup of contaminated soils and sediments as well as zero release of long-lived, harmful substances.
1998 --- Citizens are currently evaluating the governments’ effectiveness in carrying out these agreements. Public hearings are being held all around the Lakes this summer.
Great Lakes United 16th Annual Meeting
This year’s theme: “Rivers to Lakes”
June 5 thru 7
Friday thru Sunday
Cousin’s Center, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Join us for a Great Lakes weekend!
This year’s annual gathering of members and friends of Great Lakes United
is dedicated to the rivers and other tributary waters of the Great Lakes
- St. Lawrence River ecosystem.
Wisconsin is an apt place to discuss this theme. The name is a native
word meaning “gathering of the waters.” Milwaukee itself is the meeting
place of the Milwaukee, Menomonee and Kinnickinnic Rivers. This meeting
will highlight watershed work and foster new partnerships to better carry
it out. The agenda is packed with interesting workshops, panel discussions,
multiple strategy sessions, field trips, great food, and several nearby
Milwaukee festivals along the Milwaukee River.
Fort James --- Air Pollution Permit
As required by federal law, DNR proposes to combine 5 different air
pollution permits to Fort James Corp. (same mill as at left). This is one
of the 4 largest industrial toxic polluters in Wisconsin.
DNR health assessments show elevated cancer risks --- even though DNR
did not include in its calculations the company’s new incinerator which
will soon release another 334 tons of air pollution, or the nearby GranTek
facility which dries Fort James sludge, releasing more tons of toxics,
or all the other pollution sources in Green Bay.
In fact, DNR claims it is not allowed to take risk assessments into
account when issuing permits.
Please bring friends and family to show support for Clean Air
Wednesday, June 10 5:00 p.m.
Brown County Library
515 Pine Street, Green Bay
If you can’t attend, write by June 10 to:
Mr. Mike Wagner, WDNR
Northern Region Air Management
875 South Fourth Ave.
Park Falls, WI 54552.
Fort James AIR Pollution Allowed Yearly
Conventional
Pollutants
Tons
Sulfur dioxide
35,112
Nitrogen oxides 7,442
Carbon monoxide 2,634
Volatile organic 1,075
compounds (gases)
Particulate matter 467.2
Particulate matter 213.71
Total
46,943.91
Tons
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Pounds
Acrolein
452.7
Antimony
3.67
Arsenic 272.0
Asbestos
525.6
Beryllium
15.0
Biphenyl
88,650.0
Cadmium 25.58
Carbon tetrachloride 19.0
Chlorine
11,476.0
Chloroform
120,000.0
Chromium
221.6
Chromium VI
16.12
Cobalt 53.08
Cumene 27,279.0
Formaldehyde 31,279.0
Hydrogen chloride 2,586,000.0
Hydrogen fluoride 114,953.0
Lead
369.3
Manganese
242.1
Mercury 81.79
Naphthalene
54,220.0
Nickel 286.8
Phenol 15,010.0
Polycyclic Org. Matter 31,577.0
Selenium
320.0
Toluene 25,404
Xylene 34,880
Total
3,144,200
Pounds
The Fox River PCB polluters argue they should be given a chance to finish
their “demonstration project” this summer and study the results over 2-3
years. Yet this project will demonstrate nothing new. It’s just another
dredge and landfill proposal. Dredging is well-studied in rivers around
the world. Hydraulic techniques are already proven to minimize downstream
flow of toxics. They’re like vacuum cleaners and, if used thoroughly,
can be very effective. We don’t need to wait for research results
from the polluters when a river clean-up plan can be written based on current
information.
Furthermore, the industry demonstration will cut a hole in a huge continuous
bed of contaminated sediments to try to remove the worst PCB hotspot (called
56/57) offshore from the old Fort Howard (Fort James) Mill in Green Bay.
Even before they examined the technical options, they limited themselves
to only a $7 million effort, which may be drastically less than needed
to do the project correctly. They’ll cut into a layer cake of contaminated
sediments, exposing deeper levels of contamination, but after exposing
these layers, they may not have enough money to remove all the toxics they
should. This could result in a temporary increase in PCB flows, until the
hole fills again with sediments from upstream.
They want to sample water and fish afterwards, but how can they demonstrate
anything but an increase in PCBs, or at best no improvement, when most
of the PCB sediments will still be there, perhaps even more exposed when
they’re done? This is not sound science, nor is it honest.
And how can we be sure they’ll use thebest dredging techniques or conduct
fair tests, when they have a strong incentive to show a negative result,
a failure which could help them argue against dredging and save them from
$1billion in future clean-up costs?
They may also demonstrate inflated costs with such a small limited
effort --- another tool for frightening mill workers and swaying public
opinion. They won’t have the economy of scale of a large project
which drives down unit costs.
An obvious question is, “Why didn’t they fund legitimate, independent
studies 12 years ago when official clean-up planning began, so we could
be further along now?” The obvious answer: “This demonstration is a delaying
and obstruction tactic, nothing more.”
Victory and Beyond -- a benefit for Wisconsin Stewardship Network
Saturday, June 13
4 to 7 p.m.
Great Dane Pub and Brewing Company
123 East Doty Street, Madison
To register and carpool from Northeast Wisconsin, please contact --- Clean Water at 920-437-7304
Please join us in celebrating passage of the Mining Moratorium
and getting ready for the challenges ahead ...
Featured speaker: conservationist Steve Born, at 5:00 p.m.
We will also honor individuals who led the fight on the Mining Moratorium by presenting the 1998 Stewardship Awards for Citizen Achievement.
Come socialize with environmental and conservation leaders from across Wisconsin! Includes hors d’oeurvres, cash bar and Silent Auction.
$25 per person
All proceeds will benefit Wisconsin Stewardship Network
in support of priority projects. WSN is a grassroots coalition
of
more than 100 sporting and environmental organizations working to restore
and strengthen Wisconsin’s conservation heritage.
The WSN Steering Committee includes:
Citizens for a Better Environment
River Alliance of Wisconsin
Clean Water Action Council
Sierra Club -- John Muir Chapter
Environmentally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area (ECCOLA)
Twin City Rod and Gun Club
Wis. Council of Sport Fishing Organizations
Lake Superior Greens
Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade
Madison Audubon Society
Wis. Fed. of Great Lakes Sport Fishing Clubs
Musky Clubs Alliance of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Northern Thunder
Pheasants Forever
Minergy Incinerator --- Neenah
We’re still waiting for a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court on our fight to protect the Public Trust Doctrine, public lands, and air quality.
We’ve requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hold a public hearing on this 30-50 year contaminated sediment landfill on the west Bay shore. Brown County is trying to get a dredge disposal permit (after the fact --- it’s already under construction) from the Corps. Wisconsin DNR has found several violations already at the site. We’ve met with DNR staff to raise concerns about wildlife exposure and whether toxics are properly contained for the long term.
We testified at the hearing last month on the wastewater discharge permit for P.H. Glatfelter Paper Company. DNR staff acknowledge that land run-off pollution sources to Little Lake Butte des Morts have increased in recent years, and that this logically means that sources like paper mills need to cut back in order to maintain minimal water quality. But they spent most of their time at the hearing deflecting citizen concerns and defending the substantial amounts of pollution they allow Glatfelter to dump in the river. This “pollution defense” is far too common among DNR staff --- it makes us feel DNR works for industry, not the public taxpayer.
On a vote of 57 to 41, the Wis. State Assembly defeated these bills, especially AB 807, which threatened to overturned countless laws and local zoning ordinances which make our workplaces safe and protect our homes and property values. Environmentalists were joined by numerous local government officials who felt they would lose the ability to rationally plan the land-use development of their communities.
Dirty Secrets Bill --- Statewide
Due to widespread citizen outrage, this was stopped in the Legislature’s special session. Industry tried to hide its toxic chemical releases and gain forgiveness from DNR on the grounds that they performed a self audit.
DNR claims the Moratorium wording is clear enough to avoid the need
for a more detailed rulemakng process based on the Moratorium. In some
ways this is worrisome, because interpretation of the Moratorium could
be skewed by our politically weakened DNR. The role of the Governor’s special
advisory panel is also still uncertain. We need to watch closely. Much
depends on the outcome of the Governor’s race.
Meanwhile, DNR is proposing radical changes to the permit and reclamation
plan for the now-closed Flambeau Mine in Rusk County (western Wis.) The
original plan required revegetation of 32 acres of the site for wildlife
habitat and passive recreation. Now the company wants to turn it into an
industrial park. A proposed 8.5 acre wetland would be relocated from an
area apparently polluted by mining activity to a site upstream from any
previous mining or mine waste-rock storage area. Among other issues
of concern is the substitution of proposed ground-cover plantings and questions
as to who will profit from the industrial park.
Local citizen Tom Wilson, of the group Northern Thunder, questions
how a reclamation plan which took years of public debate, hearings, baseline
measurements and a supposedly stringent administrative permitting process
can be changed simply on the basis of a request from the mining company.
“There are no groundwater monitoring wells in the area of this proposed
industrial zone despite the fact that part of it was the site of the storage
facility for the most potentially toxic waste rock from this mine. What
is the present condition of this site they are proposing to reuse?” Dave
Blouin of Sierra Club asked.
“We are not objecting to the concept of preservation and reuse of existing
industrial buildings, but the nature and scope of the proposed changes
raise important questions about the mine’s closure that should be heard
by the public,” he added.
Now citizens are asking what this means for the Rio Algom (Exxon) mine
on the Wolf River. A precedent is being set with a reclamation plan being
so easily changed without so much as a public hearing long after the mine
has been closed.
Jeff Peterson, of the Wisconsin Greens said, “This is just another
example of the Golden Rule as understood by the Thompson administration:
“Those who own the gold mines make their own rules.”
Some suspect that the primary intention of Kennecott Minerals (the
owners of the Flambeau Mine) is to maintain the mining infrastructure in
place so if the upcoming gubernatorial and legislative election results
in a more favorable political climate for mining activities, they will
be able to easily reopen the mine site and extract the lower-grade gold.
At one point the company wanted to extend mining activities directly underneath
the Flambeau River --- the existing mine is only a few feet from the river
now. The various groups objecting to this proposal are calling for the
DNR to hold a fully-noticed public hearing in the Rusk County area.
Industry Tries to Hotwire Permits
During the Legislature’s special session several awful bills were proposed, without opportunity for public comment, including a zinger by Rep. Sheila Harsdorf (a Republican from River Falls). She proposed a “Permit Guarantee Bill,” promoted by the Wisconsin Builders Association, to expand the “money back guarantee” which is already contained in Wisconsin Act 27 (the Budget Bill) for certain environmental permits. The bill would expand the scope of expedited permits dramatically --- essentially to all air and water pollution permits.
1. Would provide a money back guarantee if DNR failed to meet specific time deadlines for reviewing permit applications. This would be a financial burden on an already thinly stretched DNR budget. (In fact, one reason for permit delays is lack of staff.)
2. Would create an incentive to make hasty decisions on permits with major public health impacts. Public health could become a second priority to expedience.
3. The bill would take a “one size fits all” approach which doesn’t account for the difference in complexity of various permits. A heating boiler for a small business would be treated the same as a huge coal-fired power plant.
4. Approval of permits would be automatic if DNR didn’t act within a given timeframe.
5. Public notices and public hearing opportunities would be eliminated.
6. Would allow the permit holder to retain the permit unless there is proven substantial harm to the environment. Again, the presumption that air and water pollution permits are a “God-given Right” for private industries.
Luckily, the bill failed. (Kudos to Sen. Rob Cowles who strongly objected to the bill.) It’s frightening when such scary proposals are rushed through special Legislative sessions.
Up to Top
Children at Risk Conference
A special 2-day conference will focus on significant environmental health threats to children in the Great Lakes region. It is sponsored by the EPA, the Office of Children’s Health Protection, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. It is geared towards environmental and public health agency staff, physicians, nurses, public health workers, research scientists, environmental and community groups, and industry. Speakers are drawn from government, universities and the health profession. Agenda items: Childhood Cancer; Childhood Asthma; Environmental Indicators and Interventions; Developmental Effects of Environmental Contaminants; and Pesticides and PCBs.
Wed-Thurs, July 8-9 in Chicago
Registration limited to 350 people, no fees. For info. call 1-877-838-7299.
E-mail: tays@ttemi.com, Internet page: www.epa.gov/Region5/Calendar.htm
|
|
|
|
|