September, 1998
Table of Contents
Sneak Attacks By Congress
What’s a Rider?Now’s Your Chance to Comment on Superfund
Sneak Attacks
What You Can Do
Corruption of DNRTell DNR Your Clean-up Priorities!
The Sludge Barge
What are the Options?
What You Can DoLessons from Elliot Lake
How Chemical Industries Manipulate Us
Summary of FindingsMore on Pesticide Mis-regulation
1. Overwhelmed & Biased
2. Consider the Source
3. Few Checks for Accuracy
4. Withholding Evidence
5. Confuse the Message
6. Conflicts of Interest
7. Free Trips for Bureaucrats
8. Legislative Bribery
Conclusions
Key FindingsSesquicentennial Conference - Celebrating Wisconsin’s Aldo Leopold
Coalition Demands DNR Stop Mine Permit Process
Sneak Attacks By Congress
A coalition of environmental groups ran a full-page advertisement in
the Sept. 1 New York Times entitled, “The Most Anti-Environmental Congress
Ever?” calling on Congress to remove all of the riders now pending and
urging President Clinton to veto all further attacks on our environment.
“Now that Congress is returning for September, its last month in session,
it should listen to the American people, and stop mugging the environment
behind closed doors,” the environmentalists stated.
A “rider” is an unrelated piece of legislation which politicians tack
on to popular bills which they know the President wants to sign, such as
basic funding for transportation, housing or food programs.
This puts the President in a bind, because he knows he could look bad
vetoing a popular bill, and occasionally the timing of a veto could endanger
the success of certain programs.
Most riders, if they had to face scrutiny as individual bills, would
be defeated in an instant.
In the early 1990s, Newt Gingrich and certain other legislators were
visibly and vocally anti-environmental.
Now, such legislators are more careful to campaign (falsely) about
their “strong environmental record,” while they attack the environment
quietly behind the scenes. Such tactics are more subtle and crafty, and
they seem to lull voters to sleep.
Contact your federal elected officials and tell them how you feel about
anti-environmental riders. Senator Herb Kohl, Senator Russ Feingold, and
your Representative (either Jay Johnson, or Thomas Petri, in Northeast
Wisconsin.) The Toll-free Capitol switchboard can connect
you directly with their office at no charge, at 800-985-8762.
This phone number can also be used to reach the White House. Pres.
Clinton can veto legislation with riders, so you can leave a message telling
him how you feel as well.
Now’s Your Chance to Comment on Superfund
Last Call --- Please write today!
Please take a few minutes to write a brief letter to the U.S. EPA and
let them know how you feel about the proposal to list the Fox River as
a Superfund clean-up site --- before Sept. 28, 1998.
If you have any documented technical information which might affect
how the river is “scored” be sure to send it with your letter. (Mail an
original and 3 copies of technical information.)
EPA’s river scoring and other Superfund documents are available (in
2 big boxes) at the Brown County, Oshkosh, and Appleton main libraries,
and at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office in Green Bay.
Mail to: Docket Coordinator: HQ
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
CERCLA Docket Office, OS-245, Waterside Mall
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, DC 20460
Hope you've all had a chance to read the new DNR Watch report issued a few weeks ago in cooperation with 5 other environmental groups statewide. (We posted it to Wisconsin Stewardship Network's internet page at www.wsn.org)
We gathered the information all summer, and every new discovery of corporate influence made us more determined to tell the public.
We hope the report will shake off the public's blind trust in DNR and local industry.
The corruption has become really scary, especially because the media response has been so lack-luster. They reported what we said -- then they quoted DNR and industry denying everything without challenge. Then the media let the whole story fall into a black hole.
Several media representatives said that the DNR staff reported DNR was confident that they could control the Fox River consultants and that industry was being cooperative. And the media simply took their word for it! Both DNR and industry have told several easily proven lies -- but the media don't care because they're too busy with football and Clinton's sex life.
It's very discouraging, but we're still trying to get a serious investigation started.
Remember the "Garbage Barge" a few years ago that sailed the ocean from one country to another trying to find a country to accept the toxic waste on the barge? We have the equivalent here in Wisconsin with the DNR's inept handling of the PCB sediment disposal issue.
Citizens in Washburn County, in N.W. Wisconsin, had just started their protests about landfilling in their county when BFI withdrew their bid to dispose of the wastes. BFI cited teh "uncertainties" of liabilities and regulations, and the local sewage treatment plant had raised concerns about PCB contamination of the landfill leachate to be treated at their plant.
Now, with the proposed site moved to Eau Claire, citizens and elected officials are protesting against landfilling in their area.
On one hand, we agree that it's better to get the sediment out of the river and contain it -- but it makes no sense to ship the mud clear across the state to Eau Claire. This wastes energy, ruins the roads, increases the likelihood of truck spillage and accidents, and it shifts the liability to a region which had no part in creating the PCB mess in the first place.
We have said many times that we want DNR to conduct true several technologies for detoxifying the sediment, then landfilling the treated material locally. In fact, we've asked that the paper companies dispose of the material in their own landfills, and that they retain the longterm liability forever. It would make them more cautious and more likely to detoxify the material to reduce longterm costs.
Any drainage leachate generated in such a landfill should be pre-treated and filtered. Most sewage treatment plants aren't designed to "treat" or detoxify PCB's -- they can only dilute toxics in sewage sludge which is then landspread on farmland or incinerated (producing dioxins) or diluted in wastewater discharges to rivers and lakes.
Tell DNR Your Clean-up Priorities!
Now is your chance to tell both DNR and EPA what their priorities should be in cleaning up Wisconsin's polluted waterways, those rivers and lakes that don't meet minimum federal water quality standards.
The DNR is accepting public comments through Sept. 25.
The Federal Clean Water Act requires that every two years states update this list of unnaceptable waters and submit the information to the EPA.
The federal law also requires states to analyze the cause of the water quality impairments and determine the proper actions for solving those problems.
The DNR staff have proposed priority ranking for certain waters on the list. They've proposed to analyze for the next few years the "Total Maximum Daily Load" of pollutants they allow into these waterbodies. These TMDL's may (or may not) affect future pollution permits issued by the DNR.
The public can review the list as well as the priority rankings and
schedule for TMDL analysis on the DNR's internet web site at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/environmentprotect/water.html
Citizens can also contact a water resources specialist at DNR regional
offices or the central office in Madison.
Send your comments on pollution and priorities (by Sept. 25) to:
Bonnie Goodweiler, WDNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(Comments can also be made to the Internet address above.)
This is an important chance to advise DNR about local water quality problems in your area.
Free Public Program
Please join us for a presentation on the social and economic impacts of mine closures on miners, their families, and their communities.
Dr. David Leadbeater, our guest speaker, is a professor of economics
at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, in Canada. He has just concluded
a six year tracking study of Elliot Lake miners after massive layoffs,
by Rio Algom and other mine companies, threw most of them out of work in
the early 1990s.
Wisconsin residents will have the perfect opportunity to hear firsthand
the gripping stories and relevant facts of how the boom and bust mining
economy has lead to massive unemployment and economic dislocation in Elliot
Lake.
Excerpts from a film entitled “Lessons from Elliot Lake” will be shown. The film, produced by the Ontario Federation of Labor, portrays the health and safety stories of miners who worked in Rio Algom’s sulfide uranium mines near Elliot Lake.
Rio Algom is the company which hopes to open a huge zinc/copper sulfide mine at the headwaters of the Wolf River, near Mole Lake in Wisconsin.
This program is part of a series. Dr. Leadbeater will also be speaking on:
Thursday, Sept. 17 --- 7:00 p.m. --- Nicolet College’s Northwoods Center,
Ashland
Friday, Sept. 18 --- 7:00 p.m. --- Mole Lake Environmental Center,
Mole Lake
Saturday, Sept. 19 --- 1:00 p.m. --- Alpha Building, Shawano
Saturday, Sept. 19 --- 7:00 p.m. at Lox, Stock & Bagel --- 1300
South Webster Street, Green Bay
We thought it might be fun to have a program at this Deli, to allow for some socializing on this Saturday night! Our thanks go to Deli owner Richard Spector, for staying open for these late hours.
Major sponsor: Northwoods Alliance; Co-sponsored by: ECCOLA (Environmentally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area), the River Alliance of Wisconsin, and Clean Water Action Council.
How Chemical Industries Manipulate Us
The Center for Public Integrity has released an important book called
“Toxic Deception: How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends
the Law, and Endangers Your Health” by Dan Fagin and Marianne Lavelle.
The report is available for $24.95 from Birch Lane Press.
The investigators focused on four of the most common chemicals in the
U.S., each with a long history of government efforts at regulation.
Not only have these chemicals been frequently cited by experts for posing
significant health concerns, all have been shown, beyond question, to cause
cancer in lab animals:
Atrazine --- the nation’s most heavily used pesticide
Alachlor --- a popular weed killer, primarily for corn, soybean and
sorghum crops.
Formaldehyde --- a multi-purpose solvent, wood adhesive and preservative
Perchloroethylene --- a solvent used heavily by dry cleaners, and as
a metal degreaser.
During investigations of these four chemicals produced by approximately 30 companies, certain patterns of behavior emerged:
Government at every level is overwhelmed by industry efforts to keep its products on the market. Both Congress and regulatory agencies charged with protecting the public often place the interests of chemical industries ahead of public interest.
Studies financed by the chemical industry tend to find alachlor, atrazine, formaldehyde and perchloroethylene innocent. Studies financed by non-industry sources tend to find them to be dangerous to human health.
Through review of 161 studies on file at the National Library of Medicine,
they found that of 43 industry-funded studies, only 6 returned results
unfavorable to these chemicals. But in 118 studies by non-industry researchers,
71 were unfavorable.
Chemical companies employ nearly 90% of the nation’s 1,650 or so “weed
scientists” and a few independent researchers rely heavily on grants from
pesticide makers.
Industry-sponsored studies have provided enough of an argument to keep
these and other chemicals on the market because the federal government’s
approach is to consider the chemicals safe unless proven harmful.
EPA’s efforts to police the private laboratories that conduct vitally
important safety tests are now even worse than in 1991, when they were
the subject of a scathing report by the EPA Inspector General.
The EPA has never inspected about 1,550 of the 2,000 labs doing the
manufacturer-funded studies that the EPA uses to decide whether chemicals
are safe. The EPA, which doesn’t do its own safety tests, has audited only
about 3.5 percent of the hundreds of thousands of studies that have been
submitted to the agency.
Chemical companies are required by federal law to make any scientific
findings available to the government if a chemical already on the market
is found to pose a “substantial risk of injury to health or to the environment.”
Clearly the industry frequently has acted in bad faith. In 1991 and
1992 when the EPA offered amnesty from big-money fines to any manufacturer
that turned in health studies they should have provided under the law earlier,
manufacturers suddenly coughed up more than 10,000 studies showing that
their products already on the market pose a substantial risk.
Chemical companies have discovered their message is more effectively delivered by individuals or organizations who have the appearance of detachment. So you have harmless-sounding groups, funded by chemical companies, such as the Center for Produce Quality, the American Crop Protection Association, the International Fabricare Institute, etc. One public relations firm representing the chemical industry enlisted the aid of the American Cancer Society to diminish the impact of an investigative television documentary.
Of 344 lobbyists and lawyers identified as having worked from 1990 to
1995 for chemical companies and trade associations, at least 135 passed
through what is commonly called the “revolving door,” because they
previously worked for federal agencies or in congressional offices.
A substantial number of top EPA officials who worked in toxics and
pesticides have ended up with chemical companies, their trade associations
or their lobbying firms. Too often when important regulatory decisions
are about due, key officials have left government and their successors
aren’t ready to decide, adding to months and years of delay.
And there are many tales of former U.S. officials helping the industry
to thwart federal government oversight. For example, records from
the Formaldehyde Institute reveal how S. John Byington, former chairman
of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, helped the chemical industry
launch a campaign to neutralize the regulatory efforts of his old agency.
EPA employees took at least 3,363 trips from March 1993 to March 1995,
worth $3 million, which were paid for by corporations, universities, trade
associations, labor unions, environmental organizations, and other nongovernmental
sponsors.
Four major chemicals companies --- Ciba-Geigy, Dow, DuPont and Monsanto
--- hosted EPA employees on at least 25 trips to their corporate headquarters
and other locales. And counting organizations closely connected
with these corporations, EPA officials were taken on 168 trips throughout
the U.S. and abroad.
Over a 4-year period, the companies that make alachlor, atrazine, formaldehyde,
and perchloroethylene gave 214 free trips to members of Congress, and even
flew one key committee chairman to Rio de Janiero. Some lawmakers got more
than just a plane trip and a hotel --- they also collected tens of thousands
of dollars in speaking fees from chemical manufacturers, and even more
in political action committee (PAC) contributions.
Chemical corporate PACs gave congressional candidates more than $7
million from 1979 through 1995. Add all the contributions from
PACs operated by associations, institutes, and other organizations affiliated
with the 12 corporations that manufacture the four chemicals in this book,
and the cash-to-Congress total rises to more than $20 million.
Is it possible that the federal regulatory system, the way in which
political campaigns are financed, the judicial system’s increasing secrecy,
the scarcity of non-industry funding for cancer research, the news media’s
confusion about which scientist to believe, all skew public discussions
and policy in favor of the continued manufacture of fundamentally unhealthy
products?
The answer, after 3 years of intensive investigation, is yes.
With millions, maybe billions, of dollars to spend on lawyers, scientists,
PR firms, campaign contributions, secrecy orders, and millions of pages
and years of seemingly unlimited patience in litigation challenging the
outmanned, underfunded government’s every regulatory move, the chemical
industry has managed to continue manufacturing what are generally considered
to be harmful chemicals --- even when better, safer alternatives are available.
Simply put, the chemical industry has overpowered the nation’s system
of safeguarding the public health.
The agencies that are supposed to be the public’s watchdogs have been
defanged by industry’s pressure tactics, which include junkets and job
offers to government regulators, bribes to politicians, scorched-earth
courtroom strategies, and misleading multimillion-dollar advertising and
public relations campaigns.
More on Pesticide Mis-regulation
Many people use pesticides and herbicides at home, secure in the knowledge
that the government regulates these chemicals, and wouldn’t allow unsafe
pesticides.
Unfortunately, this trust is misplaced. The Center for Public Integrity
recently released another book, “Unreasonable Risk: The Politics of Pesticides.”
• From 1988 to 1995, more than 65 bills were introduced in Congress to tighten pesticide regulations. Not one passed.
• 151 tariff suspension bills were introduced between 1987 and 1998, to eliminate import duties paid on chemicals used in making pesticides. Some passed, and these bills save chemical companies millions of dollars each year.
• In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act to evaluate risks that pesticides and other toxic chemicals pose. Unfortunately, at the same time, the Act abolished the Delaney Clause, which had prohibitedprocessed foods from containing any additive that “induces cancer in man or animal.”
• The pesticide industry has enlisted trade associations representing tobacco companies, breweries, farmers, supermarkets and others under the umbrella of the Food Chain Coalition, which has poured at least $84.7 million into congressional campaigns since 1987 to influence pestcide rules. Congress members with key roles overseeing the regulation of pesticides have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from these interests.
• Some 35 manufacturers of pesticides for home, lawn and garden use have banded together to form “Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment.” RISE and its member firms spent more than $15 million in 1996 to employ 219 Washington lobbyists, including 24 former House staff members, 22 former Senate staff members, 10 former Executive Branch officials, 9 former White House aides, 4 former Congress Representatives, and 3 former Senators.
• Manufacturers of 2,4-D --- which is the most widely used lawn chemical --- have spent at least $34 million on studies and surveys on 2,4-D to present to the EPA. Industry representatives now claim that re-registration of 2,4-D “is in the bag.”
• In 1995, the EPA discovered that for 10 years DowElanco had been hiding from federal regulators no fewer than 302 lawsuits and other claims for money damages alleging Dursban poisoning. EPA fined the company $876,000, an amount relatively insignificant to such a large company.
Celebrating Wisconsin’s Aldo Leopold
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reflecting on Our Past for the Future of Environmental Education
This two-day conference is funded by Gov. Thompson’s Wisconsin Sesquicentennial
Commission with money from individual and corporate contributors, and State
of Wisconsin taxpayers.
Not surprisingly, they are using Aldo Leopold’s name to plan a tame
conference on “environmental education” which downplays environmental
activism. It’s an unfortunate reality that most nature
and environmental education centers receive major corporate funding in
N.E. Wisconsin, so they tend to educate on safe, non-controversial issues,
such as wildlife, habitat, and non-threatening topics, like the importance
of recycling. We rarely see any nature center staff testifying at pollution
hearings or involved in other outspoken activism. (Some “environmental
educators,” like the Director at Thousand Islands Nature Center in Kaukauna
--- who has received huge sums from the paper industry --- actually defend
Fox River polluters, attack environmentalists, and deny PCB health risks.)
Gov. Thompson’s Commission will allow Fort James Corp. (the state’s
2nd largest toxic polluter), International Paper Company, and Wisconsin
Public Service (a major power utility) to provide speakers to tout their
environmental “leadership” and to set up exhibits. The program also includes
a speaker from Fox/Wolf Basin 2000, a confusing pseudo-environmental
group created by Fort Howard Corp. (now Fort James) and Green Bay Met.
Sewage District. Environmental and conservation activist groups, like ours,
have not been invited to speak or exhibit. (Perhaps because we didn’t donate
$32,335 to Thompson’s campaigns, as Fort James did.)
Nevertheless, several other good speakers will be presenting interesting programs which are worth hearing on diverse topics, such as prairie restoration, Aldo Leopold’s “land ethic,” educational zoo exhibits, solar energy, high-tech equipment for environmental education (computers & satellite links), environmental education guides for teachers, GIS systems for mapping environmental problems, possible economic effects of global warming, wilderness ethics, Oneida Nation environmental management, etc. Several good field trips are also planned. An enviro. musician will also perform.
Worth attending, but beware the corporate public relations campaign.
Fri. and Sat. -- Sept. 25 and 26 at St. Norbert College, De Pere F.K. Bemis International Center
Registration from 7:30-8:30 a.m. on Friday.
Fee $25 -- plus $10 lunch, $15 dinner, and extra for field trips.
For more info., call 920-403-3957, or e-mail: kazikl@sncac.snc.edu
In 1989, the Stewardship Fund was passed by the state legislature to
spend $250 million during the 1990s ($25 million per year) to expand state
parks and forests, protect natural areas and wildlife habitat and provide
outdoor recreational opportunity.
To date, almost 160,000 acres of the best of outdoor Wisconsin has
been protected.
Key accomplishments include purchase of the Turtle-Flambeau Flowage
and the Willow Flowage, expansion of the Kettle Moraine Forest and Devil’s
Lake State Park, protection of the Lower Wisconsin River and construction
of the “400,” Chippewa River and many other bike trails. The fund
will also be used to secure the Baird Creek Parkway in Green Bay for future
generations.
The next legislative session will decide the future of the Stewardship
Fund which ends, under current law, in July 2000.
The bill’s author, Rep. Spencer Black, is proposing to renew and rename
“Stewardship 2000,” and place a stronger emphasis on protecting water
based resources and natural areas --- such as wetlands and acquiring the
shoreline of wild lakes. Stewardship 2000 would also expand
our Wild and Scenic River system to protect islands, shorelands, bluffs
and important natural areas adjacent to our remaining natural rivers.
The strong economy has led to unprecedented development pressures.
More than half of our original wetlands, 99 percent of our native prairies,
and 60 percent of our hardwood forests are gone. Without Stewardship 2000,
many natural areas that remain could be lost to development.
Rep. Black proposes doubling the size of the Fund and providing annual
inflation adjustments, to account for increased land prices. The fund matches
money spent by private conservation groups and local governments for land
aquisition, which also doubles the effect.
Up to Top
Volunteers?
Mailing Team
Once or twice each month we need to gather a team of volunteers who can spend a weekday afternoon labeling, sorting, and bundling our newsletters for mailing. It takes 4 people about 3 hours to complete, once everything has been set up for the work.
In the past year, our membership has skyrocketed, which is great, but this also increased mailing chores.
Ideally, we'd also like to find a volunteer leader to take charge of arranging the whole effort each month (about 8 hours per month).
Data Entry (Typing)
We're looking for a steady volunteer to work in our office for 5 to 10 hours per week, to help us type in data we need for our environmental work. Full training provided. Hours are flexible 9 to 5 weekdays.
Office Help
Can you help us keep up with our mail, newspaper clipping, copying, filing, and other miscellaneous tasks? Even a few hours weekly would be a great relief. Hours are flexible 9 to 5 weekdays.
If you can help, please call us at 920-437-7304.
Great Lakes United
We want to express our gratitude to GLU for a grant to cover costs of holding the Public Hearing on June 23, on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the U.S. The event was successful because of their support, and helped build awareness.
Great Lakes United (of which Clean Water is a member) is a regional coalition of more than 200 environmental, conservation, union, and local environmental organizations from both the U.S. and Canada. GLU works on a variety of issues to protect the environmental quality of the Great Lakes.
Lox, Stock & Bagel
We want to thank Richard Spector, the owner of this popular deli at 1300 South Webster Street in Green Bay. Richard donated all the food and beverages for our supper break for the Public Hearing on June 23 on the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. This meal provided a great opportunity to get to know new participants in local environmental issues. We very much appreciate Richard's generosity.
Lox, Stock & Bagel will also host the upcoming program on "Lessons from Elliott Lake."
Life Tools Adventure Outfitters
For several years we've benefitted from significant donations as part of the "Street Fair" hosted by Life Tools each May. They hold the Fair right in their parking lot and yard, at 930 Waube Lane, Green Bay. Our members also enjoyed the great music, food and fun of the event -- and we're grateful for being invited to participate!
Titletown Brewery
At this year's "Street Fair," this outstanding local brew pub, owned by Brent Weycker and John Gustafson, donated their beer sale proceeds to Clean Water. Brew master Bob Bultman also donated his time at the tap.
It was very generous of them, and of course, we enjoyed sampling and contributing to the donations ourselves.
The brewery owners said they made the donation because "we can't make good beer without clean water."
Coalition Demands DNR Stop Mine Permit Process
The Mining Moratorium
“It’s the Law”
Gov. Thompson finally signed the Mining Moratorium into law this spring
(giving himself big media coverage on Earthday) when he realized how popular
the law was. But prior to this, he had opposed the bill for years.
So it’s not surprising, that Thompson’s DNR is now ignoring the Moratorium,
and proceeding with the old Exxon Mine permit (now called Nicolet Minerals)
as if nothing has changed.
Conservation groups and legislators have called on DNR to immediately
discontinue all action on the pending application by the Nicolet Mineral
Company to open a large sulfide ore mine near the Wolf River. In
a letter to DNR Secretary George Meyer, the groups and legislators wrote,
“All department processing of the application (to mine) must cease until
the mining company meets the requirements of the new Mining Moratorium
Law.”
The letter was released at simultaneous press conferences held at the
State Capitol in Madison and Green Bay, Wausau, and Eau Claire.
Clean Water Action Council participated in the Green Bay event.
The letter was signed by dozens of conservation, Native American, environmental,
hunting, fishing, senior citizen, and student groups --- most of whom formed
a grass roots coalition that pushed for passage of the Mining Moratorium
Law. The letter was also signed by several legislative co-sponsors
of the new law.
“The citizens of Wisconsin spoke loud and clear that we want a Mining
Moratorium. The new law prohibits mining until it can be proven safe. It
is the law of the land, and must be obeyed,” said Rep. Spencer Black, Assembly
author of the Moratorium Law.
Background on Issue
The law prohibits any new sulfide ore mines like the proposed Wolf River
Mine (Nicolet Minerals) near Crandon until another sulfide mine has been
operated and closed for at least 10 years without causing environmental
pollution. Rio Algom, the company which now owns the proposed mine site,
has not met the new law’s requirements.
The coalition argues that until such information is submitted, Rio
Algom’s application is incomplete and all DNR processing of the application
must cease. Otherwise, a lot of time and money could be wasted
while DNR staff does work on a permit which isn’t legal.
|
|
|
|
|