July - August, 2003
Vol. 7, No. 6

Subscribe!

---

Table of Contents

Fox River PCB Cleanup Plan Weakened

Public Health Will Not Be Protected
Economic Note
Public Meeting to Explain River & Bay Decision

Fox River PCB Cleanup Plan Weakened

On July 28th, Clean Water Action Council and Citizens for a Better Environment criticized the recently released “Record of Decision,” which finalizes the cleanup plan for the Fox River and Green Bay.  The groups called for a renewed commitment to a complete cleanup and restoration.

“Unfortunately, this plan is weaker than the draft plan the public commented on two years ago. The governments are not only threatening the health of Wisconsin’s environment and residents of the region, but setting a dangerous precedent for future cleanups,” stated Rebecca Katers, Executive Director of Clean Water Action Council.

“While we’re pleased to see the release of this long-awaited plan, we’re disappointed that the environment and public health are not protected.  The plan is badly compromised,” concluded Dr. Jeffery Foran, toxicologist and President of Citizens for a Better Environment.

Three months ago, we joined 24 other local, state, and national organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the Great Lakes region, in calling for the EPA, DNR, and Governor Doyle’s office to support stronger cleanup measures than those presented last January for the upriver half of the cleanup.  Instead, they weakened the plan so that it:

• Allows capping  Some of the contaminated sediments will be covered with only a foot of  sand and gravel, rather than being removed, if capping is deemed less expensive than dredging.  DNR states that 40% of the river bottom in the seven miles between the DePere Dam and the river mouth would be eligible for capping.   Additional sites could be capped in the upstream portion as well.  The largest and deepest hotspots will undoubtedly be cheaper to leave in place. Capping will leave PCB hotspots vulnerable to future storms, boats, and other disturbances, which will ruin the investment in cleanup. 

As a result, PCBs will continue to contaminate the River and Bay. Capping is a short-term fix which lets the polluters off the hook, but leaves the final cleanup to our children and grandchildren.  Capping was the centerpiece of the industry lobbying effort over the past 2 years.  They pushed hard for this loophole and the politicians have conceded.   It sets a terrible precedent for Wisconsin.

• Adopts an unprotective cleanup standard  The plan adopts a 1 ppm PCB cleanup threshold, when EPA and WDNR both acknowledged that 0.25 ppm PCBs is the “most cost-effective PCB action level that meets protective thresholds.”  As a result, the final plan will not achieve the goal of public health protection.   Local fish will still be unsafe to eat, even after the “cleanup.”   If they would dig just a little deeper in each hotspot, the fish consumption warnings could be lifted decades earlier.

• Fails to identify and clean Bay hotspots  Though the cleanup has been extended a short way out from the river mouth, the plan ignores concentrations of PCBs in several other areas of the southern Bay, where the highest public health risks will be allowed to persist for hundreds of years into the future.  If lower Bay hotspots were removed, the recovery time of the entire system would be much more rapid. 

• Contains several loopholes  New clauses in the plan allow the polluters extensive “flexibility” in final design decisions for the cleanup, such as cleanup areas, dredging and disposal technologies, and/or capping.

• Relies on  “Natural Recovery”  The plan continues the fiction that areas left untouched will improve naturally.   PCBs do not degrade naturally and will persist for centuries.   Dispersal by air will harm people in northern latitudes (Alaska, northern Canada, Scandinavia, etc.) where PCBs hit the cold air, settle out and concentrate in local fish and meat.   Leftover PCBs will also spread to northern Green Bay and Lake Michigan.  This is not “recovery” but merely a shifting of health risks to people in other regions. 

The most disturbing aspect of the Fox River announcement is the weakness of the 1 ppm PCB cleanup target. It will not protect public health.

Toxicologist Jeffery Foran presented evidence at last year’s public hearings showing that the proposed 1 ppm (parts per million) cleanup target for sediment was 4 times too high.  He called for a .25 ppm dredging target (equal to 250 ppb - parts per billion) which would mix with cleaner sediments to achieve the 10 to 20 ppb average PCB sediment levels necessary for minimum protection of public health and the lifting of fish consumption advisories.   It was a compromise, but reasonable and more effective. 

The 1 ppm level is actually 90 times higher than PCB levels which are fully protective of public health. 

The agencies are averaging their higher 1 ppm sediment residues with cleaner sediments nearby and underneath, to claim they are achieving the .25 ppm level —- but a 250 parts per billion average (equal to .25 ppm) is NOT protective of health.   The average needs to be much lower.

According to the DNR’s own documents, the 1 ppm target decision will allow significant PCB residues to persist at unhealthy levels for more than 45 years after cleanup in the river and more than a century on the bay.   Fish consumption advisories will still be necessary.  This is an unacceptable response to a serious public health emergency. 

Dr. Foran’s stronger .25 ppm PCB dredging target would allow fish advisories to be lifted almost immediately after dredging in the river.  In the bay, the reduction in PCB mass should allow the bay to recover decades earlier.

Ironically, seven years ago the DNR proposed to clean the Little Lake Butte des Morts hotspot down to .05 ppm (50 ppb), based on public health concerns, but backed away after P.H. Glatfelter Paper Company refused to cooperate (even with the state providing $5 million toward the cost.)  Their new target cleanup standard for the river and bay is now 20 times weaker. 

Economic Note

The .25 ppm target is not much more expensive than the 1 ppm target.  In the worst and largest sediment hotspot between DePere and Green Bay, the increase in cost would be only $18 million (compared to the current plan’s $400 million cost), but could lift the fish advisories many decades earlier - surely worth the cost in terms of public health protection and tourism benefits.  Keep in mind that roughly 40,000 people are currently eating unsafe quantities of fish from the Fox River and Bay system.

The PCB polluters have a moral and legal responsibility to clean up after themselves and protect the public.  It’s the least they can do after 50 years of PCB damages.

Public Meeting to Explain River & Bay Decision

Tuesday, August 19
at Brown County Library
515 Pine Street, Green Bay

The EPA and DNR are holding a public meeting on the recently announced cleanup decision for the Fox River and Green Bay.  Staff will be on hand to answer individual questions and discuss the cleanup, then they will give a formal ROD presentation and hold a public question-and-answer session. 

6:00 p.m. - Informal and individual discussion
7:00 p.m. - Formal presentation, following by question-and-answer session

Copies of the Record of Decision and other documents are available at:

• Brown County Library, 515 Pine St., Green Bay
• Community Library, 201 Elm St., Oneida; Wisconsin
• Appleton Public Library, 225 N. Oneida St., Appleton
• Door County Library, 104 S. Fourth Ave., Sturgeon Bay
• Oshkosh Public Library, 106 Washington Ave., Oshkosh

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/lowerfox/whatsnew.html

Up to Top

Eco-Jazz

An Introduction to a Positive Future

Featuring Norwegian eco-philosopher Prof. Sigmund Kvaloy, a major figure in the international deep ecology movement.  Kvaloy’s career has taken him worldwide and spanned several decades of cultural and philosophical research, development of innovative academic programs in eco-philosophy at several universities, direct activism and support for environmental organizations, civil disobedience in defense of rivers, and frequent lectures since 1985 using Eco-Jazz as a springboard for broad discussions.  Kvaloy has been honored for his work many times, and in 1999 was elected Norwegian State Scholar.

This entertaining program combines jazz music, words and spontaneous visual art to explain the potential of the human community.  There are good things ahead in our future, but it depends on our working together to realize the human place in the web of life.

Saturday, August 23

12:30 p.m.  (estimated 90 minute program)

at the Historic West Theater, 405 West Walnut St., Green Bay
(corner of Walnut and Broadway, one block west of the Fox River, 
two blocks from the Artstreet Festival on the east side of the river.)

$5.00 admission
Air-conditioned theater, full food/beverage and bar service available.

Co-sponsored by:  Clean Water Action Council, the Green Map Project, and the Baird Creek Parkway Preservation Association

To learn more , please visit a new website devoted to Kvaloy’s 2003 Eco Jazz Tour, at www.uwgb.edu/smithl/kvaloy/    (be sure to type in the “l” after smith) 
Further contacts:  Dr. Larry Smith, at 920-465-2161, or Paul Wozniak, at 920-265-2623.

Up to Top

PCB Paddle and Potluck Party

We thought we’d have a little fun by hosting an informal paddle down the last 7 miles of the Fox River, from the De Pere Dam to the mouth. (This is the area  addressed by the recent Record of Decision.) 

It’s always good to know the river you’re working for!

Afterwards, we’ll have a potluck picnic at the small park adjacent to the Brown County Boat Landing at the mouth of the river, on the east side.  We’ll provide a large tent, tables, chairs and beverages (non-alcoholic).  We ask that everyone bring a dish to pass and/or munchies, along with your own re-usable plates and utensils.   All members and guests are welcome to attend, even if you’d rather not paddle that day.  (Motor and sailboat members also welcome!)   Join us and get to know other members of Clean Water Action Council!

Saturday, Sept. 13, 9:00 a.m. Paddle and 11:00 a.m. Potluck Party

Canoes, kayaks or other boats will put in at Voyageur Park in DePere.   A limited number of kayaks are available. 

Up to Top

Was PCB Pollution Legal in the Past?

We often hear people say, “It’s not fair to make the paper industry pay to clean up the PCBs in the Fox River and Green Bay.   The companies didn’t break any laws and it was legal at the time to discharge PCBs.”

This has been said so many times, many folks believe it’s true.  But it’s not true, for several reasons:

The DNR Wasn’t Aware of PCBs in the Discharges

During the peak years of PCB discharge, from 1954 to 1971, the Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources (DNR) was unaware of the presence of PCBs in the paper mills’ discharges and, therefore, did not regulate them.  When the DNR discovered that the Fox River was contaminated with PCBs, they issued a report in 1972, which speculated that the PCBs might have come from the paper industry.

None of the Fox River industries had permits specifically allowing PCB discharges during those years. 

In 1971, the PCB discharges by Appleton Paper and NCR Corporation ended when the  companies phased out their use of PCBs in making carbonless copy paper.  That was the year that Monsanto (the patent holder on PCBs) began requiring its customers to sign a waiver relieving it of financial liability for improper uses of the chemical, because Monsanto feared lawsuits

For the other five paper companies that recycled large quantities of waste trimmings from Appleton and NCR, the discharges also dropped in the mid-1970s, as the new federal Clean Water Act of 1972 was implemented and the mills were required to improve their wastewater treatment systems.  This was not a voluntary improvement by the mills.  (And the technology was available decades before they chose to use it.)

In 1979, the DNR added simple PCB monitoring requirements to the mill’s discharge permits, in order to better understand the discharges, and in 1989 specific PCB permit limits were set which were stringent and aimed at virtual elimination of PCBs. But by that time, of course, most of the PCB discharge had stopped.  Only one company, Fort Howard Corporation, continued to discharge significant PCBs (about 50 lbs/year) in the 1980s, until about 1990.   The DNR waited and set specific PCB limits only when the last discharger was ready to comply (we’ve seen this kind of delayed/irrelevant behavior repeated for several DNR issues.)

Older Laws Were Ignored by Industry and Government

It can easily be argued that these industries violated the Refuse Act (33 USC 407, which is section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899).    The Fox River paper mills never received a Refuse Act permit to discharge PCBs.

Several federal court cases  have established violations of the Refuse Act for discharges of fuel oil into navigable waters in the decades prior to 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court decisively found discharges of chemical pollutants constituted violations of the Refuse Act. 

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 is the basic act for controlling works or activities in navigable waters of the U.S. Under the Act, the District Engineer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must subject a proposed project to a “public interest review” having two aspects. The first includes a review of such factors as economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, historical values, fish and wildlife values, flood damage prevention, water quality, etc. The second component of the review is more restrictive and requires that the proposed project be “water dependent” and that no feasible alternative sites are available. 

This 1899 statute, which was intended by Congress to protect water, fish and wildlife quality, prohibits the discharge of materials into a navigable water without a permit from the U.S. Army. Those dischargers that do require a permit must show that “applicable water quality standards” can be met, or that the discharge can be brought into compliance with these standards within a specified period of time. 

A recent court ruled that past dumpers must remove harmful waste material which was dumped into a navigable waterbody without a U.S. Army permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 

Certainly, the intent of Congress was clear. This 1899 Act predates all PCB dumping and shows that a SPECIFIC ban is redundant. 

Lack of Enforcement Doesn’t Mean It Was Legal

On the Hudson River in New York State, General Electric Corporation was successfully prosecuted in 1975-76 by the State for dumping PCBs. The State of Wisconsin could have taken similar action on the Fox River but chose not to. The paper industries weren’t prosecuted; however, the intent of the law was clear and these discharges were illegal. 

The lack of enforcement by the State of Wisconsin is disturbing, and probably reflects the political power of the paper industry as the largest manufacturing sector in the state.

Also, the federal Clean Water Act was passed in 1972 and DNR was busy working to require Wisconsin dischargers to upgrade their wastewater treatment plants to prevent continuing toxic and nutrient discharges. (By 1980 this phase was largely completed. DNR should have immediately worked to clean up the sediment too.)

A Discharge Permit is Not a License to Kill 

Other legal standards also applied to the Fox River, but were ignored by the paper industry.  Historically, United State’s law is based on English “Common Law” standards which date back to the Middle Ages.   Under “Common Law,” people are prohibited from harming their neighbors and damaging other people’s property, intentionally or otherwise.
 
This means corporations can’t dump toxic chemicals into a public water supply and claim it’s legal just because no government has passed a specific law yet prohibiting the dumping of that particular chemical. 
 
A discharge permit is not a license to kill.  It is not a permit to wreak havoc downstream with unnamed toxic substances. The corporations didn’t own the Fox River or Green Bay from 1954 to 1990. They were impacting property which didn’t belong to them and they had a legal (and moral) duty to be careful. 
 
When an industry gets a discharge permit, it is only because they have claimed or implied  in their application that their discharge will not cause significant harm downstream. If the government has no evidence otherwise, they take the industry at its word and the permit it granted. Most discharge permitting systems are grounded in the Wisconsin State Constitution, statutes and Common Law standards that prohibit harm.  Between 1954 and 1989 there were no numerical limits for a specific chemical such as PCBs, but the general narrative legal standards of Wisconsin require the permit holder to not cause significant harm. 
 
The permit holder is responsible for making sure they meet this standard. The government doesn’t have limitless research dollars to test each of the  80,000 chemicals in commerce just to relieve industry of all future liability. The liability still remains with the permit holder. 
 
Many local citizen groups, even in the 1950s, protested the paper mill pollution in the Fox River, but the corporations were too arrogant to listen and ask themselves obvious questions about safety. The corporations knew people drank water and ate fish downstream from their PCB dumping. If industries wanted the PRIVILEGE of dumping chemical wastes into our public waterway they had a moral and legal obligation to perform adequate research to make sure they were not causing harm. They were  negligent for not doing so, and now must be held accountable for their actions. 

Common Law Standards

Under Common Law, corporations are liable for the consequences if their pollution caused economic harm or endangered public health, whether their actions were intentional or accidental. The legal liability for chemical dumpers is clear. The “Common Law” standard is the prevailing law, until politicians decide to write laws contradicting it. This means that because the paper corporations did not have a waste discharge permit specifically to dump PCBs and this dumping caused harm, the corporations are liable for the result. 

More Background on Common Law

The following definition was found at: http://www.lectlaw.com/d-c.htm  -

“COMMON LAW - That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent an immemorial practice of the people. The system of jurisprudence that originated in England and which was latter adopted in the U.S. that is based on precedent instead of statutory laws.” 
 
“Traditional law of an area or region; also known as case law. The law created by judges  when deciding individual disputes or cases. The body of law which includes both the     unwritten law of England and the statutes passed before the settlement of the United States.” 
 
“In Old England there were two types of Courts - law and equity. In the law court the Judge applied statutes. As time went on situations that were not covered by statutes were  uncovered and Judges ‘created’ law, usually in equity. This is ‘common law.’” 
 
“The U.S. is a common law country. In all states except Louisiana (which is based on the  French civil code), the common law of England was adopted as the general law of the     state, EXCEPT when a statute provides otherwise. Common law has no statutory basis; judges establish common law through written opinions that are binding on future decisions of lower courts in the same jurisdiction. Broad areas of the law, most notably relating to property, contracts and torts are traditionally part of the common law. These areas of the law are mostly within the jurisdiction of the states and thus state courts are the primary source of common law. Thus, ‘common law’ is used to fill in gaps. Common law changes over time, and at this time, each state has its own common law on many topics. The area of federal common law is primarily limited to federal issues that have not been addressed by a statute. Even if federal common law otherwise would operate, it is displaced when Congress has decided the matter.” 

NOTE: This definition specifically mentions property and tort law, which are both key issues on the Fox River and Green Bay. These waterways are public properties which have been harmed. Tort law often involves toxic poisoning cases. 

The Public Trust Doctrine 

Another relevant law is the Public Trust Doctrine, which was established in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (which included Wisconsin). The Doctrine was formally added to the Wisconsin Constitution in February of 1948 (before PCB dumping began on the Fox River). It states that all rivers, lakes and navigable waterways are under the jurisdiction of the State of Wisconsin. Any structure which is built on a waterway impacts the public rights to that waterway, and needs to be monitored by the State of Wisconsin to assure safety, water quality, public access and monitor its impact on Wisconsin wildlife. 

In Muench v. Public Service Commission, in 1952, the court determined that the public trust was a matter of statewide concern. The court reasoned that: “The right to fish and hunt, or to enjoy scenic beauty, as an incident to the right to navigate the navigable waters of this state ...is an example of the type of legislation which affects the interests of the people of the entire state, as well as those of a particular county. If a particular county is permitted to take action which will lead to the impairment or the destruction of hunting, or fishing, or the right to enjoy scenic beauty on that part of a particular navigable stream lying within the limits of the county, the interests of the people of the  entire state may be adversely affected thereby....[T]herefore ...the test which ought to be applied in determining the validity of delegation of legislative power in such a case is that of paramount interest.” 
 
The discharge of PCBs into the Fox River clearly violated the Public Trust Doctrine. And though certain local governments along the Fox River may have been more concerned about the economic interests of the paper industry than they are about public health, the State of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Legislature have a duty to first protect the public rights of ALL residents of Wisconsin, including thousands of people impacted downstream on the Fox River, on Green Bay and along Lake Michigan. The interests of future generations must also be considered. 

Laws Governing Toxic Trespass and Domestic Violence 

Due to corporate foot-dragging, the PCBs dumped by the Fox River Group of paper industries have been allowed to escape the Fox River and spread throughout the region to the point where PCBs are found virtually everywhere in Northeast Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula bordering the Bay —- in the water, air, soil, plants, wildlife and humans.  (In addition, up to 70% of the waterborne PCBs in all of Lake Michigan have come from the 7 responsible paper companies on the Fox River.)  This is the equivalent of trespassing on private property and toxic assault against individuals. 
 
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S. in 1948, says in Article 3, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution obligates the federal government to protect the citizenry against “domestic violence” which arguably includes modern forms of domestic violence such as toxic assault. 
 
The U.S. government, through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, has the responsibility to address this issue. We’ve heard many excuses for pollution over the years. It’s time for the defense of the public’s right to live in healthy surroundings without chemical trespassing. The corporations have had too much political power, allowing them to avoid pollution controls, clean-up and accountability for the damage they’ve caused, for many decades. This must change. 

Retroactive Liability is Recognized in State and Federal Laws

If this issue goes to court, the seven corporations who dumped PCBs in the Fox River will likely be held accountable for cleanup costs under the retroactive liability provisions of the Federal Superfund Law and the Wisconsin Spill Law.  Superficially, this may seem unfair, until one accounts for all the factors listed above. 

Up to Top

Should We Be Grateful?

by Rebecca Katers

I’ve been chided by certain news reporters who believe we’re being too “perfectionist” when we criticize the recent Fox River cleanup decision.
 
But here’s a look at it from our perspective:

We’ve suffered 30-years of delay The paper industry has flexed its political muscle and deliberately delayed the Fox River cleanup since 1972, when the DNR first publicly warned about the PCBs.  Because of this, a large percentage of the PCBs escaped the river and contaminated an entire region, poisoning additional people - many thousands of them around Lake Michigan.

We’ve suffered through 18 years of frustrating citizen work  Clean Water Action Council was formed in 1985 specifically because of the PCBs and we’ve  been pushing for government and industry cleanup action ever since.  We’ve been subjected to abuse and suffered many personal losses while trying to convince the government to enforce the law.   Did we make all these sacrifices only to have a plan that stops short of public health protection?

This is NOT a GAME.  Public health is at risk. Roughly 40,000 people are currently eating unsafe quantities of Fox River and Green Bay fish, according to government surveys.   Many of these people are low income, disadvantaged people who need the fish as a source of food, and they will continue to eat the fish despite warnings.   While it is currently fashionable to argue that everyone needs to “compromise” and “meet in the middle,” this not an ethical approach on the PCB issue.   When public health is at stake, public health protection must come first.   We have science and law on our side when we argue for a cleanup target in the river and bay of .25 ppm, which provides at least minimal public health protection (note: we are not asking for 100% cleanup or “perfection.”)    Because of corporate job blackmail, politicians have compromised this number, with the result that even with the so-called “cleanup,” another 55 years, at a minimum, will pass on the Fox River before the fish consumption advisories can be lifted, and more than 100 years on the bay, according to government estimates. 

Capping Will Be A Disaster  Why should we be pleased that the corporations won their 2 year job blackmail campaign to cap the PCBs in the river?   This government policy change is a slap in the face to any thinking person who cares about the future.   Those capped PCB deposits will be time bombs just waiting to recontaminate the river and bay in 50, 100 or 200 years.  It’s just a matter of time before the PCBs escape.   It is an obvious ploy by the paper industry to reduce their costs and escape their full liability. 

Compensation Side is Weak Also Not only are we getting a weak “cleanup,” we’re also being cheated on the compensation side.   Three years ago, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service determined that our region suffered $333 million in damages due to the  PCBs.   This was a conservative estimate that left out several important types of damages.  In spite of this, our governments are settling with the polluters for only a small fraction of this compensation amount (as in the Georgia-Pacific settlement).  We face another 100+ years of public health risks and our governments are letting the polluters escape their compensation responsibilities.  This is NOT justice, by any stretch of the imagination.

The True Bottom Line

The reporters say, “But Becky, this plan is so much better than nothing.  At least you’re getting some of what you wanted.” 
 
They’re missing the point.   There’s a clear difference between right and wrong on this issue.  We’re being asked to applaud a decision that violates basic principles of justice, honesty and public health protection.    Why should we be SATISFIED with a decision merely because it is “at least something?”   Why do people feel comfortable with such low expectations?  Has our government become so weak that we’ve given up asking them to do their jobs properly?

Toxic Terrorists

If 40,000 local people were poisoned by terrorists who had dumped contaminants in the Fox River and Green Bay, we’d see immediate government action to thoroughly clean up the threat.  Our politicians would be tripping over each other in their eagerness to condemn the perpetrators.   But in our case, the paper industry has been pampered with years of delay and frequent praise for “stepping forward to address the problem,” despite the fact that their actions are horribly late and will not protect public health (and they may still balk and oppose the plan, causing further delay.)
 
Sorry, but this is NOT a good Record of Decision.   No one should be happy about it.  The government and the paper industries have the technology and financial ability to do a MUCH better and faster cleanup.

Up to Top

Dioxins in the Wolf River

Clean Water Action Council joined with several other Wisconsin organizations in sending a detailed comment letter to the DNR challenging their proposed 5-year discharge permit for the Shawano Paper Mill on the Wolf River.   The mill is owned by the Little Rapids Corporation.
 
The permit may allow dioxins to be released into the river, as a by-product of the paper manufacturing process.  Dioxins are one of the most toxic compounds known to humans and wildlife.  Dioxins and PCBs are closely related.
 
In previous water sampling performed by the Shawano Mill, the facility reported concentrations of dioxins that were over 10 times the allowable limits in the Wolf River.  State law requires the facility to monitor pollutants like dioxin when they may cause damage to the waterway.
 
“The data collected by the Shawano Mill and the DNR indicates that there may be new dioxins entering the Wolf River, whether from the Shawano Mill or from sources upstream,” said Andrew Hanson, attorney with Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc. a nonprofit environmental law center that drafted the letter we all signed. “The DNR says it isn’t sure whether the dioxins are coming from the Shawano Mill, but the answer to that uncertainty is more monitoring in the river, not less.” 
 
The DNR had proposed to reduce monitoring requirements at the mill.

“The paper industry has alternatives to prevent this kind of contamination,” said Rebecca Katers, Exec. Dir. of Clean Water Action Council. “There are processes in full production that can completely avoid dioxin contamination by eliminating the use of chlorine in paper making.,” she added.
 
State law also requires the DNR to provide public notice of its intentions to reduce or modify the monitoring requirements in wastewater permits.  However, the proposed permit allows the DNR to reduce or eliminate other Shawano Mill wastewater and sludge monitoring requirements without public notice.
 
Our joint comment letter requested that the DNR:

• impose limits on dioxin in the Shawano Mill’s wastewater discharge

• remove language in the permit that allows the DNR to reduce or modify the sampling requirements without notifying the public

• require Shawano Mill to collect and analyze intake water samples to assess how much dioxin is in the river

What You Can Do

Write to the Governor and DNR Secretary, and tell them what you think about the issues discussed in this newsletter.
 
They need to hear from all of us at least yearly, to remind them of the importance of 
environmental issues.  Let them know we’re paying attention!

 Governor James Doyle
 Room 115 East
 State Capitol
 Madison, WI 53702

 Mr. Scott Hassett, Secretary
 Wisconsin DNR
 P.O. Box 7921
 Madison, WI 53707