Table of Contents
Revelations from the ROD
PCB Paddle and Potluck Party
Global Warming Impacts on Wisconsin
21 Ways You Can Save Energy
Bush Weakens Rules for Power Plants
Act Now On Mercury Pollution!
by Rebecca Leighton Katers
The DNR and EPA recently held their meeting to explain and answer questions about their final Record of Decision (ROD) for the Fox River and Bay PCB cleanup. The event seemed to raise more questions than it answered:
1. ROD Amendment Required for Incinerator, Why Not Capping? The agencies announced they would need to undergo an amendment process in order to add the Minergy Incinerator (otherwise known as a “Melter” or “Vitrification”) to the final Record of Decision. This amendment process will open the incineration proposal to a new public comment and public participation process.
This seems very odd given that the agencies are NOT requiring themselves to undergo an amendment process for another radical change in the ROD - the capping (rather than removal) of hundreds of acres of PCB hotspots on the bottom of the Fox River. The public deserves an opportunity to weigh in on that proposal equally, but the agencies clearly want to the shut the public out.
The agencies argue that capping was mentioned in the proposed plan a year and a half ago, but the same can be said of the incinerator, and dozens of other options. At that time, the public was asked to comment on a plan where neither incineration nor capping were seriously considered in detail or chosen by the agencies as part of their main proposal. Also, at that time, we were told by the agencies verbally that capping did not look likely or desirable. Based on this information, the public did not give much attention to the two technologies, or several other technologies which were mentioned but not proposed. We focussed our limited time and resources on the elements which the agencies DID propose.
The agencies admitted at their meeting that they had revised the ROD to incorporate capping after they received a great deal of technical information from Appleton Papers’ “expert panel” in support of capping. But this information was submitted long AFTER the public hearings and comment period ended, and was coupled with intensive political lobbying by the “expert panel.”
The polluting corporations also organized a publicity campaign around their biased capping proposal. Arjo Wiggins Appleton (the current European owner of Appleton Paper’s PCB liabilities) was also busy giving $1.5 million grants to the University of Wisconsin, in an apparent effort to buy silence and support for their capping proposal.
The public was never given a formal chance to respond with opposing technical information, or to hold a public hearing and discussion of the option. The public did not have the same level of access to the agencies, corrupt politicians, or the University.
It certainly appears that the capping proposal was a political decision, not a technical one - or the agencies wouldn’t be so afraid to open the proposal to a ROD amendment, public hearing and comment period. If the agencies can take the time to amend the ROD for “vitrification,” it would be a simple matter to fold the capping proposal into the same public review process. It’s obvious that they don’t want to hear opposing technical or legal arguments.
2. Bay Numbers Now Radically Different The DNR also announced revised estimates of the PCB quantity in the Bay of Green Bay, dropping the total from 154,000 pounds down to 32,000 pounds. This is a 5-fold drop. This means that roughly two thirds of the PCBs in the system are still in the Fox River, and only one third has escaped to the Bay.
This is significant and cancels many of the DNR and EPA arguments which were presented last year during the public hearings and comment period. Last year, they argued that the Bay was hopeless and would take more than 100 years to recover, even if a cleanup occurred; therefore, the agencies did not seriously consider a cleanup of the lower Bay even in areas which exceeded their current cleanup target of 1 ppm.
They based this decision on computer model forcasts which used the much higher 154,000 pound figure, which they now admit was wildly inaccurate.
The same argument was used to justify the 1 ppm PCB cleanup target. The DNR and EPA argued that because there was such a large mass of PCBs circulating in the Bay (at 154,000 pounds) that their computer models showed that it made no difference whether they used the 1 ppm target or the .25 ppm target (which 25 environmental and conservation organizations are on record supporting.)
Again, the agencies claimed that the situation was hopeless, so they chose a politically expedient partial cleanup target which is guaranteed to NOT protect public health.
When pressed, the DNR and EPA said they did intend to run the computer model now with the lower Bay estimate, but said it would not change their cleanup target of 1 ppm. (...so much for keeping an open mind...)
Once again, the public was fed grossly inaccurate information at the public hearings and during the comment period, only to find now that we were duped into hopelessness.
It seems likely now that the system could recover much more rapidly with a more aggressive cleanup target, but the public is being cheated of this. Thousands of people will continue to be poisoned for many decades into the future, when we have the financial and technical ability to perform a much better cleanup.
3. Misleading River Recovery Forecasts Last year, the EPA and DNR said that if 1 ppm were chosen as the cleanup target it would be 45 years after cleanup before the last 7 miles of the River could be removed from the fish consumption advisories. Because the cleanup will take 10 years, this means it will be 55 years.
At the public meeting, the DNR and EPA tried to deceive the public by saying this stretch of river would recover in less than 20 years. Their forcasts were more favorable and self-serving because they were based solely on one-year-old Walleye, which are too small to keep or eat. Sport anglers go for the 4- to 5-year-old Walleye, which accumulate much higher levels of PCBs. In addition, many subsistence anglers are catching and eating Catfish, Suckers, Bass and even Carp, which will take even longer to recover.
The agencies are deliberately misleading the public about the lingering effects of the pollution they choose to leave behind in our river and bay. They are hiding the public health impacts of their weak cleanup standard. The economic impacts are also substantial - the recovery of commerical fisheries for carp and other fish will be delayed by several decades.
At a minimum, the cleanup target needs to be .25 ppm PCBs (this means removing all sediments which are at or above .25 ppm). This will lead to average sediment PCB levels sufficiently low to lift the fish consumption advisories just a short time after the cleanup is completed.
The proposed cleanup will cost $400 million, but a relatively small increase in the investment could protect health and boost the economy decades earlier. (For the last 7 miles of the river, the incremental increase in cost is only $18 million, to dredge down to .25 ppm PCBs.) To stop just short of the goal is a poor investment strategy.
4. Surface Concentrations vs. PCB Mass The DNR and EPA argued that the radically different PCB quantity (the mass of PCBs) may not affect the computer model forecasts because the model is based primarily on surface concentrations of PCBs, not the depth of contamination or total quantity of PCBs in the system. This is a strange skew in the model, because it is clear that major 100-year or 500-year storms could stir up deeply buried PCBs to recontaminate surface layers, and conversely if the deep PCBs have been removed, the storms would stir up cleaner sediments and rapidly dilute the surface PCBs. A more aggressive cleanup would remove any potential for storms to stir up and recontaminate the river and bay in the future.
5. Dishonest Words In a democracy, it is essential that our government be open and honest with the public. Instead, the DNR and EPA continue to use dishonest and deliberately misleading words to describe their choices. We have repeatedly criticized their use of the term “Natural Recovery” for this reason.
Another major dishonesty is the use of “Vitrification” or “Melter” in place of the more accurate and descriptive term “Incinerator.”
The terms vitrification and melter imply that the sediments will be melted and conserved as an entire mass - turned to stone, complete and whole. The true process dries the sediments then burns them in a high temperature furnace. All the organic matter and PCBs are burned off. The residue is a melted slag, but much of the sediment mass is burned away, not conserved. The drying and burning processes will unavoidably create new toxic air pollution in the Fox River Valley.
The public would understand this immediately if the term “Incinerator” were used, so the EPA and DNR are deliberately misleading the public with “Vitrification” or “Melting” which imply something else.
We saw the same public manipulation several years ago, when the Minergy Incinerator was built in downtown Neenah. They called it a “glass aggregate plant,” which sounded fairly innocuous to the public. Too late, the public realized they were getting a large new air pollution source and paper sludge incinerator. At the beginning, Minergy promised to use only clean-burning natural gas to fire their furnaces, then three years later switched to dirty coal despite public opposition.
Minergy is the same company which now wants to build a “Melter” for Fox River sediments. If they can’t be honest in their choice of words, how can we trust them to run a clean incinerator?
The news media should not allow this deception to continue.
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.
Global Warming Impacts on Wisconsin
Global warming could have serious consequences for Wisconsin. The great majority of scientific research agrees that between now and the middle of the coming century the earth’s atmosphere and oceans could very well warm up.
Credible scenarios show Wisconsin could face:
• wetter winters and drier summers with longer, hotter and more frequent heat wavesBecause of the interplay of many climatic factors, it’s difficult to predict exactly what an increase in global temperature might bring.• weather and climate changes that could require farmers to raise different crops
• dairy cattle with heat exhaustion and growing pest populations
• poor air quality and higher concentrations of ground-level ozone, an air pollutant that causes severe health problems
• warmer and more shallow river waters - conditions that could hurt populations of cold-water fish like trout
• major drops in Great Lakes water levels, stranding marinas and docks, and greatly increasing costs at shipping harbors
• denser algae blooms and lower oxygen levels in ponds and lakes, increasing fish stress or die-offs.
• more frequent floods, droughts, forest fires and damaging storms
• changes in tree species that could severely impact the forestry industry and wildlife populations
• increases in disease-carrying insect populations
What is global warming?
Historical records show that average global temperatures increased by 0.5 degrees Fahrenheit (F) between 1890 and 1990. In the next 100 years, scientists predict the temperature may rise another 2 to 6 degrees F. Such increases have occurred previously in Earth’s history, but never over such a short time span. In fact, the average global temperature has risen more in the last century than at any time in the past 10,000 years.
Scientists agree that the cause of these changes involve six main human-influenced greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. These gases - carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride - make up about 1% of our atmosphere. They keep our planet warm by trapping the sun’s energy and slowing its escape back into space. This heat-trapping ability is called the greenhouse effect, and it allows us to enjoy an average global temperature of 60 degrees F.
If our atmosphere lacked greenhouse gases, the Earth would be a cold rock floating in space, and life as we know it would not exist.
Since the Industrial Revolution, however, atmospheric concentrations of the most important human-influenced greenhouse gases - CO2, methane and nitrous oxide - have increased at an unnatural and alarming rate. In the last 200 years, CO2 levels have risen almost 30%, methane levels have gone up 145%, and nitrous oxide levels have increased by 15%.
Where are all these “extra” greenhouse gases coming from? From people. Large-scale burning of fossil fuels for industry and motor vehicles, intense agricultural activity, mining, and other human activities pump more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, creating a heightened greenhouse effect that leads to a higher average global temperature - global warming.
(from information provided by the Wisconsin DNR)
If you reduce energy consumption, you can help in the campaign to stop global warming, to avoid construction of new power plants, and other negative energy impacts. The savings below are expressed primarily as reduced carbon dioxide emissions (a prime cause of climate change), but many other environmental damages will also be equally reduced. The carbon dioxide savings listed below are averages, but your savings may be even higher. Keep in mind that as you save energy, you also save money!
1. Efficient Transportation Transportation is a leading energy consumer. In the U.S., vehicles use more gasoline each year than the entire U.S. oil industry produces. Try to live near your work or school, and use public transportation, carpool, walk, or bike when you can. Replace your SUV with one of the new hybrid gas and electric cars and you could save as much as $11,000 on gas and produce 107 fewer tons of carbon dioxide. The new efficient hybrids are reliable and drive just like a standard car
2. Better Appliances Purchase energy efficient household appliances. This can make an enormous difference. For example: if you replace your 1972 refrigerator with a 2001 model, you may cut your carbon dioxide emissions by 1,100 lbs. a year and save $80 a year on your energy bill. (Install the dishwasher away from your refrigerator. The dishwasher’s heat and moisture make the fridge work harder.) Replace your top-loading washing machine with a front-loader, and you may save $100 a year in energy, water and detergent. A new Energy Star refrigerator uses about 20% less energy than a standard new refrigerator and 46% less than one made before 1980. A new Energy Star washing machine uses nearly 50% less energy than a standard washer.
3. Cold Water Wash and Line Dry Washing clothes in cold water reduces your washer’s energy use by 75% and saves almost 500 lbs. of CO2 per year. Always do full loads when using your dishwasher and washing machine. Conserve energy by turning off the dry cycle on your dishwasher and air-dry the dishes instead. Drying clothes outside in the fresh air and sunlight not only lengthens the life of your clothes but also saves energy and 1,386 lbs. of CO2 emissions. When you need to use the clothes dryer, run full loads and use the moisture-sensing setting. Clean the lint trap after each use and clear the outdoor dryer vent frequently to eliminate blockage and reduce resistance.
4. Refrigeration Tips Maintain your refrigerator and freezer at the right temperature. If they’re only 10 degrees F colder than necessary, your energy consumption will jump 25 percent. The refrigerator should be 38-42 degrees F and the freezer between 0 and 5 degrees F. Make sure the door is sealed tightly. Check the gasket (rubber seal) for cracks and dried-on food. Choose a refrigerator with a freezer on top rather than a side-by-side unit. On average, the savings amount to 20 percent.
5. Air Conditioning In our part of the country, air conditioning is seldom necessary in a well-insulated home. Increase your air conditioning thermostat by only 3 degrees F and you can save an average of 470 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year. You can save up to 3% of energy consumed for each degree the thermostat is set above 72 degrees. Ceiling or room fans can also be used to cool rooms significantly while using less energy than air conditioning. An attic “whole house” fan is an effective way of cooling your home without using the air conditioner. It forces hot air out of your home and draws cooler air in through attic vents.
6. Unplug Unnecessary Appliances Unplug the extra refrigerator in your basement or garage, and save 448 lbs of carbon dioxide per year. Unplug appliances like microwaves, stereos, VCRs and printers that do not have to be on all the time, but use energy when plugged in. Simply unplugging these appliances can save a lot of energy. If possible, unplug electronic devices and chargers that have a block-shaped transformer on the plug when they are not in use.
7. Lighting For every 75-watt incandescent light bulb which you replace with a 20-watt compact fluorescent, you’ll get the same amount of light but save 1,300 lbs. of CO2 and $55. (Compact fluorescents screw into regular sockets.) Fluorescents save 75% of the energy, yet they last much longer. Turn off unneeded lights, and save 376 lbs of carbon dioxide per year. Also, keep bulbs dust-free. Dust on a light bulb or dirt on a glass fixture can reduce the light it emits by 10 % and make it seem that you need a higher-wattage light. When building a new home, include natural lighting features (skylights, suntubes, larger south-facing windows, etc.) to reduce the need for artificial lights. Adjust your schedule when possible to be active in daylight and sleep during the dark.
8. Home Heating Lower thermostat in winter by 2 degrees F and save 353 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year. Change filters often because dirty filters restrict airflow and waste energy. Keep your furnace clean and properly adjusted. Switch from an oil or electric heating system to natural gas, which is more efficient. Replace simple dial-type thermostats with smart programmable thermostats. These units allow you to set the heating and cooling system to take a break while you’re asleep or out, then come on at preset times to keep you comfortable when you wake up or come home. In an average house this can reduce emissions by 1,000 pounds per year-not to mention produce significant savings on your energy bill, with a quick payback of the $50-100 cost. Dress warmly to stay comfortable without turning up the heat. Lower the thermostat to 55 degrees or off at night or when leaving the house/office for an extended period of time. For every degree you lower your heat in the 60-degree to 70-degree range, you’ll save up to 5% on heating costs.
9. Oven Smarts Minimize the number of times you open an oven door during cooking. Each time, you lose 25 to 50 degrees or more. Do not preheat longer than necessary. Ten minutes should be sufficient. Preheating is not necessary when broiling.
10. Reduce Your Home Size If you’re about to build or buy a new home, aim for something smaller. Many new homes are much larger per person than in the past, which increases home energy consumption dramatically for construction, heating, dehumidifying and cooling.
11. Seal Air Leaks One of the least expensive and most effective ways to reduce energy use in the home is to seal air leaks. A simple effort to weatherize your home - especially to seal any large air gaps in the attic and basement - can reduce a typical home’s greenhouse-gas emissions by 1,300 lbs. per year. Keep your fireplace damper closed unless a fire is burning to prevent heated air from escaping thru the chimney. Avoid using kitchen, bathroom and other ventilating fans in excess, as these can eject large amounts of heated or cooled air in a short period of time.
12. Add Insulation Adding attic insulation is also highly effective and can save an additional 1,300 pounds of CO2. Adding wall, attic, and basement insulation costs more per unit of energy saved, but can nonetheless trim a home’s CO2 emissions by 2,000 pounds per year. Pool blankets - insulating sheets that float on the surface - cut the energy consumption of pool heaters up to 70 percent.
13. Window Efficiency Adding air-gap window films or low-e films to existing windows, while not always cost-effective, can reduce your home’s emissions by 1,000 pounds per year. When possible, replace old windows with new high performance, energy efficient (double-paned) windows or install storm windows. Curtains and shades can also help prevent hot or cold air from escaping.
14. Smart Landscaping Shading your east and west windows with overhangs or trellises or by planting shade trees are also effective ways to reduce unwanted heat gain on hot, sunny days. They also act as windbreaks in winter. Also, plant trees or shrubs to shade air-conditioning units (but not to block the airflow.) A unit operating in the shade uses as much as 10% less electricity, when compared to the same one operating in the sun.
15. Duct Work Sealing and insulating heating and cooling ducts is a more expensive job, but saves more energy and can reduce your emissions by an average of 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide per year. Upgrading your heating or cooling equipment with new technology and making sure these units are regularly tuned every year will also reduce emissions by several hundred pounds.
16. Hot Water Efficiency Turn down your water heater to 120 degrees F (from the usual 145 degrees F), and you may save 163 lbs. of carbon dioxide per year. Reduce hot water consumption by installing efficient showerheads, faucets and other fixtures. You can insulate the water heater with an insulating blanket. This is especially valuable for older water heaters with little internal insulation. (Be sure to leave the air intake vent uncovered when insulating a gas water heater.) When buying a new water heater, look for the most efficient and properly sized type with the lowest life-cycle cost. Better yet, install a solar hot water heater.
17. Save Energy at Work Turn off office equipment when not in use. Reduce energy consumption and equipment wear by setting computers, monitors, and copiers to sleep-mode. Better yet, turn them all the way off if you are not going to use them for an extended period of time, particularly when you go home at the end of the workday. To keep it simple, just plug your computer, scanner and printer into one power strip that can be switched off after shutting down your computer. Do the same with the microwave in the lunchroom, and other office appliances which are always on otherwise.
Over your lunch break, turn off computer monitors. This will save energy without losing your work or having to reboot. Encourage your co-workers to do the same.
18. Limit Your “Stuff” Virtually every physical object you buy in a store requires energy for production and/or operation. This includes clothing, household furnishings, office supplies, appliances, sporting goods, decorative objects, and toys - which all consume energy. We could easily have happy, fulfilled lives while reducing this consumption, and save tremendous energy (and money) in the process. Unclutter your life and live more simply. When you do buy, purchase locally made goods and avoid energy costs due to long-distance transportation.
19. Eat a Vegetarian Diet The production of meat,
dairy, and eggs is energy intensive. We can all reduce our
food energy consumption by eating plant proteins directly, converting at
least some of our daily meals to vegetarian dishes. This will
also be healthier for you and your family, save money, reduce water
consumption, reduce water pollution, reduce landuse impacts of livestock
production, and reduce the potential for
animal cruelty.
20. Limit Your Family Size Each person requires energy to live. Our human population is rapidly rising to levels which make it difficult to provide adequate energy while sustaining a healthy environment. If each couple limited themselves to no more than two children, our world’s population could stabilize and support everyone without conflict or suffering.
21. Get Involved and Talk to Your Legislators Many of our current governmental regulations are not helpful for conserving energy, and some policies actually reward large energy users with lower bulk rates. Citizens need to contact their legislators and ask for better policies.
For more savings tips, visit these online websites:
Wis. Focus on Energy - Your Home http://focusonenergy.com
Wis.Incentives for Renewable Energy
http://www.dsireusa.org/library/includes/map2.cfm?CurrentPageID=1&State=WI
Energy Saving Tools - WPS http://www.wisconsinpublicservice.com/home/saving.asp
Household Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Savings Measures
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid341.php
Energy Star - Efficiency Ratings
http://www.energystar.gov
Bush Weakens Rules for Power Plants
by Rebecca Katers
When the federal Clean Air Act was passed 33 years ago, legislators compromised and exempted existing coal-fired power plants from many of the controls required in the new law. Existing plants were “grandfathered,” and would be required to install air pollution controls only if the plants were modernized. The Clean Air Act would apply primarily to new sources built after 1970.
At the time, it was argued that old plants would be phased out or modernized, and the Clean Air Act would gradually control all sources. Instead, the law caused many utilities to do everything possible to extend the lives of dinosaur plants, to avoid the cost of air pollution control.
I can remember 20 years ago, when Thomas Meintz, at Wisconsin Public Service, told us not to worry about the Pulliam Power Plant’s air pollution in Green Bay, because the plant was already 50 years old and would be phased out soon. (Pulliam is still going strong....)
Worse yet, several companies quietly made upgrades and modernized portions of their old plants, and the government was very lax about enforcing the “New Source Standards” in such cases. Many years passed before the Clinton Administration initiated legal enforcement actions which were finally bearing fruit about the time that George W. Bush took the presidency.
As soon as Bush took office, his administration began undermining the enforcement actions already underway, and worked to rewrite the “New Source Performance Standards.”
Last week, Bush announced the results of this work. In one of the biggest changes to pollution regulations in recent years, he eased the rules for more than 500 older polluting power plants and about 20,000 other aging factories and refineries (including paper industries...)
The EPA’s new rule allows plant owners to do upgrades worth up to 20 percent of a plant’s value without mandating new air pollution controls. A $500-million coal-fired power plant, for example, could replace $100 million in equipment yearly without having to spend any money on air pollution abatement. In essence, Bush’s rule expands and extends a loophole which should never have existed in the first place. Though we’re supposed to be making steady progress in phasing out old plants, this rule ensures that we’ll go backwards instead. The old plants will be gradually modernized, yet still be exempt from many Clean Air Act controls.
The Bush administration’s hope is that by increasing the efficiency of older coal-fired plants — the most affected segment — more power can be produced at lower cost.
The administration argues that plants still must abide by state and federal air pollution laws, so there’s not necessarily any increase in pollution. But the truth is that the air will get dirtier because many old plants would be allowed to increase their output.
Ten states (including Wisconsin) have sued the EPA over other pollution regulation changes and many are planning to do so over the new rule.
Coal is the nation’s top electricity producer, and the utility sector is the leading polluter, with coal being the dirtiest power producer.
Wisconsin legislators are blocking a new mercury control rule proposed by the Wisconsin DNR.
Anglers and environmentalists have been pressing for this rule for many years, following announcements that ALL of Wisconsin’s lakes and streams need fish consumption advisories due to toxic levels of mercury in the fish.
The DNR’s proposal was a compromise, to require a phased reduction of mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants over a 15 year period, ending with a 90% reduction by 2017.
(The DNR has had authority to regulate mercury emissions for over 30 years; we should not wait longer for deep cuts in mercury pollution.)
The legislators have sided with the electric power utilities and paper corporations who argue that coal-burning would become more expensive and electricity rates would have to be increased if the rules are imposed. (The Wisconsin Paper Council is currently asking politicians to help them get greater reductions in electricity rates to benefit their industry.)
The Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC) has also been siding with industry. The PSC Commissioners, without consulting the DNR, or even seeking analysis from their own PSC staff, sent a letter to the DNR condemning the proposed mercury reductions.
They’re ignoring the many recent studies of the neurological damage mercury can cause to developing children. The EPA estimates that as many as 400,000 newborns nationwide are at risk of mercury exposure, particularly in the northern Great Lakes region.
On August 13th, several citizen organizations testified in Madison in support of the mercury reduction rule (CR-01-181). They asked the legislature to reject efforts to further weaken the rule, and to strengthen the rule by including: a more-rapid 90% reduction of current mercury pollution from coal plants; a measurement of mercury reductions from what is coming out of the power plant smokestacks, NOT from the mercury that is in the coal; and a 150% offset for new sources of mercury.
How You Can Help
Please contact Gov. Doyle (he appoints PSC Commissioners) and state legislators to let them know how you feel about the mercury rule.
Governor Jim Doyle
Room 115 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702
Senator _________________,
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
You can also contact legislators by calling the legislative hotline 1-800-362-9472 or 1-800-228-2115 TDS (weekdays, from 8 to 5) or log onto www.legis.state.wi.us and go to legislators web pages. Don’t know who your legislators are? Hotline operators can tell you.
|
|
|
|
|