|
|
The Bay Data Debate |
| How
YOU
Can
Help Clean The River and Bay!
Fox
River Home
Frequent
Questions
PCB
Chemistry
Compensation
State
Government
International
& Great Lakes
Photo
Gallery
|
An Independent Investigation is Needed
Immediately
News release, Feb. 8, 2002 Green Bay, WI --- Citizens are confused and angry to discover
that experts can’t agree on the quantity of PCBs contaminating the bay.
The UW-SeaGrant Institute claims only 19,000 pounds of PCBs are found in all of Green Bay, while the DNR’s consultant, Remediation Technologies (RETEC), claims the total is 154,000 pounds (with 69,000 pounds concentrated in Zone 2, the extreme southern end of the bay.) “We need an independent investigation of this dispute immediately,” stated Katers. “If the SeaGrant Institute’s allegations are correct, the data contained in the proposed Fox River cleanup plan are fraudulent. This is a serious charge which needs to be settled as soon as possible and those responsible held accountable under the law. The public should be able to have confidence in government data.” On the other hand, the SeaGrant Institute may also be wrong, because they took only ONE sample south of Long Tail Point and Point au Sable, in Zone 2. It was on the west side of the bay and they may have missed most of the PCBs concentrated in hotspots along the east shore of the lower bay. “One sample is clearly not enough,” stated Katers. “We are disturbed that the SeaGrant Institute claims a lower bay cleanup is unnecessary based on their limited research. This is not sound science.” The Institute scientists have said that based on samples taken by Blasland, Bouck and Lee (BB&L) that levels of PCBs in the lower bay are not sufficient to warrant a cleanup there; however, BB&L is a consulting firm used heavily by the Fox River Group of industries, as well as General Electric and other corporations around the country fighting against PCB river cleanups. The Institute, and the government in general, should not rely on data from such a biased source. At the same time, Clean Water Action Council has been concerned for 4 years about conflicts of interest arising from the DNR’s choice of Remediation Technologies (RETEC) as the consultant to write the cleanup plan. RETEC was recommended by the seven companies who dumped PCBs in the Fox River, and the consultant’s parent company has direct financial ties to the paper industry along the Fox River. RETEC generally works for industrial clients, not governments working in the public’s interest. The DNR and RETEC estimate of 69,000 pounds of PCBs in the lower bay was based on 3 sets of data: the one SeaGrant Institute sample, the 8 samples by BB&L, and approximately 6 samples taken by DNR in sediment around the Kidney Island (Renard Isle) confined disposal facility near Bay Beach Amusement Park. None of the agencies took samples of a large area in the middle of the lower bay where the Army Corps of Engineers dumped shipping channel dredge spoils for decades before open-water disposal was banned in the mid-1970s. An estimated 3 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment were dumped there, but for some reason the agencies took no PCB samples from this site. “Taxpayers spent $13 million for the Green Bay Mass Balance Study and another $4 million for the PCB cleanup plan by RETEC and DNR. Why don't we have better, more reliable data for Zone 2 of Green Bay after all this expense?” asked Katers. If the SeaGrant Institute is correct, the DNR's computer model projections for the Bay are unreliable. These models were key factors in deciding which hotspots were worth cleaning up. The bay was discounted as too contaminated with dispersed PCBs to make cleanup worthwhile. Perhaps, based on new data, it won't take more than 100 years to heal. Perhaps we can make major progress much more quickly. This may be good news, and it may strengthen the call for a strong cleanup plan because results could be MUCH more beneficial more quickly. The SeaGrant Institute also claims that virtually all the bay PCBs are in the top 4 inches of sediment. This makes cleanup of Zone 3 hotspots along the east shore (in the middle bay) more possible, because less sediment volume would be involved. Areas such as the Dykesville hotspot should be scrutinized more carefully so we can get a better picture of what is possible. “But first, we need to know the truth about the Bay data,” concluded Katers. “In any case, the total mass of PCBs in Zone 2 doesn't change the need to apply the .25 ppm cleanup target level to the bay, where it's violated. Public health standards should still apply.” “We urge the DNR and EPA to use a portion of the recent $40 million settlement with Appleton Papers and NCR Corporation to take at least 100 more layered sediment core samples in the lower bay south of Long Tail Point and Point Au Sable. This should be done right away this spring, to make the data public as soon as possible.” “The EPA should not issue a final Record of Decision for the bay portion of the PCB cleanup plan until we’ve all seen and discussed clear scientific data,” stated Katers. “If the bay data is significantly changed from DNR’s published data, additional public hearings should be held because this will change public and agency recommendations for the bay.” “We spent a lot of money and time focusing on the implications of the DNR’s bay data, only to learn that data may not be reliable,” concluded Katers. “This is very frustrating.” News articles related to this issue:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
|
||||
|
|
|
CONTENT BY: Rebecca Leighton Katers WEB DESIGN BY: DataScouts WEB HOSTING BY: Doteasy
|
|
|
|
