Fox River Home
Search
Index to Site
Recent Additions

Frequent Questions
Media Coverage
History
Statistics
Maps

PCB Chemistry
Human Health
Wildlife Health
Economic Damage
Corporate Profiles

Compensation
Sediment Cleanup
Cleanup Technologies

State Government
Federal Government
Local Government
Native Nations

International & Great Lakes
Technical Assistance
Other PCB Sites
Links

Photo Gallery
Political Cartoons

Message Board
Guestbook

It almost sounds reasonable until you examine the details. As you read the list of capping concerns below, you might ask yourself, “Why is Appleton Paper Inc. proposing this?   It doesn’t appear to save money, time, or trouble, on a cubic yard basis, and it isn’t a permanent solution to the PCB problem.  There must be another reason.”  That “other reason” is that the capping proposal is just a diversion. The public has the impression that the caps would cover all the areas proposed for dredging, but this isn’t true.

photo by Phil Chaudoir

The industry-proposed caps would cover only a small percentage of the major PCB hotspots.  The largest, most serious concentration of PCBs is downstream of the DePere Dam, in the City of Green Bay.   Roughly 90% of all PCBs in the entire river sit in this last section.   The “expert panel” proposes to leave most of this area uncapped and exposed to river erosion.   Some upstream hotspots in Appleton, Neenah and Menasha would be capped, but downstream health threats would be allowed to continue.

The polluters are trying to convince us that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can clean this largest downstream section as part of the government’s regular maintenance dredging of the shipping channel, at public expense, of course.  (see detailed discussion below.)  This is a ludicrous idea, but they’ve managed to convince a lot of people.  The polluters are trying to dodge the lion’s share of their PCB cleanup responsibilities and costs.

The Clean Water Action Council continues to support dredging and removal of all PCB contaminated sediments (over 0.25 ppm PCBs) from the river and bay as the most cost-effective and permanent means of protecting public and wildlife health. 

Public hearings must be held if the government truly intends to use Appleton Papers' capping proposal in the final river cleanup plan.   The polluters waited until AFTER the public hearings last fall to present their capping alternative.  They must not be allowed to hijack the plan without a PUBLIC discussion and debate.

• Capping is not a long-term solution
• Capping is messy and would release PCBs downstream
• Capping is just as expensive, perhaps more so
• Capping requires significant long-term funding
• They ignored the bay
• It's wrong to use the public's river as a private dump
• Future uses would be prohibited forever
• Capping doesn't comply with DNR standard guidance
• Huge floods could occur any day
• It's never been done before
• They falsely claim, "Capping is faster. Dredging will take 60 years."
• They avoid responsibility and say, "Let the Army Corps Do It."
• Capping does not enhance river habitat
• Upland wildlife habitat and quality-of-life would be destroyed
• Capping requires heavy trucking and noisy equipment
• Capping creates a shallower river
• Capping changes the flow, and nullifies computer models
• Capping material could clog shipping areas
• Capping material could add pollution
• They misuse the "natural attenuation" concept
• We can't change our minds later
• The future is too uncertain
• A dam could burst
• Natural recovery won't work

click here  for more Lahey cartoons

Capping is not a long-term solution --- Flowing water is powerful.  It is inevitable that erosion, ice shoves, bottom wildlife activity, human disturbance, and storm floods will wear away the cap.  The “expert panel” made several major mistakes in their analysis regarding the Corps of Engineers and wasteload allocations (see below) which calls into question their central claim that the cap will be erosion-proof for centuries.  We doubt their fundamental credibility on this issue.

Capping is messy --- When the Fox River Group dumps sand and gravel on the PCB sediment hotspots, the action is bound to stir up the sediments.   The dumping won’t be a gentle, quiet activity.   It’s ironic that the paper industry is raising public fears about the dredges stirring up PCBs when the capping process could actually be messier.   The hydraulic dredges vacuum-up the sediments on contact with the cutterhead, leaving very little to escape. In contrast, the cap dumping will “splash” onto the soft river sediments, scattering and displacing PCBs to the sides and downstream.  The cap dumping won’t be moderated by a vacuum process.

Capping is just as expensive, perhaps more so --- The “expert panel” has explained that capping will not be less expensive than dredging and landfilling. 

Capping requires significant long-term funding.  Though capping may take less than ten year, the cap will require many centuries of expenses and staff-hours to monitor and maintain -- much longer than the 10 year time frame required to dredge the river and bay (and certainly longer than the mere 40-60 years projected by the “expert panel” for monitoring and maintenance.)   This is especially true in a riverine environment where the cap is exposed to failure from constant erosion or other river dynamics. Monitoring includes measurement of cap thickness over 960 acres, sediment chemistry (expensive sampling), and observations of biological recolonization. Monitoring must include evaluation of zones in the cap that may need rebuilding.  Then comes the added cost of actual rebuilding.   The capped PCBs will not break down in their no-oxygen buried layers.  An in-water disposal of this sort will require perpetual and active long-term maintenance and monitoring, much more than an upland landfill which settles and becomes inert over time.

They ignored the Bay --- The panel ignored the high health risks and substantial PCB mass in Zone 2 of lower Green Bay when they stated that their plan would be sufficient to meet public health needs.  As our toxicologist Dr. Foran has explained, the bay must be cleaned in order to meet the basic objectives of the cleanup plan. 

It’s wrong to use the public’s river as a private dump --- The caps would be permanent structures on up to 960 acres (one and a half square miles) of Public Trust Land on the bed of the Fox River, which has never been done in Wisconsin before.   They are essentially paving a huge area of the river bottom.  This sets an enormous precedent.  Essentially, the state would be allowing private entities to use Public Trust Land as a permanent disposal site for their private wastes --- wastes which were discharged without proper permits and in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine in the first place.  At the least, such a project would require public hearings, a written comment period, and a Lake Bed Grant from the Legislature, which could seriously delay the cleanup.

Future uses would be prohibited forever --- The caps would permanently prevent any other future use of those areas.  This ties the hands of residents and elected officials in a number of areas including land-planning, economics, and recreation. 

Capping doesn’t comply with DNR standard guidance ---The Wisconsin DNR  presented guidance on when to cap (source: Technical Corner -- Capping, July 2000).  The guidance included capping in an area where “currents are no greater than 0.15 feet/second.”  Average current velocities in all reaches of the river vary from 0.25 to 1.23 feet/sec. The Wisconsin DNR guidance also included statements that capping should be done in areas where the maximum 100-year flood current is no greater than 0.7 feet/sec. Based on average current velocities for the different reaches of the river, the 100-year flood current may exceed the 0.7 feet/sec in all reaches of the river. Actual values for the 100-year flood current for each reach need to be determined. 

Huge floods could happen any day --- The “expert panel” recommends that capping be constructed to a standard that would enable it to withstand water forces three-times what would occur in a flood so severe it would only happen on an average of once per century. A 100-year-flood (a confusing term) is a flood that has a 1% chance of occurring every year.  The same flood event could occur multiple times in five years. A larger flood event (250- to 500-year) could also occur in that same five years. Use of a term like a 100-year flood event gives a false sense of security. 

It’s never been done before --- This proposed river capping project has been described as the …"biggest ever attempted in the U.S."  Any time an engineering design is sized larger; there are new challenges and risks associated with increasing the size and level of complexity of the design.  The "expert panel" can’t show us a single active flowing river where such a cap has worked.   Why take such an enormous risk when dredging technologies have been proven to work?  Large scale PCB cleanup requires the best available proven technology -- dredging and removal of PCBs. 

They falsely claim, “Capping is faster. Dredging will take 60 years.”  The “expert panel” mistakenly claimed the dredging would violate the wastewater allocation limits for the Fox River.  They claim that because the DNR has already issued pollution permits to wastewater dischargers along the Fox River, and has already allocated the maximum pollution "rights," this means the river has little additional pollution "assimilative capacity."   They claim the wastewater treatment and discharges from dewatering the dredged sediments would exceed the remaining capacity of the river; therefore, the pace of the river cleanup would need to be slowed down dramatically (to 60 years) in order to properly meter-out the dredging wastewater in diluted quantities.   In other words, according to the panel, the 7 paper companies who dumped the PCBs (and other Fox River dischargers) are STILL polluting the river to point where there’s no room for wastewater from the cleanup effort, an extremely self-serving argument.  It is especially ironic and offensive given that the DNR gave Appleton Papers Inc. a 21% increase in their Fox River wastewater discharge allocation just a few years ago, over our objections.  However, the panel’s basic argument is flawed, for the following reasons:

•  DNR staff have explained that most dischargers on the Fox are not using their full allocation, therefore a significant buffer remains before water quality standards would be violated in the river by an additional discharger

• The allocation system is based solely on BOD (biological oxygen demand) --- a form of pollution primarily due to organic matter or nutrients in the wastewater (such as phosphorus  and nitrogen).  This pollution can be easily treated and reduced in the dredging water discharge, if necessary to speed up the project.

• The 7 companies responsible for the PCB contamination can be required to each give up a portion of their allocation for the duration of the cleanup effort. 

• The bulk of the dredging would occur in the final stretch of the river, where 90% of the PCBs reside.  This area is already stirred-up by shipping traffic and Army Corps of Engineer’s clamshell dredging (which is much messier than hydraulic vacuum dredging).   If the wasteload allocation system is threatened by the cleaner remedial dredging, then these existing activities are likely having a serious effect.  Why hasn’t Appleton Papers called for the halt of shipping and Corps’ dredging in the lower Fox River?  They aren’t being consistent.

• As stated above, the dumping of cap material into the river could well be messier than dredging.   As the sand and gravel hits the soft sediment, PCBs and other pollutants would be stirred up and displaced to the side into the flowing river current.  If dredging would violate the wasteload allocation, why wouldn’t the cap dumping?

• The dredging timeline can be accelerated in many ways to clean both the river and bay hotspots in less than 10 years. By operating multiple dredging crews on several hotspots at once, the work can be fairly rapid.  Just as fast, or faster than capping.

• This section of the river contains roughly 90% of all the PCBs in the entire Fox River.  It also causes some of the highest health risks.  Yet the panel seems to be shrugging off the Fox River Group’s responsibility for this area.  The Fox River Group should not be allowed to shift the costs of remediation to the Army Corps, public taxpayers or harbor users.   The remediation costs should be borne by those who dumped the PCBs:  the Fox River Group.   In fact, the polluters should reimburse the taxpayers for all the extra costs incurred over the past 30 years to dispose of sediments the Group contaminated.   The small amount allocated in the DNR’s proposal is not sufficient.

• The shipping channel extends only halfway upstream to the DePere Dam.   It stops at the old Fort Howard Turning Basin.   The upstream half of this area would be untouched by the Corps, leaving large quantities of PCBs still in the river.

• The channel is only a narrow strip dredged down the middle of the river, completely missing the old PCB deposits to either side. 

• The Corps channel maintenance equipment is not designed for remedial toxic chemical cleanups.  They use the messiest form of clamshell dredge, which, ironically, is the kind of equipment which has been harshly criticized by the Fox River Group.  On one hand the paper industries have decried the minor downstream PCB leakage which occurred during the 2 dredging demonstrations using the cleaner hydraulic dredges, while at the same time they seem to be promoting a MUCH more risky form of dredging by the Corps.  This is a major inconsistency.   If the industry’s own expert panel believes it’s all right for the Corps to dredge, then the Fox River Group should concede that remedial dredging projects are equally acceptable.

• The Corps does not have a disposal site which complies with the EPA’s TOSCA exemption requirements.  The Bayport Project, where channel dredgings go currently, is not a fully engineered landfill, and when it was exempted from Wisconsin’s solid waste law, our organization was promised by the Wisconsin DNR that it would not be used for remedial dredge spoil disposal.

• The Corps dredges a relatively small quantity of sediment from the channel each year.  Even if we were to assume that the sediments to the side would eventually fall into the channel and be removed, it would take an inordinately long period of time before all the contaminated sediment could be removed.  Centuries, perhaps.  And this assumes that no fresh sediment would be added from upstream.   Meanwhile, the public faces serious health risks now, and results are needed as soon as possible. The expert panel tries to claim that the DNR’s dredging plan will take 60 years, when this pace would be speedy compared to the Corp’s minor channel maintenance dredging.  The “experts” aren’t being consistent.   The Fox River Group’s plan is actually MUCH slower.

Upland wildlife habitat and quality-of-life would be destroyed --- The cap would require an enormous volume of sand and gravel, which would need to be excavated locally in order to be cost-effective.  Any questionable “habitat enhancement” in the river would be more than offset by the wholesale upland habitat destruction caused by the enormous sand and gravel mine needed for this project.  Such mines are notorious for their disturbance of neighbors (dust, noise, trucks) and impacts on groundwater tables.   This project requires 960 acres (one and a half square miles) of sand and gravel a foot thick.   This equals 1,548,800 cubic yards of sand and gravel.   Have the mine sites been identified?   Have the neighbors been consulted?

Capping requires heavy trucking and noisy equipment --- The mined cap material would need to be transported and placed in the river with heavy equipment.  The offloading of the sand and gravel onto barges would be dusty and noisy.  The truck traffic on area roads would be substantial, as the project would require between 103,252 and 129,067 dump truck loads of sand and gravel (at 12 to 15 cubic yards per truck.)   The disruption on the river could easily be more upsetting to neighbors and river users than the quiet underwater operation of hydraulic dredges and slurry pipelines.

Capping creates a shallower river --- Because capped areas will be much shallower, this will reduce the future use of those areas, some of which are already fairly shallow.   An example would be the shallow zone above Deposit A in Little Lake Butte des Mort.  This is a popular fishing spot, but could become impassable to fishing boats if filled with capping material.

Capping changes the flow, and nullifies computer models --- Because 960 acres of the river bottom will be more shallow by a foot, this will redirect river currents, alter erosion and deposition patterns, and over time may affect shoreline property owners in some areas.  This will nullify the computer models used to calculate sediment and PCB movements in the future.  Erosion of other PCB areas could increase.

Capping material could clog shipping areas --- As the cap material erodes it could increase the clogging of downstream locks, shipping channels and marinas, increasing maintenance problems and costs.

Capping material could add pollution --- Sand and gravel are usually dusty and dirty.  The Fox River Group could be introducing significant new pollution into the river when dumping this cap material, making the water more “cloudy” than usual and possibly harming fish and aquatic wildlife by clogging their gills.  The material may also change the river pH (acid-base levels).  To avoid this, they may have to create major “washing stations” to rinse the sand and gravel first, which may require a wastewater treatment system for the wash water.  Where will this be done?

They misuse the  “natural attenuation” concept --- In their calculation of successful results, both the “expert panel” and the DNR have assumed a 10% “natural attenuation” of river PCBs (meaning that 10% of the PCBs disappear “naturally”) each year.   The Science and Technical Advisory Committee for the Remedial Action Plan has said this disappearance is more likely PCBs flowing downstream to the Bay or volatilizing into the air.   The PCBs aren’t degrading, as the term “attenuation” implies.    The industry and DNR use this term to claim remediation success, when the PCB problem has just shifted to a different area.  This is not an acceptable, permanent solution.

We can’t change our minds later --- We need a permanent solution now, not 50 or 100 years from now, when the companies could be gone or no longer financially capable.   This massive capping is not a theory we can afford to test now and fix later.   The DNR says the 7 polluting companies would retain the long-term liability for maintaining the cap, but this won’t matter if the companies no longer exist when the cap fails.

The future is too uncertain --- The PCBs will remain toxic for centuries, but we have no guarantees about the future stability of human society in this area.  (Consider how much has changed in the past 150 years.)  We face a high risk that people in the future could forget the significance of the cap and not maintain it, or worse yet, they may initiate major construction or other changes in the cap without realizing the consequences.  We have a responsibility to prevent this disaster and take care of our own problems here and now.

A dam could burst --- The 17 locks and dams on the lower Fox River won’t last forever, certainly not as long as the PCBs will last under the caps.   If one or more critical dams burst, this could release a flash flood worse than predicted storm surges, and breach the caps, recontaminating the river and bay downstream, and ruining our cleanup efforts.  We can’t be certain that future generations of humans will properly repair and maintain the locks and dams.  We also can’t discount the possibility of sabotage of dams through insanity, terrorism, or as an act of war.  Stranger things have happened.  The panel admitted that the dams at Lake Winnebago and De Pere could be especially critical.

Natural recovery won’t work --- Appleton Papers' own expert panel has contradicted the Fox River Group’s claim that natural recovery in most of the river is sufficient to address public health concerns.

back to top