Secret meetings between Georgia-Pacific Corporation (formerly Fort James
Corporation) and state, tribal and federal officials resulted in a badly
compromised settlement as compensation for G-P's share of PCB contamination
of the Fox River and Green Bay. G-P agreed to pay only $14.5
million as compensation and was allowed to choose which projects it wanted
to fund. (See Details)
G-P also paid the federal and state governments $1.6 million as partial
reimbursement of assessment costs and work on the 56/57 sediment dredging
demonstration project.
(In your letter, refer to the case: United States and the State
of Wisconsin v. Fort James Operating Company [Georgia-Pacific Corporation],
Civil Action No. 02-C-0602 (E.D. Wis.), and DOJ Reference Number 90-11-2-1045/1.)
1. The settlement meets only 20% of G-P's minimum
responsibility --- We were told last year by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in its Assessment to expect total compensation of
$333 million if the sediment clean up will take more than 40 years to achieve
its goals, which it will. According to a DNR study, Georgia-Pacific's
share of responsibility is approximately 22% of this total, or $73 million.
If justice is to be served and minimum compensation granted, G-P needs
to provide the $73 million. This settlement of only $14.5 million
is a sham.
Keep in mind that the original $333 million was a conservative estimate,
a major political compromise from a higher calculated value closer to $600
million, and even that number did NOT include many major types of economic
damages. (For more details, see Conservative
Estimate) The TRUE damages a likely to be well over $1 billion.
At the 5 public hearings held in Green Bay, Appleton, Oshkosh, Sturgeon
Bay and Escanaba, citizens repeatedly said they felt the $333 million was
too low, but the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service staff said they wanted
to be sure they had a rock solid number they could easily defend in court
without question. It was obvious they considered $333 million as
the bare minimum, not as a high starting point to be negotiated downward.
2. Settlements in the Dark --- How can citizens evaluate the
fairness of a closed-door settlement with Georgia-Pacific, without knowing
what the final Compensation and Restoration Plan says? (The total
plan for all the mills may be released in August 2002, just a few
weeks from now.) We're opposed to this premature piece-meal approach.
Citizens have a 30 day comment period starting soon, but they aren't being
given key information.
3. What is G-P's Formal Allocation of Responsibility? --- The
percentage of responsibility allocated to G-P could tell us more about
the overall size of the total Restoration Plan, but the agencies have refused
to tell us their final calculation of G-P's percentage of the total.
We're forced to assume G-P's share is 22% based on a DNR study, and if
this settlement sets the pace, it would mean the total compensation we
will get from all the companies may total only
$65.9 million, an outrageously low number.
4. Wrong types of projects funded --- According to the agency
figures, 27% of the G-P settlement ($3.9 million) is for human park and
recreation enhancements, which were heavily criticized a year ago.
In recent years, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted numerous
public opinion surveys (at high cost) and learned that the public placed
highest priority on projects designed to stop toxicity. Second
priority was to protect and enhance fisheries and wildlife habitat.
Third priority were projects designed to stop land run-off pollution (non-point
pollution). A distant fourth were enhancements for human recreation,
such as boat ramps, docks, parking lots and trails. Most Northeast Wisconsin
and Upper Peninsula Michigan residents believe we already have a lot of
these human amenities, but the waterways and wildlife deserve much more
attention. Now, it seems the federal government has abandoned
the carefully prepared and expensive Resource Compensation Determination
Plan (RCDP) which went to public hearing and was finalized last year.
Instead, G-P is being allowed to fund high-profile local projects, and
regional public wishes are being ignored.
5. Northern communities completely neglected --- ALL of the $3.9
million in G-P recreational dollars are targeted for Brown County communities
only, where G-P operates its manufacturing facilities. NONE are planned
for Door, Oconto, Marinette Counties, or Upper Michigana communities which
also have PCB fish-eating warnings due to Fox River pollution. If
recreation is the goal, then ALL the northern people should have equal
access to these recreation dollars. Instead, it appears G-P
has been allowed to buy-off local officials with juicy projects, with every
Brown County municipality getting a piece. In addition, all the land
purchases for wildlife habitat are on the Bay's westshore, with nothing
for the eastshore, Michigan or Door County, though most of the PCBs are
concentrated up the Door County shoreline. The DNR claims that future
settlements with the other mills may balance these issues better, but how
can the public be sure when we have a comment period now but won't be allowed
to see the big picture plans until later?
6. Misuse of the Fox River Remedial Action Plan --- The DNR claims
to be following the old Remedial Action Plan which was started in 1986,
but that effort was dominated by Brown County people and included no one
from the impacted north. And that plan did not set a high
priority on recreation projects. To the contrary, recreation access
was far down the list of concerns. The DNR is misrepresenting and
misusing the work of a lot of people, including members of Clean Water
Action Council who participated in that process.
7. The Bush Administration has abandoned federal leadership ---
This G-P settlement is just a larger version of the DNR's surprise solo
$7 million proposal in November 2000 (see Comparisons).
It contains all the same flaws which were roundly criticized by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies at that time, under
the Clinton Administration. It's obvious that the federal government
is now taking a back seat and allowing the state to decide everything,
even though the state fought against negotiating for ANY compensation for
several years. We are left with a token effort for one of the
biggest PCB sources on the river. The public's interest is NOT being
served.
8. The Cart Before the Horse --- Under the Clinton Administration,
we were promised many times that the Restoration Plan and individual settlements
like this couldn't be finalized until after the sediment cleanup
plan and EPA's Record of Decision are announced (in August or September).
This timing sequence was important because the scale of the restoration
is supposed to be based on how long it takes for the sediment cleanup to
achieve results. If it takes longer, then more compensation is due from
the polluters and the dollar amount should increase. Now, under the Bush
Administration, we're being told that it's OK for the Restoration Plan
to be released before the ROD, deliberately keeping the public in the dark
on this issue.
9. Inflated, False Settlement Dollars --- We found many discrepancies
between last year's dollar values and this year's in the settlement deails
(see Details).
Even though last year's deal called for fewer recreation projects,
they were estimated to be worth a million dollars more than this year's
larger
projects. (Were we being misled last year?) And last year's
land acquisition value for the Peshtigo Marsh property was much lower than
this year's high land values. Only 363 more acres of land were added
to this year's deal, but the dollar values rose by $5 million.
This equals $13,774 per acre added.(Are
we being misled now?) We need to know the true costs of these
land purchases, not inflated values to make this settlement look bigger
than it really is.
10. Stopping the Federal Process? --- The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (under the Bush Administration) now says they may not
write a "Report of Assessment," though this is supposed to be the final
stage of the Natural Resources Damage Assessment process. This
final report would have included a "responsiveness summary" (the agencies'
written responses to citizens' hearing testimony and letters).
Also, it would have included a "preliminary estimate of damages"
with more complete totals than previously reported, and a "demand for sum
certain" (a final bill to be presented to the responsible polluters.)
We were told recently that as long as the governments were satisfied
with the negotiated settlements, the Report of Assessment could be skipped,
because the polluters don't want to have to pay for its preparation.
The Service says they will write the report only if a polluter sues to
oppose their portion of the Restoration Plan. Citizens will be asked to
comment on the final proposed Restoration Plan without the benefit of this
information, and we may never have a final accounting.
11. Taypayer Costs Should Be Fully Reimbursed --- This G-P settlement
allocates only $1.5 million to reimburse federal costs of assessment, $50,000
toward the state's costs, and $50,000 towards the $311,322 cost of federal
management of the 56/57 dredging site cleanup. . We've been told the government
spent approximately $10 million to prepare the multi-document scientific
damage assessments and economic damage models, over the 8 year study period.
We must insist that these costs are separate, and in addition to, the compensation
and restoration settlement from the polluters. The state's costs
should also be reimbursed completely. (After all, why should taxpayers
be stuck with this?) G-P's $1.6 million offer isn't enough.
12. Industry Pressure Politics --- We've heard may instances
of the Fox River Group of paper industries sending company lawyers and
lobbyists to meet with our local, state and federal agency officials and
our elected representatives, keeping up constant lobbying pressure for
weakening the cleanup and compensation plans. Ordinary citizens have
no way to balance against that pressure, and it's obviously costing us
millions of dollars now.
Campaign contributions also seem to play a role: Congressman Mark
Green, a prominent Republican influence in these negotiations, received
$6,500
in contributions from Georgia-Pacific Corporation for his most recent election
cycle (not including soft-money, conduit or PAC contributions indirectly
from G-P). Not surprisingly, Green has been a big defender of the
paper industry against PCB cleanup and compensation.
Another influence is Lee Thomas, President of G-P's Division of Building
Products and Distribution. Thomas was the U.S. EPA Administrator
from 1985 to 1989, under the Reagan and Bush (Senior) Administrations.
He previously served as EPA Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, which included management of the Superfund program.
It's obvious Thomas would still have strong connections within the new
Bush Administration, and he would know exactly how to use his influence
within the Superfund and related NRDA programs. (See Corporate
Takeover)
13. This Settlement is NOT Better than Last Years' ---
Last year's $7 million settlement proposal was supposed to cover only the
State of Wisconsin's share, and did not include further dollars
to compensate Michigan, tribal and federal damages. Those damages
would have required a second separate settlement. Therefore, the
doubling of dollars over last year's proposal is misleading because ALL
the government damages from all levels are combined in this one settlement.
This is definitely not a "better deal."
14. Bad Precedent Being Set --- Government officials call this
settlement a "good start," but it is final and sets a terrible example
as the first of 7 settlements with individual corporations which dumped
PCBs in the Fox River. If G-P gets away with paying only 20% of its
responsibility, the others will demand equal treatment. This is a
major compromise on top of an already compromised conservative damage assessment.
