23 April 2003

Thomas V. Skinner, Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL  60604

P. Scott Hassett, Secretary
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster St.
Madison, WI 53707

Dear Administrator Skinner and Secretary Hassett:

We are writing to share some of our concerns surrounding the Fox River cleanup, specifically the partial Record of Decision (ROD) released on January 7, 2003 and the rest of the ROD to be released in June.  This letter outlines our concerns with the ROD and our recommendations for a strong and fully protective cleanup for the remainder of the Fox River and Green Bay.

As you know, many of our organizations and hundreds of Wisconsin and Michigan residents wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) in December to express concern with the decision to release the ROD in segments.  We urge you to start the cleanup in the first stretches of the Fox River now and release the second piece of the ROD as soon as possible so as not to delay the cleanup.

The first piece of the ROD sets dangerous precedents for the rest of the cleanup.  Therefore, we urge you to take all steps possible to ensure that these deficiencies are not mirrored in the second piece.  Specifically, we ask that:

• the “Contingent Remedy” loophole be eliminated;
• the one ppm action level, which is not protective of human health and the environment, be reduced to a more protective 0.25 ppm, and;
• the Record of Decision not use “natural recovery” as a method of remediation.

The partial ROD contains a loophole that risks less permanent cleanup measures and undermines the public involvement process.  The loophole, laid out in Section 13.4:Contingent Remedy – In Situ Capping, says that an “alternative remedy” can be used if it is as protective and costs less.  The emphasis throughout the rest of the document and in EPA’s summary is on “costs less.”  The decision does not clearly explain who would evaluate any “alternative remedies” or how those remedies would be evaluated.

We agree that flexibility must be a component of any cleanup plan as extensive and complex as that proposed for the Fox River and Green Bay.  We also support using that flexibility to employ techniques that further reduce risk.  It is prudent to leave the door open for capping after dredging, if dredging is unable to reduce risk to acceptable levels.  However, we are very concerned that this “contingent remedy” section provides too much latitude to the seven paper companies who discharged the PCBs, leaving the door open for the inappropriate use of capping as a remedy.

The Contingent Remedy section also does not require any public consultation or input should decisions be made to employ technologies or approaches other than hydraulic dredging.  For example, a decision to cap rather than dredge contaminated sediments would be a significant and dangerous departure from the cleanup plan as it currently exists.  Yet, the “flexibility” in the plan allows this departure without public input or recourse.

Weak Cleanup Level

The cleanup level specified in the partial ROD does not adequately protect human health and the environment.  The agencies’ own Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study/Risk Assessment (RI/FS/RA) indicates that an action level of one part per million (ppm) was evaluated because it was a “commonly implemented action level” (FS, Section 5.1.2), not because it met human health or ecological endpoints.  The RI/FS/RA further indicates that an action level of one ppm is many times higher than levels protective of human health and wildlife.  For example, it is 90 times higher than PCB sediment concentrations that are fully protective of human health, and over 40 times higher than concentrations that are fully protective of wildlife.

We need an action level that is protective of humans and the environment.  And we need to select that level in a context where we do not have the ability to quantify all the risks posed by PCBs in the ecosystem.  Research continually reveals new ways in which PCBs adversely affect human health and development.  Even “background levels” of PCBs have been found to impair human functions.  PCBs have been linked to myriad health effects, ranging from diabetes to developmental disorders, from endometriosis to impaired memory function; and the list continues to grow.  Human exposure is similarly difficult to quantify.  We are exposed to PCBs, PCB-like compounds, and other persistent, bioaccumulative toxic substances every day in meat, dairy products, even the air we breathe and the rain that falls.  These chemicals build up in our bodies and interact in ways unknown.  No risk reduction scenario can account for the multitude of chemicals and myriad pathways we are exposed to them.  We will never find a “safe” level of PCBs, so we must choose the lowest action level with which we can live.

We urge the agencies not to make the same dangerous decision for the rest of the Fox River and Green Bay.  The RI/FS/RA clearly states an action level of one ppm is simply not stringent enough to achieve human health or wildlife endpoints in the specified time frame for any part of the river from Little Rapids to Green Bay (Operational Units 3 and 4).  It continues to say that a 0.25 ppm action level is the “most cost-effective PCB action level that meets protective thresholds.”  Please follow the recommendations provided in your own research and set a 0.25 ppm action level for the Fox River and for those hot spots of the Bay that will be subject to removal of contaminated sediment. 

Natural Recovery

The Record of Decision for the 20-mile stretch of the Fox River between Appleton and Little Rapids does not require removal of contaminated sediments; rather, it relies on “natural processes to break down, dilute, or bury PCBs” in this river stretch.  This assumption is in stark contrast with the conclusions and recommendations of the agencies’ own Feasibility Study, and with the vast scientific literature on PCBs, which conclude that significant natural degradation of PCBs in sediments does not and will not occur in the Fox River or Green Bay.  Therefore, it is likely that “natural recovery” will not result in any substantial reduction in PCB concentrations in this river stretch, nor will it allow the stretch to meet remedial objectives identified by the U.S. EPA and WDNR.   We urge that this remedy not appear in the ROD for the rest of the Fox River and Green Bay.

Conclusions and Recommendations

PCBs and other contaminants in the Fox River and Green Bay pose significant risks to human health and the environment.  Contamination of the area has stigmatized this region of Wisconsin as unfit for the recreational and other non-industrial uses for which Wisconsin has become so well known.  These problems can be reduced or eliminated with a strong cleanup plan that removes PCB-contaminated sediments from all parts of the River and at least from the lower part of Green Bay.

The years of research and expertise culminating in the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and Risk Assessment provide the blueprint for the safest, most permanent course of action to cleanup the Fox River and Green Bay.  Therefore, we call on the EPA and the WDNR to follow their own recommendations and adopt a cleanup plan for the Fox River and Lower Green Bay that:

• Acknowledges that flexibility is appropriate in any cleanup plan, but requires public scrutiny and input should changes be proposed, and well before those changes are implemented; 
• Removes sediment contaminated with PCBs at levels above 0.25 ppm, a level that fully protects human health and the environment in a reasonable time frame; and
• Rejects the concept of “monitored natural recovery,” which will not be effective in reducing PCB concentrations in any stretch of the Fox River or Green Bay.

Don’t hesitate to contact Dr. Foran of CBE (414-271-7280, E:Jforan@cbemw.org), or representatives of any of the groups listed below, should you have any questions about this letter.

Jeffery A. Foran, Ph.D.
President
Citizens for a Better Environment

Laura Olah
Executive Director
Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger

Rebecca Katers
Executive Director
Clean Water Action Council 

Jerry Viste
Executive Director
Door County Environmental Council

John Schwartzmann
Secretary/Treasurer
Environmentally Concerned Citizens of the Lakeland Area

Margaret Wooster
Executive Director
Great Lakes United

Laurel O’Sullivan
Staff Counsel
Lake Michigan Federation

Robert Olsgard
Lake Superior Waterkeeper
Lake Superior Alliance

Jan Conley
Chair
Lake Superior Greens

Karen Etter Hale
Executive Secretary
Madison Audubon Society

Melissa Scanlon
Executive Director
Midwest Environmental Advocates

Michael Murray
Staff Scientist
National Wildlife Federation

Kris Trofka
President
Northeast Wisconsin Student Environmental Network

Ted Neitzke
President
Random Lake Protection Association

Diana Toledo
Acting Executive Director
River Alliance of Wisconsin

Emily Green
Director
Sierra Club Great Lakes Program

Lori Weyers
Conservation Chair
Sierra Club Fox Valley Group

Caryl Terrell
Chapter Director
Sierra Club John Muir Chapter

Marsha Cannon
President
Wisconsin Audubon Council

Mike Hoffman
President
Wisconsin B.A.S.S. Federation

Kathy Pielsticker
Executive Director
Wisconsin League of Conservation Voters

Kerry Schumann
Director
Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group

Al Gedicks
Executive Director
Wisconsin Resources Protection Council

Herb Buettner
President
Wolf River Chapter of Trout Unlimited

Robert Schmitz
President
Wolf River Watershed Alliance
 

c. William Muno, U.S. EPA Region V
Jim Hahanenberg, U.S. EPA Region V
Bonnie Eleder, U.S. EPA Region V
Harald Jordahl, Office of Wisconsin Governor Doyle
Todd Ambs, WDNR Water Division
Bruce Baker, WDNR Water Division
 
Back to Fox River Watch