Table of Contents

Fox River - First Version of Clean Up Plan Proposed by DNR
Initial Concerns About Fox River Cleanup Proposal
Help Bring Back Political Balance to Wisconsin

Restore DNR Independence and the Public Intervenor Office
The DNR Secretary - Does He  Work for You or the Governor?
A Smaller, Crippled Agency
Gov. Thompson Cut DNR Enforcement
The Public Intervenor - Protecting Public Rights
A Broken Promise
Help Business but not Citizens?

Minergy Case Dismissed
What You Can Do

Fox River - First Version of Clean Up Plan Proposed by DNR

Finally, after years of waiting, we have a specific proposal to study.

The DNR has just released the first draft of the RIFS (Remedial
Investigation Feasibility Study) for assessing the health risks, setting
clean up standards, and proposing a  range of technologies to clean the
river to meet those standards.
 
The study was funded with $1.6 million from the federal
government, through the EPA's Superfund program.  (Don't say the federal
government never does anything for you....)
 
Because of political pressure, the EPA turned the money and control
over to the state DNR --- which has us very nervous, given Governor
Thompson's political direction of the agency and the DNR's recent mistakes
at the Deposit N sediment dredging demonstration project in Little Chute
and Kimberly.
 
The DNR's first act with the money was to hire a consulting firm
recommended by the paper industries responsible for the Fox River PCB
contamination, called RETEC (Remediation Technologies, Inc.)   RETEC wrote
the RIFS study.
 
We looked at  RETEC's background last summer and discovered they
had direct financial ties through their parent company to paper industries
in the Fox River Valley, and they usually work for polluters against
Superfund cleanups in other parts of the country.
 
On RETEC's internet homepage they described their work for the
American Petroleum Institute, the National Petroleum Refiners Association,
the American Wood Preservers Institute, and the Association of American
Railroads.  In addition, they said, "Our staff sits on the Superfund and
RCRA subcommittees for the National Association of Manufacturers."
 
Naturally, we're concerned about the potential bias of RETEC's study on the Fox River, and will be reading the study very carefully and checking with other experts on its technical accuracy.
 
RETEC was not the consultant of choice by EPA or the other federal
agencies, but Gov. Thompson and local leaders have made such a political
stink about "local control" that EPA has been timid  (too timid, in our
view) about publicly contradicting the DNR or interfering with DNR
decisions like this one.

Up to Top

Initial Concerns About Fox River Cleanup Proposal

Clean Water Action Council supports a strong clean-up, but our
first scan of the plan's options  shows reason for concern:

1.  No Aggressive Option --- DNR presents several options for river
clean-up; however, the most aggressive option is only a moderate cleanup.
We were promised a full range of options, but it hasn't happened.

2.  Significant Sediment Contamination Left Behind --- In it's strongest
option, DNR proposes an average residual level of 250 ppb of PCBs in the
river.  (This equals .25 ppm.)   The DNR backed away from earlier, more
stringent proposed cleanup standards discussed at public meetings.   An
average target level means pockets of higher level PCBs will be left in the
river.

3.  Significant Fish & Duck Contamination Left Behind --- In its strongest
option, DNR proposes to meet only the fish eating advisory levels of 50 ppb
in sport fish, claiming this will allow "unlimited" consumption of sport
fish.   Unfortunately, this "unlimited" level is not the same as  "safe."
The 50 ppb standard is a politically compromised number set by the 8 Great
Lakes states to protect the tourism industry along with public health.   It
still allows a 1-in-10,000 cancer risk and does not adequately protect
those who consume higher levels of fattier fish like carp or sucker.   It
is not protective of subsistence fishers --- those who eat large quantities
of fish for cultural or survival reasons.  Low income people will still be
at risk, as will those who eat large amounts of both contaminated fish, and
ducks from our river and bay.

4.  Wildlife Still Suffers --- The DNR admits their most aggressive option
would still allow significant health risk for wildlife in the river and bay
--- which is unacceptable.

5.  How Much Time? --- The plan also uses time as a cleanup method ---
allowing some of the PCBs to disperse into the air and Lake Michigan to
achieve dilution.  We don't allow industry to discharge significant PCBs
--- why allow the river to?   The PCB water quality standard was set for
industry dischargers allowing only a 1-in-100,000 cancer risk, yet the
river will be allowed to continue to violate this standard until the
remaining PCBs flush downstream.    Clean Water would support a more
aggressive schedule to minimize this PCB release.

6.  No Aggressive Treatment ---  Landfill Concerns --- The most aggressive
option does not include much PCB detoxification, despite the availability
of several proven technologies.   Some options include treatment, but only
for sediments over 50 ppm (this is a PCB concentration 20,000 higher than
DNR's most aggressive cleanup standard of 250 ppb. )    This leaves
us with landfill contamination concerns, and irritation that DNR is still
pursuing the second demonstratin project by Fort James Corporation in Green
Bay, called Deposit 56/57.   This site has the highest concentrations of
PCBs anywhere in the river, up to 700 ppm, but DNR refuses to require any
detoxification there --- so they are pre-empting the treatment option in
the plan --- which shows they are not likely to require treatment anywhere.
 
The other concern is it seems DNR's version of favored "detoxification" is to simply burn the high level PCB sediments in an incinerator (thermal oxidizer)  instead of using safer alternatives like thermal desorption which uses lower heat and pressure to extract and destroy the PCBs in a contained system without the
risk of serious air pollution with dioxins and mercury.

7.  Kidney Island Again? --- One of the plan options is to build several
CDFs (Confined Disposal Facilities) in the river to hold the dredge spoils.
Clean Water members might think back to the $20,000 we spent and the year
of our lives lost to fight the Kidney Island expansion in court.  That
struggle lasted 13 years, and we finally proved in court that DNR was wrong
(and couldn't be trusted.)   DNR proposes the same leaky design as the
existing Kidney Island (interlocking sheet metal with big rip-rap rocks
around the outside.)  Dye-tracers in 3 other Wisconsin CDFs show this style
leaks like a sieve, and is impossible to monitor effectively.
 
DNR actually told news reporters that the Arrowhead Park lakefill
in Neenah shows that the material can be safely contained, when we know
that monitoring there has been grossly inadequate, the hazardous waste site
hasn't been properly contained or capped, and DNR allowed the Public Trust
Doctrine to be violated there by building Minergy on top of it.   (Hardly
something to brag about.)  What will DNR allow on top of the new CDFs?
More incinerators?
 
DNR claims CDFs are a low cost option, but only in the short term.
The long-term maintenance cost will far outstrip costs of detoxification efforts now.
 
The river walls of a CDF would face constant erosion pressures,
especially during the powerful spring and fall ice shoves.   Major storms
can completely rearrange a river shoreline --- rocks or no rocks.  Sheet
metal would eventually corrode and require repeated replacement at high
cost.
 
A CDF must last thousands of years --- because the toxic
contaminants (PCBs, dioxins, heavy metals) are permanent.   Do we really
want to leave future generations with this problem?
 
Predictably, DNR is selling the news media and public on  CDFs by
describing them as havens for waterfront recreation  and a boon to tourism
--- which is exactly how Brown County got stuck with Kidney Island.   The
reality is the public gets taxed for a  high maintenance dump where no
trees or shrubs can be grown (their roots can puncture the cap and bring up
contaminants.)   And the sediment must be dewatered somehow, or the CDF
will never quite dry-out and settle.   CDF's  can form crusts over quaking
mud, where recreation could be hazardous.
 
And finally, why should industries be allowed (again) to fill in
major portions of the river's natural bottom and shoreline, just to keep
costs down in the short term?

8.  "Partners" Given Only One Week to Review --- The DNR gave its federal
"partners" in the U.S. EPA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, National Oceanic
& Atmospheric Administration and the Oneida and Menominee Tribes only one
week to review the study before completing it and announcing it to the
public.
 
Worse yet, the DNR sent it electronically, in several sets of
computer documents which had to be downloaded and printed --- a tedious
process which takes a full day or more with such a huge pile of material.

As a result, the other agencies were able to review only a few
chapters before the deadline.   Even so, they each sent several pages of
proposed revisions.
 
This document is highly technical, complex and takes up a couple of
feet of shelf space.   DNR should have given all the technical "partners"
adequate time, if only to help DNR produce a more legally and technically
defensible document.
 
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service alone has 90 different technical
experts working of the Fox River issue --- the DNR should welcome their
assistance, not shut them out.   The DNR's continuing hostility to the
federal agencies and Tribes is counterproductive and damaging to the
integrity of the final plan.

9.  DNR News Control --- Our Executive Director, Rebecca Katers, had an
interesting experience last week.   The editors of the Green Bay News
Chronicle invited her to sit in on an Editorial Board meeting they were
holding with 3 DNR staff, including George Meyer, the DNR Secretary.   The
DNR was there to explain the RIFS study to the news reporters, and the
editors wanted Rebecca there to help ask questions.
 
When George Meyer heard that Rebecca was present, he nearly walked
out and protested vehemently against her presence.  She had to leave before
Meyer would agree to meet with the reporters.
 
DNR also failed to provide us with any background information before they released their study --- we had to get DNR's press release and summary from a local TV station.   DNR knew we would be inundated with media calls and questions, and they wanted us to know none of the plan details.
 
DNR claims they want public input and involvement, but apparently they don't want informed involvement.
 
Under Gov. Thompson, our DNR seems more interested in media spin,
and giving the appearance of public openness.

Conclusion

We are thankful to Superfund, and support Federal leadership in this
process.  We appreciate that the federal government (through EPA) provided
our state DNR the $1.6 million in funding for this study, using money from
the Superfund program, but we urge the EPA and other federal agencies to be
more assertive in leading the outcome of the study  and to correct the
weaknesses outline above.
 
The state DNR, and industry consultants like RETEC, should not have
sole control of either the planning or cleanup.
 
We urge citizens throughout Wisconsin to take advantage of the 45
day public comment period and let DNR and other political leaders know how
they feel. Copies of the study are available on several Fox Valley
libraries.
 
We need to ensure the cleanup is done right.   Public health and
wildlife must be protected.

What You Can Do

Please write a letter!   The public has 45 days to review and
comment on the RIFS plan.   (This is the draft RIFS, the final RIFS will be
released for comment this summer.
 
After that second comment period, DNR plans to issue a final
cleanup plan called the Record of Decision.   That document will outline
the final plan and a time line for the project, and is expected to be out
by the end of the year.   This is the same process EPA uses under
Superfund, and the state hopes to prevent Superfund by successfully
completing all these steps.

Write a Letter to (by the April 12 deadline):

Lower Fox River Cleanup
RR/3
Wisconsin DNR
101 S. Webster
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI  53707

Attend Meetings

Please attend two public meetings to discuss the study next month.
The meetings will begin at 7 p.m. but regulators will be available from
6:00 to 7:00 p.m. to answer questions.
 
It's very important to have lots of people attending and showing
support for a strong river cleanup.   The paper companies will probably
mobilize hundreds of their workers against the cleanup.

Monday, March 22

7:00 p.m.
Brown County Public Library
515 Pine Street
Green Bay

Tuesday, March 23
7:00 p.m.
Fox Valley Technical College
1825 N. Bluemound Drive
Appleton

Read the Report

You can view a copy of the RIFS at the main public libraries in
several Fox Valley communities (call first to be sure.)   The Door County
library in Sturgeon Bay also has a copy.   Otherwise the DNR has posted it
to the Internet at www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/
lowerfox. The EPA's site is at www.epa.gov/region5/foxriver.

For more information, call Irene Sadowski at DNR's public affairs
office at (608) 264-8952.

Up to Top

Help Bring Back Political Balance to Wisconsin

Restore DNR Independence and the Public Intervenor Office

The DNR Secretary - Does He  Work for You or the Governor?

In the 1995 budget, Governor Thompson (with a straight party-line
vote by Republican legislators) made sweeping changes in the way Wisconsin
manages environmental issues, by destroying the Public Intervenor Office ,
and giving the Governor direct control of the DNR Secretary and all the DNR
District Supervisors.

Previously, the DNR Secretary had answered to an independent
citizen committee called the Natural Resources Board.    The citizens were
appointed to 6 year terms by the Governor, but once appointed, they made
independent decisions.   The old system allowed some political influence,
but usually the Board was a mix of people appointed by different governors.

Though the 7 private citizens who serve on the Natural Resources
Board still decide DNR policy, they no longer oversee implementation of
those policies.

This creates the potential for serious conflicts between the Board
and Governor's Office, and introduces direct political pressures into the
agency.   DNR staff are constantly looking back over their shoulders for
"politically correct" decisions.

And now, the Governor and his cronies are directly involved in
DNR's everyday activities, and it shows.  The Governor used the DNR
Secretary to negotiate gaming compacts with Wisconsin's Tribes, and
frequently uses him as a Governor's representative at political events ---
which is not his job.

As a result of the takeover of the DNR, Governor Thompson appointed
his own people to key management positions within the DNR, positions which
used to be filled based on agency experience, technical training, and
merit.

DNR staff morale is so low that Wisconsin is losing its best staff in a steady stream. These changes threaten the quality of natural resource protection in Wisconsin.

A Smaller, Crippled Agency

Since the Governor took over in 1995,  DNR has been drasticly
altered. The agency has cut 450 jobs, slashed the budget, and shuffled
the remaining staff all over the state, especially the most experienced
staff.  Given the technical nature of most environmental issues, this is a
recipe for mistakes and confusion.   It seems to be a deliberate effort to
destroy the institutional memory of DNR.

It doesn't help that the Governor, his Secretary, and even the staff  now refer to DNR offices as "Customer Service Centers" and refer to polluting industries as  "clients" or "customers."

Gov. Thompson Cut DNR Enforcement

When Gov. Thompson took control of DNR, he made appointments of political friends to key positions in DNR.    One of the worst was David Maier, who previously worked as a Thompson aide, and in the Wis. Dept. of Transportation (DOT). Thompson made Maier the Administrator of DNR's Division of Enforcement and Science, one of the most powerful DNR staff positions.

Maier was completely unqualified for this job. In fact, when he
worked at Dept. of Transportation, he was involved in efforts to exempt DOT
from the Wis. Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental impact
studies.   And the DOT tried to get an exemption from the endangered
species law.  Mr. Maier has gotten his jobs without competition against
qualified public servants with years of experience.   While at DOT he was
only a "Limited Term Employee."

As DNR Administrator, Mr. Maier oversees highly sensitive issues,
including sign-off on Environmental Impact Statements, endangered species,
the Nicolet Mine in Crandon, and ALL enforcement actions by DNR.   He
oversees research, environmental analysis, and review.

Not surprisingly, DNR law enforcement dropped significantly after
Maier's appointment.  The number of cases DNR referred to the Dept. of
Justice for prosecution dropped from 165 and 170 total cases in 1995 and
1996, to only 92 cases in 1997.

In addition, the records show polluting industries are much less
likely to legally challenge the strictness of their permits.   These cases
dropped by half.   This indicates new discharge permits are weaker and
polluters are more satisfied with their permits.

We've been told by several sources within DNR that DNR staff are so demoralized by the lack of enforcement, they no longer bother to gather evidence of violations to help build cases. They know it won't be used for proper enforcement.

The Public Intervenor - Protecting Public Rights

In 1995, Gov. Thompson eliminated the Wis. Public Intervenor Office,
which had two attorneys advocating for public rights in the natural
resources of Wisconsin.   They were watchdogs over state and federal
agencies to ensure compliance with environmental laws.

(In 1995, a phony Intervenor was created in the DNR, but that
office has now been eliminated.)

For 26 years, thousands of citizens, even legislators,
received experienced consultation and referrals through the Intervenors.
Now, we have no public source of legal advice or assistance for
environmental issues.   Most citizen groups can't afford private legal fees.

In addition, most private attornies lack the political stature,
technical legal standing, and connections which the Intervenors had.   The
Attorney General can't do the Intervenor's job, because it is required to
defend state agencies when they're challenged.   Meanwhile,
powerful corporations, wealthy individuals are free to use their political
power, and their large financial and legal staff resources against us.
And government bureaucrats can thumb their noses at citizens and use our
taxdollars on government attorneys to fight against us.

Just look at the more than $60,000 citizens have already spent on
the Minergy Incinerator case in Neenah  (and even more may be needed ---
see article on page 8.)   Or look at the Kidney Island case in Green Bay.
Though part of the attorney fees and all of the expert time was donated for
that case, it still cost us nearly $20,000 and a year of our lives.

Why should private citizens have to go to court to force the
government to do its job?  Why should private citizens be forced to
protect the Public Trust Doctrine and water quality in Green Bay?   We need
a watchdog within government to keep the government honest --- and funded
by all the taxpayers who benefit from clean water, clean air, recreational
sites, and healthy wildlife.   The Governor argues that taxpayers shouldn't
be required to provide lawyers for environmentalists, but most people
fighting environmental battles are just ordinary everyday citizens, not
"environmentalists."

It's important to recognize that lawsuits were not the main
activity of the Intervenors.   They often brought opponents together to
negotiate reasonable compromises.  And provided legal and technical
comments on proposed regulations.   Just their presence  prevented many bad
proposals from surfacing.

Since the Intervenor Office closed, we've seen a huge increase in
bad rule revisions and permit decisions at DNR and other agencies -- but
citizens lack the money and technical knowledge to challenge all these
rapid changes.

A Broken Promise

The legislature and Governor broke a solemn promise to the people
when the Intervenor's Office was elimianted.

In 1967, Governor Knowles proposed to merge two different
departments, the old Conservation Department and the Department of Resource
Development, to create a new Department of Natural Resources.

Hundreds of  hunters, trappers, boaters, anglers, and outdoor
recreationists marched on the Capitol in protest, because they knew that
"conservation" interests would be overwhelmed by "development" interests
when the two contradictory agencies were combined.   They knew our natural
resources were at risk.

The old Conservation Department had often intervened with other
agencies to defend Wisconsin's Public Trust Doctrine and public rights to
natural resources of the state.

To address the widespread public concern over the merger, in 1967
the Governor (a  Republican) and the Legislature intentionally preserved
the advocacy function by creating a new Public Intervenor's Office in the
Dept. of Justice, charged with protecting public rights in the water and
other natural resources of the state.   The Legislators recognized the
validity of conservationists concerns and provided the Public Intervenors
to balance the development interests.

The compromise allowed the merger to proceed.

Twenty six years later, the Legislature reneged on the deal, but we
haven't forgotten.

Help Business but not Citizens?

The irony is that we now have a huge Department of Commerce in
Wisconsin with an annual budget around $200,000,000.   This government
agency was set up deliberately to assist corporations and business with
promotions and permit streamlining.   The money is spent to provide
ombudsmen, technical advisors, hotlines, training funds, grants, revolving
loans, tax breaks and other assistance to (often wealthy) business
interests in Wisconsin  --- using our taxdollars.

At the same time, private citizens faced with enormous environmental problems have nowhere to turn.   The DNR has been so politicized that it essentially works for the Governor and is unresponsive to citizen concerns.   The Governor controls the DNR attorneys, at taxpayer expense, and ordinary citizens are out of luck.

What You Can Do

Please contact your state legislators and tell them how you feel about the following two proposed bills in the state legislature.

 * You might ask them whether  they are co-sponsors of the bills yet, and if not, why
not?

* Tell them why this issue is important to you.

 * Ask them to take action.

 * Keep letters short and friendly.
    Nothing fancy.

AB68

This bill was introduced last month by Rep. Spencer Black, and
would restore the DNR Secretary's independence from the Governor.

Intervenor Bill

Another bill is being introduced this week (no bill number yet) by Rep. Spencer Black and Sen. Gary George to restore the Public Intervenor Office.

State Senator
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI  53707

State Rep.  (Last Name, A to  L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI  53708

State Rep.  (Last Name, Mc to  Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI  53708

(If you don't know who your elected state representatives are, call  the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays.)

Up to Top

Minergy Case Dismissed

We were all shocked and dismayed  when Winnebago Co. Circuit Court
Judge William Crane dismissed our lawsuit against the City of Neenah,
Minergy Corporation, and P.H. Glatfelter last week.
 
In 1996, Clean Water Action Council had joined with the lead
plaintiffs John and Ann Gillen of Neenah, Bill Dunwiddie of Oshkosh, and
local citizen group, Friends of Our Neenah Parks.  We sought removal of the
enormous Minergy Plant (owned by WEPCO) which burns up to 1,000 tons per
day of papermill sludge from 6 different paper mills.   We went all the way
to the state Supreme Court, just to get the "legal standing" to sue at the
lower court.
 
Our attorney, William O'Conner of Madison, had argued for us that
Minergy occupied "Public Trust Land" which was supposed to be for public
uses only forever under the "Public Trust Doctrine."
 
The judge justified his dismissal by saying the incinerator served
a public good by reducing demand on landfill space, and besides, the public
hadn't been using the land as a park anyway [...because the public couldn't
see the park, it wasn't promoted, and access to the park was restricted.]
The irony is that Winnebago County officials recently argued that they
needed to accept Fox River sediments because they lack revenues from a
recent drop in wastes.

What is the Public Trust Doctrine?

Under Wisconsin's "Public Trust Doctrine," (which is part
of our state Constitution) the bottoms of all our lakes, rivers and streams
are held in "public trust" for the enjoyment of all Wisconsin citizens.

This is an extremely important law and is the basis for
many other laws.  Among other things, it protects public access to
waterways for boating, fishing, and other public recreation and subsistence
food-gathering rights.

Occasionally, the state legislature will give a "lakebed
grant" to fill in part of a lake, river or stream --- but with the strict
requirement that the solid land created can only be used for public purposes

P.H. Glatfelter(then Bergstrom) received a lakebed grant
from the state legislature in the 1950's, on the condition that the sludge
fill area would eventually become a public park.   (Though the park is
contaminated, it could be cleaned up and it could be a wonderful waterfront
park.)  Now, the City of Neenah has signed a lease, and DNR has signed a
questionable waiver to allow Minergy to be built on this public park land.

Minergy violates the Doctrine and sets a terrible precedent
for other areas of the state.  Now, we must decide whether we have the
major financial resources to appeal the case to a higher court.

Up to Top

What You Can Do

Contact Your Elected Officials

Contact Wisconsin Governor Thompson

Governor Tommy Thompson 
Room 115 East, State Capitol 
P.O. Box 7863 
Madison, WI 53707 
Ph: 608-266-1212 
FAX: 608-267-8983 
wisgov@mail.state.wi.us

Representatives: Email & Web Page Addresses and Toll-Free Numbers
Senators:  Email & Web Page Addresses

State Senator 
P.O. Box 7882 
Madison, WI  53707 

State Rep.    (Last Name, A thru L) 
P.O. Box 8952 
Madison, WI  53708 

State Rep.    (Last Name, Mc thru Z) 
P.O. Box 8953 
Madison, WI  53708 

(If you don’t know who your elected state representatives are, 
call the Legislative Hotline 1-800-362-9472  on weekdays.)