See computer-generated pictures taken by EPA
showing the PCBs surface concentrations before and after the dredging

From: "Rebecca Leighton Katers" <cwac@mail.execpc.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2000 10:51:39 +0000

Letter sent to the EPA from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, urging 
emergency action to cleanup up the disastrous incomplete PCB dredging 
project (56/57) in the Fox River, near Fort James Corporation, in 
Green Bay, Wisconsin:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To:  Frank Lyons
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590

Dear Mr. Lyons:

As the Authorized Official for the U.S. Department of the Interior
(Department) for the Green Bay Natural Resource Damage Assessment, I
am writing to urge immediate action to address an environmental
emergency that has occurred at sediment management unit 56/57 (SMU
56/57) on the Lower Fox River.  Specifically, I am writing in support
of a unilateral administrative order, pursuant to Section 106 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), to address the greatly elevated concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that have been exposed as a result of
the dredging project conducted at the site under the auspices of the
January 31, 1997, agreement between the State of Wisconsin and certain
paper companies on the Lower Fox River (Agreement).  As you know, the
surface layer of sediments now contain very high concentrations of
PCBs in areas where dredging was begun but not completed.

The natural resource trustees are greatly concerned that this
situation presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to public
health, the environment, and associated natural resources.  The newly
exposed PCB-contaminated sediments can be reasonably expected to
migrate both downstream (during high flow events) and upstream (due to
Green Bay seiches) of SMU 56/57 and cause further injuries to natural
resources.  In light of these concerns, we are prepared to provide any
technical assistance that could help the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) in issuing an order to address the elevated PCB
concentrations at SMU 56/57, as well as to ensure that any order is as
effective as possible in protecting natural resources throughout the
Green Bay Environment.  In addition, consistent with the partnership
approach we have taken at this site, the Department would be willing
to sign the order jointly with you, and we are working to explore the
opportunities for taking such an action jointly.

There are several critical issues which must be addressed by any order
if it is to maximize our opportunities to eliminate the imminent and
substantial harm to natural resources at or near the SMU 56/57
project.  First, we must act very quickly.  We cannot afford to waste
most of the field season preparing the order or mobilizing equipment. 
The river most assuredly will freeze again next winter, and it is
important that any emergency response action or interim emergency
response action be completed before then.  Further, even though
Northeast Wisconsin has just experienced the sixth driest winter on
record, the Fox River is already above its average flow because of
seasonal high flows.  A substantial rain event or above average
rainfall could cause catastrophic resuspension of PCBs into the Green
Bay Environment if we fail to respond in time.  Therefore, it is
critically important that actual work begin no later than May 1, and
even earlier if it would be possible to expedite the process by
concurrently drafting the order, assigning an on-scene coordinator,
accessing the Superfund, and mobilizing contractors.

A second critical issue which must be addressed by any order is the
need to design a discrete project that can be completed during a
single field season.  As we have seen at SMU 56/57, an inability to
completely remove highly contaminated sub-surface layers during a
single field season is likely to result in elevated PCB
concentrations.  Therefore, no new surface area should be dredged at
all unless that area can be dredged completely to remove the more
highly contaminated sub-surface layers during a single field season. 
Further, except in the context of a complete OU4 remedy, no new
surface area should be dredged unless that new dredging would reduce
PCB concentrations at the edge of the expanded project area.  Finally,
no new surface area should be dredged unless sufficient funding,
equipment, and personnel are in place to complete the entire project
this field season.  Obviously, this must include realistic
contingencies for both cost and time overruns.

A third critical issue which must be addressed is day-to-day control
of the project.  It is my strong opinion that day-to-day control of
the project should rest exclusively with an Agency on-scene
coordinator.  This will ensure that the project is conducted in
accordance with the requirements of CERCLA, its implementing
regulations, and Agency policy.  Moreover, an Agency on-scene
coordinator will ensure that the sole focus of the project is to
achieve the intergovernmental partners= objective of responding to
this emergency quickly and effectively, without the potential
diversion of incorporating any of the various modeling, demonstration,
or mass removal goals associated with the original project.

Finally, we remain skeptical regarding the efficacy and
cost-effectiveness of large-scale capping in OU4, given the river bed
elevation data in ATechnical Memorandum 2G@ prepared by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the lack of data during very large
flows caused by floods and seiche events.  Nevertheless, we believe
that temporary capping may be necessary at SMU 56/57 in two instances:
(1) as a temporary measure to prevent sloughing and erosion at the
edge of the project where it intersects with (previously) sub-surface
layers of highly contaminated sediment, and (2) at the end of field
seasons, as a temporary measure to minimize risks associated with 
exposing sub-surface layers with elevated concentrations, if dredging 
of OU4 is undertaken but cannot be completed within a single field 
season.  Therefore, responding to SMU 56/57 may provide the ancillary 
benefit oftesting the effectiveness of temporary caps for reducing 
winter risks in a multi-year dredging project for OU4.

I believe that the four critical issues I have identified will
determine whether the intergovernmental partners are successful at
addressing the emergency situation at SMU 56/57.  At a minimum,
therefore, I recommend the following course of action:

1. Immediately post signs in the River near the SMU 56/57 project and
at boat ramps in Ashwaubenon, De Pere, and Green Bay warning fishermen
to avoid the area because of newly exposed PCBs.

2. Immediately designate an Agency on-scene coordinator and
re-mobilize dredging equipment at SMU 56/57 no later than the May1,
2000 to ensure completion of dredging of all subunits where dredging
was begun.

3. Design a discrete dredging project at SMU 56/57 that does not
include dredging of any new surface area unless the new dredging would
reduce PCB concentrations at the edge of the expanded project area. 
Using realistic estimates, ensure that sufficient funding, equipment,
and personnel are in place to complete the entire project in time to
re-sample the sediment and take additional action this field season
should further action be required before winter.

4. Plan for the possibility this field season of additional cleanup
dredging, temporary stabilization of project edges, and temporary
capping of edges or the entire SMU 56/57 project area, in the event
that follow-up sampling indicates the need for these measures.

5. Prioritize Operable Unit Four (OU4) in the remedial process.  The
uncovering of surface sediments in one part of the mostly continuous
7-mile deposit of OU4 may necessitate very quick completion of full
remediation there, particularly if the more limited emergency response
action fails to eliminate the imminent and substantial endangerment of
natural resources.

6. Ensure the availability of the Superfund should the potentially
responsible parties fail to comply with the order immediately.  Since
a limited emergency response may fail to eliminate the imminent and
substantial endangerment, the Agency should also secure sufficient
funds to complete a remedy for OU4 next field season.

Please call me at 612-713-5301 if you would like to discuss any of
this further, including the opportunity to issue a joint order.

Sincerely,
 
 

cc: Apesahnekwat, MITW, Keshena, WI
Gerald Danforth, OTIW, Oneida, WI
John Lindsay, NOAA, Seattle, WA
George Meyer, WDNR, Madison, WI

bcc: Joan Goldfarb, SOL-CW, Washington, D.C.
Cynthia Hirsch, WDOJ, Madison, WI
Maureen Katz, DOJ, Washington, D.C.
Matt Richmond, AUSA, Milwaukee, WI
Charlie Wooley, FWS, Ft. Snelling, MN
Anton Giedt, NOAA, Gloucester, MA
Peggy Schneider, Oneida Law Office, Oneida, WI
Rollie Wilson, Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, Keshena, WI 
Roger Grimes, US EPA, Chicago, IL

Rebecca Leighton Katers
Clean Water Action Council of N.E. Wisconsin
East Port Center
1270 Main Street, Suite 120
Green Bay, WI 54302
Phone:  920-437-7304
Fax:  920-437-7326
E-mail:  CleanWater@cwac.net
Homepage:  www.cwac.net

CWAC.NET is designed by EarthWINS & hosted by Doteasy.com