Finally, it's official.  We have one of the worst toxic waste sites in the United States.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has finally joined in the Fox River clean up effort by nominating the Fox River to the Superfund Priority List, which initiates a strong, comprehensive federal clean-up program.
 
Superfund Provides Several Advantages:

Guaranteed Enforcement  - This could end years of haggling and power battles between Governor Thompson's DNR and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and could guarantee that clean-up enforcement will continue.  DNR and the paper industry lobbied heavily to keep the federal government out and to stop the Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service --- but if the Superfund designation goes through, citizens can be sure that federal enforcement will continue.

Complements NRDA - The NRDA by the Fish and Wildlife Service would continue, and be strengthened by the added expertise available through EPA's technical staff, who have strong sediment remediation skills.  EPA can help plan the actual clean-up.

"This is not just a local or state issue.  The Fox River may become one of the largest Superfund sites in the country, because the contamination is spread along the entire 39 miles of river between Lake Winnebago and Green Bay."

Funds Available Immediately - Superfund differs from the NRDA.  Under Superfund, money is provided up front to pay for clean-up as soon as the plans are ready, then EPA goes after the polluters for reimbursement.  Under NRDA, money would have been available only after a voluntary settlement with the paper companies, or after completion of a lawsuit (which can take years.)   We had feared that the NRDA might be prematurely settled for too little money because of pressure to get moving quickly on the clean-up.  We supported the NRDA as the only true enforcement underway at the time, but the added Superfund listing would be much stronger.  The DNR's alternative "voluntary, cooperative" efforts have been useless, deceptive, and unacceptable.

Human Health Finally Included - By law, the Fish and Wildlife Service was limited in its preparation of the NRDA.  It could only address the toxic impacts on migratory fish and birds, and clean up the river to standards protecting those fish and birds.  In contrast, the EPA can take a much more comprehensive approach addressing human health and all other natural resource values which have been impacted.  Superfund can factor in the economic and social costs to human health when assessing damages and setting clean-up standards.

Recognizes Large Impacts - This is not just a local or state issue.  The Fox River may become one of the largest Superfund sites in the country, because the contamination is spread along the entire 39 miles of river between Lake Winnebago and Green Bay.  The Fox River also affects a large geographic area: all of Lake Michigan (and Lake Huron which is directly connected).  In addition, nearly 4,000 pounds of PCBs rise into the air off the water each year to create toxic rain downwind over the Great Lakes and Canada. 


Caution is Needed

The EPA is not flawless.  The federal government is entirely capable of making serious mistakes on this clean-up.  Superfund has been criticized as a top-heavy, bureaucratic, slow process providing mixed results.   At some Superfund sites the planning process has taken many years before actual clean-up starts, and environmentalists have been dissatisfied with partial or fraudulent "clean-ups."
 
The Fort Howard Sludge Lagoons by the airport are a good example.  These lagoons are huge, mostly unlined dumps for sludge and ash heavily contaminated with PCBs, dioxins, furans, toxic metals and many other dangerous chemicals (the same materials which contributed to the Fox River Superfund nomination.)  The EPA claims to have "investigated" this huge dump site under a Superfund nomination, but allowed Fort Howard Paper Company to conduct its own groundwater and sludge tests.  The EPA then closed its case by allowing Fort Howard to keep pumping up contaminated groundwater rather than clean up the site.
 
The Fox River case is different in that EPA deliberately stepped in and recognized the river as worthy of Superfund designation.  The investigation should also be much quicker, because EPA already completed a  $13 million Mass Balance Study which documented the sources and movement of PCBs in the river and bay.  In addition, the NRDA process has already gathered and analyzed many of the 20,000 studies of the river system.
 
EPA claims that it can have a clean-up plan ready by next year, which is far ahead of the DNR's vague promises. 


Watch This Process!

Not Just Landfills - Citizens need to keep a close watch on all the planning efforts, to ensure EPA takes a strong clean-up approach, and that proper clean-up methods are used.  For example, Clean Water Action Council has advocated use of new technologies to separate the toxics from the bulk of the sediments and detoxify the concentrated materials, where possible --- but the government agencies seem poised to recommend only landfilling, without any treatment.

High Clean-up Standards - Citizens need to push for strong clean-up standards, not just a partial, cut-rate clean-up arranged to save the polluters' time and money.

Human Health Studies - Citizens need answers to key questions about public health.  Some 20,000 studies have been conducted on the Fox River and Green Bay, costing more than $25 million --- but only two minor studies have looked at toxic impacts on human health.  Most health studies have focussed only on wildlife --- but those studies show that our whole ecosystem (including humans) is seriously contaminated.
 
It's well known that many people along the Fox River, Green Bay and Lake Michigan eat significant amounts of  contaminated fish and waterfowl, despite warnings against consumption.   (The DNR has done a terrible job publicizing the warnings and seems more worried about not scaring away tourists.)
 
PCBs and other toxics in the sediments, fish and ducks can cause cancer, birth defects, immune system damage, nervous system effects, learning disabilities, and other serious human health problems.
 
It's time to study public health in our area --- and to target studies to the most affected people.

"Citizens need to push for strong clean-up standards, not just a partial, cut-rate clean-up arranged to save the polluters' time and money."

Eleven years ago, I wrote a formal letter to all the participants in the Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process (including DNR, EPA, and many local governments.)  I outlined the need for and benefits of making the Fox River a Superfund site,
 
RAP committee members ridiculed the suggestion as an outlandish idea and ignored me.  They said it would take 10 years to complete the lawsuits involved, and a "voluntary approach" would be much faster.  The RAP committees proceeded to waste years complaining about the lack of money for documenting and studying the impacts of the contamination.  They wasted years lobbying for clean-up grants of taxpayer funds from the federal, state and local governments.  They wasted years in meetings (at taxpayer expense) trying to develop a "cooperative" atmosphere with the paper companies, hoping naively that the companies would voluntarily donate $1.2 billion without being forced.
 
Meanwhile, a new generation of children has been unnecessarily poisoned by PCB contamination from the Fox River, with potentially serious effects on their health. 


On the Up Side

Now, we can have real hope of seeing a much healthier river and bay in 10 or 15 years --- and our children will certainly have healthier opportunities to fish, hunt, and swim.
 
(The clean-up will probably take 15 years because of the massive amounts of sediment which must be removed --- but the remaining contamination should diminish rapidly after the toxic hotspot sources are removed.)
 
We can have real hope of seeing a productive bay unlike anything most of us remember, closer to historic descriptions of clean water, and abundant, normal wildlife.
 
The economic benefits could be huge, as commercial fisheries are restored, waterfront property values increase, tourism increases, harbor dredging costs decline, and health care costs decline.