1 2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 3 4 LOWER FOX RIVER/GREEN BAY SITE 5 PROPOSED PLAN MEETING 6 7 PUBLIC MEETING 8 BROWN COUNTY LIBRARY 9 515 Pine Street 10 Green Bay, WI 11 12 TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2006 13 7:00 p.m. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 PRESENTATION 4 4 QUESTION AND ANSWER 23 5 COMMENTS 61 6 SPEAKER: 7 PAUL JADIN 61 8 CURT ANDERSON 64 9 JOSIE GARRELS 66 10 KIM DIAZ 69 11 GEORGE HOWLETT 69 12 REBECCA KATERS 73 13 GEORGE HICKS 76 14 ZALMAN SAPPERSTEIN 80 15 KELLY WOLFF 83 16 DON GARARDI 85 17 CHARLES FRISK 85 18 PATTY BERNARD SCHAEFER 87 19 LAWRENCE KRANING 88 20 CAROLYN SKVARA 89 21 LARRY HARKNESS 91 22 CHRISTINE FOSSEN-RADES 92 23 KEN GRAVES 93 24 ED WILUSZ 95 25 DICK SAMPSON 96 2 1 PAGE 2 JANET MOLDENHAUER 97 3 TAKU RONSMAN 98 4 KATHY EFEBVRE 100 5 MARK MAHONEY 103 6 RON VANDERLOOP 106 7 BEN RUSS 107 8 GUSTA HELGESEN 108 9 RICH KRIEG 110 10 RYAN GLEASON 112 11 MARK SCHALLER 113 12 DENISE DELACRUZ 114 13 JIM REIGEL 114 14 RANDY HARBATH 116 15 FRED CRADLER 117 16 JOHN HERMANSON 118 17 JAMES SERVAIS 118 18 RANDY WESTBERG 121 19 LOUIS WANG 121 20 ALLEN LAURENT 124 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 MS. PASTOR: Hi, everyone. Thanks for 2 coming. Thanks for finding a seat and helping 3 things start on time. I am Sue Pastor. I work for 4 USEPA. I'm what's called the Community Involvement 5 Coordinator. I have been working for the Fox River 6 project since about 1998. I have been working on 7 that project with Jim Hahnenberg. He's the Project 8 Manager with EPA. And next to him is Greg Hill. 9 He's with the Wisconsin DNR. 10 And tonight we want to explain to you our 11 proposed changes to the decision that we made 12 pertaining to the lower Fox River clean-up. We made 13 this decision a few years ago, and now we see the 14 need to perhaps make a few modifications, and Jim 15 will tell you about that. So I hope you all picked 16 up an agenda in the back there. Because we are a 17 little tight on time, I want to stick to the agenda. 18 The library is a nice place to hold a meeting and 19 they are nice enough to let us have it, but I kind 20 of want to play by their rules, too. We do need to 21 be out of here by ten. We paid a little extra 22 tonight to have the room for an extra hour. 23 Normally they are asking us to be out by nine, but 24 because I knew we would have a good turnout I wanted 25 to make sure that we had enough time. 4 1 So, after I give you a few of the 2 logistics and the ground rules, Jim will have a 3 Power Point presentation that he will zip through. 4 And bear with us, because then we will take your 5 questions. And we have two microphones up here so 6 that we can hear you and our court reporter can also 7 hear you. We prefer that you use the mike, and if 8 you can't get out because you are stuck in the 9 middle, we will get someone to maybe pass the 10 microphone if that works better for you. 11 The court reporter is taking down all the 12 minutes of the meeting, and that will be available 13 in a transcript that will be put together and we 14 will put that on line. It will be housed here at 15 the library and four other libraries in the area. 16 It will be on CD or hard copy, whatever the 17 libraries' patrons prefer. So try to speak clearly 18 for her when the time comes to state your name later 19 on in the comment portion of the meeting, because 20 it's important that we have your name and correctly 21 spelled. She would appreciate it if you spell that 22 for her if it's a name that needs to be spelled. 23 And then we will try to wrap up. 24 So a little bit about the question and 25 answer. That's basically you have some questions 5 1 you want to ask, and Greg and Jim will do their best 2 to answer them for you. We will try to get through 3 that oh, I'm hoping loosely by eight-fifteen we'll 4 see where we are at, and then we can move into the 5 comment portion of the meeting, which I know a lot 6 of you are here for that. You would like to make a 7 comment pertaining to our plan for the record in 8 front of the roomful of people. And for that we 9 will make sure you get a microphone either up here 10 or pass it to you. And we can maybe do that until 11 around nine-thirty or so and maybe start to wrap up, 12 because we need to be really out of here, cleaned up 13 and out, us included, by ten. So we want to make 14 sure that we do that. 15 Just a reminder, too, that all the 16 documents that you picked up back there, they are on 17 line, they are at the library, they are here and at 18 the four other libraries in the area. If you need 19 something in the way of assistance pertaining to 20 questions after the meeting, the document The Basis 21 of Design Report, it's a rather thick document, it's 22 here; and if you come to the library or you read it 23 on line and you are a little stumped as to where to 24 go, give Jim or Greg a call or shoot them an e-mail, 25 because they can probably point you in the right 6 1 direction instead of floundering around in a thick 2 document. They can probably at least tell you what 3 section or chapter to look through and help you 4 through that. 5 Same thing with the proposed plan, the 6 fact sheet. We have a pretty comprehensive website. 7 It's a technical memorandum, it's all on line, so if 8 you didn't get a copy, if we ran out or you decided 9 you didn't want one and change your mind later, it's 10 all on line. If you want it sent to you, let me 11 know and I can still mail you a hard copy. 12 Remember, also, that the comment period 13 does run through January 11, so if you want to just 14 listen tonight, that's why you came, hear the 15 questions and answers, hear the comments and then go 16 through some of the materials and mail us your 17 comments, you can do that via postal mail, you can 18 do that via fax, or you can do that on line from our 19 Fox River web page. There is a form that you can 20 fill out and push the "submit" button and it will 21 come directly to Jim and I. And all those comments 22 will be compiled in what's called a Responsiveness 23 Summary, and that will be attached to our Record of 24 Decision for this particular project that we are 25 working on tonight that we are going to tell you 7 1 about. 2 So we don't respond to comments tonight. 3 We will let you go ahead and say them for the 4 record, but then they will all be compiled and 5 addressed in the summary later on. But we will try 6 to answer your questions. So if that's why you are 7 here, then we will help you through that as well. 8 There's still more seats up here, so 9 please don't stand and block the aisles. Come on 10 down. Right up here in the front. We won't pick on 11 you, unless you want us to. We will let them get 12 settled and then we'll have Jim come up here and go 13 through his Power Point presentation. And then, 14 when we get to the questions, you'll raise your hand 15 and I'll call on you. We'll try and give everybody 16 a chance to ask one question, see how it goes. If 17 we have round two that we can have time for. Jim. 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: Thank you, Sue. 19 We do appreciate your interest and your 20 coming out tonight. It's cold out there, but thank 21 you for coming. This process is important to us in 22 that we do really welcome input from people in terms 23 of what they may think is the right thing to do, 24 have information that may help us have a better 25 decision. That helps us in the process, so we 8 1 appreciate your assistance, and thank you for coming 2 out. 3 So tonight I will talk about the proposal 4 that we have before you which would modify the 5 original decision which was done in June of 2003. 6 This is not uncommon for the Super Fund when we get 7 new information or a new evaluation that may inform 8 us that we should have, perhaps have a change of 9 course for the decision. Then we, sometimes we go 10 back to the drawing board and come up with a 11 proposal that may suggest that we modify that 12 original decision. 13 In the Super Fund program, over the course 14 of the program, we have had over three thousand of 15 these types of decisions, and of those three 16 thousand we have had about two hundred twenty where 17 we have gone in with a record of decision amendment. 18 There are other kinds of modifications that we have 19 done as well, but that's the most fundamental change 20 to the project. 21 So, with that, I will go into this. I'll 22 try and keep it short. The less I talk, the more 23 time we get to hear from you people, which is really 24 why we are here. So to first talk about the current 25 remedy, the original decision is that we would plan 9 1 to dispose, dredge and dispose 7.6 million cubic 2 yards. Since there are PCB's in the river, the 3 actual level for taking action in this (inaudible) 4 is one part per million. In this project we do have 5 PCB's as high as 2,000 parts per million that we 6 have discovered during our design efforts and 7 different sampling efforts, and there are typically 8 10 parts per million and into the hundreds now. 9 We also plan to use a pipeline to settling 10 basins and then put the PCB's in a landfill. The 11 original plan did have a possibility of capping. 12 That's what we call a capping contingency, where if 13 capping was shown to be protective and 14 cost-effective, then we would go to some capping. 15 So, as I indicated, the reason that we revisited the 16 original decision is because we did have new 17 information that we did obtain in the last couple of 18 years. Part of that information was additional 19 sampling in the river where the companies went in 20 and did a lot more sampling in the river. 21 And in these maps you can see little dots. 22 Each of those dots represent a core. There are 23 1,300 locations where a core was taken, and the core 24 was divided into six-inch zones, for a total of 25 10,000 samples, new samples in the river. This gave 10 1 us a much better definition of the problem, and with 2 that we did find that we had more -- the PCB's were 3 more spread out in a larger volume of sediment. So 4 now we know that we have 7.6 million cubic yards, 5 whereas previously we thought we had about six and a 6 half million. 7 We also discovered there was a new hot 8 spot down here. Just downstream of the DePere dam 9 there is a hot spot where we discovered 10 concentrations as high as three thousand parts per 11 million. And that is work in an area that will be 12 done, will be dredged next year as part of the 13 overall project. That work will be consistent with 14 the original remedy. 15 Some other additional new information we 16 found is that we did have more contamination 17 relatively deep in the sediment. We found deposits 18 as deep as 15 feet. We have PCB's in the central 19 part of the river that were very deep. We also 20 found we had more areas that were relatively low, 21 that is just above a level of one, still above the 22 action level, and is relatively thin, about six 23 inches thick or less. We also discovered as part of 24 our design efforts, given the new volume of 25 sediments, that you would not have enough capacity 11 1 in a single landfill to take all the sediments in if 2 they were dredged as originally planned. 3 Finally, we also found that there were 4 areas along the riverbank where, if we did dredge 5 them, because of the deep contamination and the deep 6 banks, that would actually create instabilities 7 along the banks. 8 Things in the plan that are not changing. 9 One, the action level of one part per million does 10 not change. Anyplace there is a concentration of 11 one part per million or more, we will take some 12 action, be it dredging or capping or what have you. 13 We would still have a clean-up goal 0.25. The 14 difference between the action level and the clean-up 15 goal is the action level is where we would actually 16 do something above a level of one, but the 0.25 is 17 what we would have as a goal to achieve as an 18 overall average in that part of the river. The 19 surface concentrations that would be 0.25 parts per 20 million are once we are done, on average, for that 21 portion of the river. 22 We would also be relying on natural 23 recovery to achieve a final protective goal that 24 would be adequate to be protective for people 25 consuming fish and for the wildlife. And we would 12 1 also be using in the dredge areas a post-dredging 2 sand cover. Given the limitation of dredging, that 3 you are not going to get everything out with the 4 dredging project based on the most current 5 technology, we would plan to put on a sand cover in 6 the areas that we dredge. 7 Other things that are the same is that 8 we would still have long-term monitoring and 9 maintenance for whatever we would be doing. We 10 would still have landfill disposal of the dredge 11 sediment. And the phase one clean-up I mentioned, 12 the hot spots just downstream of the DePere dam, 13 that is consistent with the original plan. That 14 doesn't change. That would be done the same under 15 the old plan or the new plan. 16 The main changes in the new plan. First 17 of all, this plan would be done sooner. It would 18 take nine years for the construction part of the 19 project versus fifteen years or longer under the 20 original dredging -- total dredging project. We 21 would not be using the pipeline in this plan. 22 Instead, we would use various mechanical devices 23 along the river to separate the water from the 24 sediment and then truck it to a landfill. 25 We would have less dredging in this 13 1 proposal; whereas, the original plan would dredge 2 7.1 million cubic yards. I mentioned that 7.6 3 million total. The original plan would actually 4 have to cap -- even on the original plan, would have 5 to cap about half a million cubic yards, mainly 6 because those areas along the bank we really 7 couldn't dredge; otherwise, we would create problems 8 along the shoreline there. This would have more 9 capping and replacement of some of the dredging. 10 And I'll talk about exactly what that capping 11 consists of in a minute, but, just to tell you what 12 it is, we would plan to put some sand down and some 13 armor stone on top of that sand as a cap that would 14 be stable over the long-term. 15 And we would plan to put a sand cover down 16 in areas where we have pretty thin contamination in 17 the sediment, that is, six inches or less, and the 18 concentrations would be above our action level of 19 one but still below two. So between one and two we 20 would plan to put six inches of sand in those areas. 21 Now, specifically, a little bit about the 22 capping. In some areas we would first dredge and 23 then cap. We would do this in areas such as when 24 you have very deep contamination, rather than dredge 25 very deep. And, therefore, in those areas you have 14 1 to dredge a long ways horizontally from the dredge 2 area, because in order to keep the cable close to 3 the river bottom you would have to go a long way 4 toward the edge of the bank in order to keep the 5 cable close to the river bottom. When you do that, 6 you end up dredging up a lot of clean sediment that 7 really would not need to be dredged otherwise. So 8 it becomes a situation where you end up taking out a 9 lot of clean sediment that would end up using 10 landfill capacity but it's really not contaminated. 11 And that would be in the navigational channel and 12 along the riverbank. 13 We would also have some dredging in 14 shallow water areas, and we have relatively low 15 concentrations. And, in order to maintain the water 16 depth we would require for any type of a capping 17 project, which would be at least three feet or more 18 wherever you would do the capping, we would first 19 dredge and then cap in those areas. And, as I 20 mentioned, the capping and sand covering will be 21 only in low concentration, thin sediment, and then 22 in some areas we would do capping only where we 23 would have relatively lower concentrations. 24 For the most part, we would plan to dredge 25 in areas that we have higher concentrations. So the 15 1 higher concentration sediments would be dredged. 2 Certain areas they wouldn't be just because they are 3 very deep, and in those areas we would plan to 4 dredge and cap in those areas. 5 There's been some discussion in terms of 6 the permanence of these caps, their stability over 7 the long term, and we have looked at that issue to a 8 large degree in our evaluations. We looked at other 9 capping projects. We looked at the actual results 10 of dredging projects to be able to evaluate what 11 kind of results we would have in dredging projects 12 and what kind of results we could expect for a 13 capping project in terms of the long-term stability 14 and the effectiveness of containing PCB's. 15 An important question, of course, for our 16 cap is would it stay there long-term, would it be 17 stable. And we looked at a number of factors that 18 would potentially influence a cap in terms of its 19 long-term stability. One is, of course, erosion 20 potential from storms. We looked at hundred year 21 storms to determine how large an event that would 22 be, what kind of erosion potential it would have, 23 and, therefore, what kind of a cap design we would 24 need to have in order to make sure that it stayed 25 there in that kind of event. 16 1 In making those considerations, we arrived 2 at the conclusion that we could have, at a minimum, 3 a coarse sand and we would expect it to stay there 4 in a storm. But, in order to maintain the natural 5 level of conservatism and the extra safety margin, 6 we, in fact, would put down some stone and armor 7 stone, gravel or armor stone, in certain areas in 8 order to make sure that the cap would not move even 9 during large events. 10 We also looked at things like ice scour. 11 And in areas where you have potential, the river 12 bottom sometimes you have ice accumulate, like 13 frazil ice accumulates on the water bottom and can 14 pull up the sediment, pull up the cap potentially, 15 in those areas we decided we would not cap, we would 16 dredge because of the concern that it could cause 17 potential erosion of the water bottom. We also 18 looked at things such as ice jams and that kind of 19 thing. Ice jams could cause erosion there. And so 20 we looked at all those issues to try and make sure 21 that that would not be an erosive feature that would 22 damage the cap and cause it to be eroded away. 23 We looked at what's called bioturbation. 24 What that means is you have a burrowing organism, so 25 you have worms, burrowing insects, clams, that kind 17 1 of thing in the water bottom, and those can disrupt 2 the sediment, so we bring an extra layer of sand to 3 take care of those. 4 Design and engineering. Even though we 5 believe the engineering tells us that these caps 6 would remain stable over the long-term, kind of a 7 belt and suspenders approach, we don't take that 8 absolutely for granted. So we would have a 9 monitoring program where we would go in on a regular 10 basis, at least every five years, more often the 11 first few years, to do a water bottom survey, to do 12 cores, to make sure the caps are in tact and 13 continuing to function. We would also do that if 14 there was a major storm or some other event, if you 15 will. Could be a main event, maybe a boat comes in 16 and potentially could scour the bottom. That or a 17 storm or something like that happens, then we would 18 go in with an extra monitoring event to make sure 19 that the cap was still there and still effective. 20 If it wasn't, then we would go in and do repair as 21 needed. 22 We would also have an ongoing water 23 monitoring program, biological monitoring to see 24 what the results are on our project to see what the 25 actual environmental results were over the long run. 18 1 As far as what's tied in to our monitoring 2 program, of course the monitoring program doesn't do 3 you any good if you don't have some sort of response 4 to it that tells you there is a problem. So, to go 5 hand in hand with that, we would have a maintenance 6 program where, if we did see a problem that resulted 7 from one of these events or one of our regular 8 monitoring events, we would go in and reinforce the 9 cap, add some additional sand, additional armor 10 stone, a larger armor stone, whatever we thought 11 would be appropriate to make sure that that cap was, 12 in fact, improved if it needed to be. We might 13 increase monitoring if we felt that was important. 14 If we had a major concern in certain areas or the 15 river in general, we might increase our monitoring 16 program. 17 Finally, if we decided the cap really 18 wasn't working in certain areas or we had a concern 19 for those areas, we might actually remove the cap 20 and dredge that. 21 So, to wrap up in terms of the cap, we do 22 believe that the engineering and modeling tell us 23 that the caps would remain stable over the long 24 term. We do have an extra safety margin designed 25 into the cap that would ensure that they would 19 1 remain stable over the long term as well. This 2 would be in the form of gravel and armor stone. 3 Finally, we are continuing to refine the 4 plan and, assuming we go forward with this, we 5 wouldn't anticipate to have major changes in the 6 plan, but we would refine in certain areas. We 7 would be talking to people who live and work on the 8 river, along the river, to make sure that what we 9 are doing in those areas are not going to interfere 10 with the uses of the river in those areas. And 11 there could be other considerations as well. So we 12 would modify the details of the plan as we continue. 13 So it's not cast in stone in terms of what we are 14 thinking about right now. 15 Finally, I mentioned there would be a 16 monitoring and maintenance program that would go 17 hand in hand with the designing of the cap. 18 So, to summarize, the proposed plan, they 19 would be protective, be constantly protective, in 20 some ways better, in some ways not as good, but 21 overall we believe as least as good as the original 22 plan. It would be done soon. It would take about 23 nine years of construction versus fifteen years or 24 longer with a hundred percent dredging project. We 25 would have actually lower surface concentrations 20 1 when we are done. The reason for that is the cap 2 surfaces would be cleaner than they would be in 3 dredged areas. Dredges with the current technology 4 cannot get everything out. It just isn't possible 5 with the current technology of dredging. It can do 6 pretty good at getting a lot of it out, but not 7 everything. 8 So, given that, the concentrations after 9 that kind of a project would actually be a little 10 bit higher than a partial capping project that we 11 are proposing. Under this plan, too, keep in mind 12 that we will still be removing about 74 percent of 13 the PCB's relative to the original plan, so about 14 three-quarters of the PCB's would still be coming 15 out. The remaining would be, of course, contained 16 under a cap. 17 And, finally, this plan would use only 18 about half of the landfill capacity versus the 19 original plan. And a lot of that sediment under the 20 original plan, as I mentioned, would have to -- 21 would require actually dredging relatively cleaner 22 sediment and, therefore, would end up using the 23 landfill capacity that really would be better used 24 for other purposes. 25 And I may have mentioned this plan was 21 1 developed out of new information and new 2 evaluations. As I mentioned, clean-up at specific 3 areas in the river will be refined during the 4 design. And, finally, given all those other 5 considerations in terms of effectiveness and 6 long-term stability, and we looked at 7 cost-effectiveness, which is part of the evaluation 8 if we consider something to be protective and 9 comparable in these other areas, then we do look at 10 cost-effectiveness. And this project would be less. 11 It would be $390 million for this proposal versus 12 $580 million for the original remedy. 13 I should mention, too, the original 14 estimate for the record of decision for this remedy 15 was $334 million, so the new remedy would actually 16 still be more than the original estimate that we did 17 have. So don't think this is a remedy on the cheap. 18 It isn't at all. It is still a substantial amount 19 of money, it still would be a very substantial 20 dredging project. In fact, this project would still 21 be the largest dredging project that probably will 22 have been done in this country and even bigger than 23 the Hudson River project, if you've heard of that, 24 which is about 2.6 million cubic yards. We would 25 still be dredging about 3.7 million cubic yards 22 1 here. 2 And, finally, the people who earned the 3 bid get more information on this. We have lots more 4 information for you if you really want to dig into 5 it. We have the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet, which is 6 a simpler version of the overall plan. We have a 7 Technical Memorandum, which there are copies at the 8 front desk, which has more details on some of the 9 technical aspects of that plan. And then there is a 10 Basis of Design Report, which is a real thick thing, 11 about that thick (indicating), if you really want to 12 dig into it. We have that on line on the website 13 and in the libraries in the information 14 repositories. We have some posters out front. 15 And, finally, our website addresses are 16 listed here. DNR has a real good website with a lot 17 of the documents on there. EPA has a website with 18 information on it as well. 19 MS. PASTOR: All right. This will be the 20 question and answer portion of the meeting, so if 21 you have a question you can raise your hand. We 22 will call on you one at a time. We want to make 23 sure that everybody can ask at least one question, 24 so before we see what the time is like and other 25 people want to ask a second question, let's give 23 1 everyone a chance to ask one. If you can make your 2 way down here to ask it, the court reporter can hear 3 you better and we can all hear you better. If you 4 can't, let's see if we can get this microphone to 5 you. 6 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: My name is Zalman T. 7 Sapperstein. I currently live in Fish Creek, 8 Wisconsin, having grown up in southern California. 9 I have one pertinent question. The speaker, Mr. 10 Barker, is that his name? Is that your name? 11 MR. HAHNENBERG: Jim Hahnenberg. 12 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: I'm sorry. Used the 13 words "we believe" over and over and over again, 14 indicating that belief is all it takes to assure 15 everybody in this room that this new approach will 16 work. The actual research, as I understand it, for 17 example, as done by Carnegie Melon (phonetic), as 18 done by Alcoa independently, with different capping 19 methods, have proven that the known technology does 20 not work. And, in fact, sediment concentrations can 21 increase rather than decrease in terms of PCB's 22 because of turbulence and leakage through these caps 23 that causes high velocity flow of water. 24 And, unless, sir, you have experimental 25 long-term verification of what you believe, I think 24 1 the method is totally unacceptable. Do you have 2 long-term experimental verification? 3 MR. HAHNENBERG: There are (inaudible). 4 We have monitoring data on capping. They have been 5 done in a variety of different environments, mostly 6 on the west coast in terms of environmental kinds of 7 projects. There is a number of projects where there 8 is actual monitoring data that they have gone in and 9 evaluated the performance of the caps and in caps 10 that have been actually as far back as 1978 have 11 been in place in some Army Corps projects. 12 In environmental projects more recently, 13 I believe the most recent project is I am going to 14 say the early or late eighties, I believe. There is 15 data on those projects showing that the caps have 16 been effective in maintaining themselves and, in 17 fact, containing contaminants there. So there is 18 data on other capping projects that do show they are 19 effective. 20 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: Differentiate between 21 landfill caps, which -- 22 MR. HAHNENBERG: I'm talking about 23 in-water caps on sediments. 24 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: Please show us the data. 25 Show us that long-term data. Please. I mean you 25 1 are talking about telling us to accept something. 2 Shows us that the data is there to prove that it 3 will work. 4 MR. HAHNENBERG: That's a good comment, 5 and we can get that kind of information for you. We 6 will respond to that. 7 MS. PASTOR: Another question. 8 MR. DELSART: I my name is Tom Delsart. 9 I live in Allouez on the Fox River. I have a 10 concern that in the next fifty years or a hundred 11 years from now one of these dams between Green Bay 12 and Oshkosh might break. That does not seem that 13 unreasonable to me that something like that would 14 happen. How would that affect this minimum amount 15 of capping that you plan on putting on top of the 16 PCB's? 17 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, it would depend on, 18 of course, which dam would be gone. But, generally, 19 the effects of that kind of failure would be 20 somewhat localized. And, for instance, the DePere 21 dam, we are dredging a hot spot just downstream of 22 the DePere dam, and that is an area -- that's the 23 part of the river that has the greatest amount of 24 PCB's in it. Downstream from that, there would be 25 some effects, but they really would not be much of 26 1 a major erosive effect for the caps. 2 But it wouldn't have as large an effect as 3 you might think for a single dam if it were removed. 4 Also, most dams probably would not fail 5 catastrophically. Most commonly, dams, if they are 6 near their life end, they are monitored by the Army 7 Corps and others to make sure that that doesn't fail 8 catastrophically in an unforeseen event. And so 9 oftentimes what will happen when a dam nears the end 10 of its life, it will be removed in a much more 11 careful way if it's deemed that it should be 12 removed. So in that situation, then, it would be a 13 much more controlled kind of a situation and would 14 be a lot less likely in that event to actually cause 15 catastrophic effects. But we have looked at this in 16 some detail to make sure that if that kind of thing 17 did happen it would not have a catastrophic effect 18 on the cap. 19 MS. PASTOR: Someone else have a question 20 for Jim or Greg or both? 21 MS. SCHAEFER: I'm Patty Bernard Schaefer, 22 and the question I have is: When you put these caps 23 in the river, have you considered how they change 24 the ecology of the river, how they change the water 25 levels, how they change the riparian areas, how they 27 1 change the riverbed, and how they change everything 2 in the river and change how the birds, the fish and 3 the worms and the clams that you talked about who 4 use those areas to burrow? 5 MR. HILL: The answer to that is, just as 6 dredging would upset the environment to some degree 7 in the short term, the belief is that, number one, 8 there is more dredging that would occur than filling 9 with this alternative. So there would be a net 10 deepening of the river throughout the system. And, 11 according to our fish managers, addition of some 12 large cobble would actually be a benefit to the 13 burrowing organisms and habitat for fish and 14 wildlife. So there is certainly some short-term 15 negative aspect in disturbing any eco-system, but by 16 capping it may, in fact, be a benefit to some of 17 these that inhabit it. 18 MS. PASTOR: All right. Who else has a 19 question? Come on down. 20 MR. LEEP (phonetic): I'm Dan Leep from 21 Little Chute, Wisconsin. And I always understood 22 that once an aquifer is contaminated it can't be 23 cleaned up. 24 MR. HAHNENBERG: The Fox River is not an 25 aquifer. It's not groundwater. There are 28 1 technologies that do clean up aquifers, but we are 2 not talking about that here. We are talking about, 3 really, the river, and so it's surface water. And 4 the way you clean up the surface water is, really, 5 to clean up the sediment in this case. If you clean 6 up the sediment, the surface water will be a lot 7 cleaner relative to the PCB contamination. 8 MS. SUNDANCE: My name is Jennifer 9 Sundance. I'm from Abrams, Wisconsin, and I have a 10 question about your process about sediment dewater 11 and desanding. What PCB level would be left in the 12 water that you are squeezing out, or what -- in the 13 sand you are going to leave behind? 14 MR. HAHNENBERG: The process would be you 15 would have a hydraulic dredge, you pump it to your 16 area that we call a dewatering facility. That means 17 that you just separate the mud from the water. 18 There are different mechanical devices that can do 19 that. Whatever device we use, the water that's 20 separated out from that would be treated for the 21 PCB's or the contaminants that would be in there, 22 and it would be treated to state standards to make 23 sure it was clean before it was discharged back to 24 the river. So the water would be treated and it 25 would be cleaned up before we were done with the 29 1 process. 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: From the 3 (inaudible), it seems that the original plan for the 4 dredging is going -- you originally thought it was 5 going to cost the same as the proposed plan, and now 6 it's costing a great deal more. Do you think that 7 in the future, bringing it into perspective, that 8 your research has shown that it's good for 20 years? 9 And 20 years really isn't that long of a time, when 10 it comes down to it. And, also, the fact that you 11 did bring up that it possibly could fail, and then 12 you would have to go back, dredge it. And don't you 13 think that the cost could actually end up being far 14 more than the dredging plan right now? 15 MR. HAHNENBERG: We think our cost 16 estimates now are more accurate than the original 17 because we did look at this in a lot more detail and 18 we also have new information from our additional 19 sampling. And the plan is such that we do believe 20 it would really address the contamination and that, 21 therefore, the contamination would be able to be 22 contained or removed from the river. And, 23 therefore, once you are done with the clean-up part 24 of it, you would really be done with the 25 construction. Unless the cap or whatever needs some 30 1 repair, we expect we would be done with that and the 2 cost then would be essentially done with other than 3 monitoring and maintenance. So we think the 4 estimates are relatively accurate. There are 5 certainly uncertainties still, but we believe that 6 these estimates are sound engineering, very detailed 7 estimates, which we think are accurate. 8 MR. RUSS: I'm Ben Russ. I'm a student at 9 East High School. I think, on behalf of all the 10 other students that are here, it's my understanding 11 that it will be forty years of cap monitoring is 12 planned, and I was told that these caps are supposed 13 to last two hundred years. How are you accounting 14 for not monitoring the caps for 160 years? Because, 15 as a student, I'm concerned about the future of the 16 environment, and I don't know if these caps would 17 fail and us to be placed with the cost. 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: There would be continued 19 monitoring and maintenance as long as necessary, 20 whether it be 30 years, 40 years, or longer. And 21 the Super Fund, as long as there is contamination 22 remaining on the site, then there is an obligation 23 to do continued monitoring of that project. We have 24 a five-year project review cycle, at a minimum, that 25 we go in and take a look at how the remedy is doing. 31 1 And, if there are problems with things that need to 2 be repaired or improved or if the remedy isn't 3 working, then we address those issues at that time. 4 And there is no time limitation on that. 5 MR. O'HERN: Pat O'Hern from Green Bay, 6 Wisconsin. I just have two questions, and one is: 7 As far as with PCB's, now, how far are they out in 8 the bay and how concentrated are they out in the bay 9 of Green Bay? And then, number two, we are talking 10 about the capping and dredging issue. The dredging 11 goes to a landfill. And how are the landfills going 12 to be monitored on a long-term basis to make sure 13 that those aren't leaching back out into aquifers 14 and on and on and on? 15 MR. HAHNENBERG: As far as Green Bay, 16 there is some dredging that will go into the bay 17 near the mouth of the river. Not very far, but 18 there will be some dredging into the bay into areas 19 that we know have the highest concentrations in the 20 bay. Beyond that area near the mouth of the river, 21 the concentrations for the most part are less than 22 the actual one part per million action level. So, 23 really, out in the bay, the vast majority of the 24 area, very few areas are even above the one part per 25 million. So in the bay, has gone out probably a 32 1 fairly good distance in the bay, but they are 2 greatly diminishing concentrations in the bay. 3 Greg Hill might address this better, but I 4 will just start and give a shot at this. The good 5 thing with Wisconsin landfills is they are designed 6 to very rigorous standards. The EPA program that 7 regulates PCB's, in fact, a few years back took a 8 look at the state program, state design criteria and 9 monitoring criteria, and they made a determination 10 that, actually, the state landfills are effectively 11 equivalent to an EPA PCB disposal facility. The 12 facility is designed specifically to work with 13 standards of containing PCB's. 14 So the state licensed landfills are 15 actually a very high quality landfill and would be 16 monitored extensively. I mean you would have 17 leachate collection, you would have liners, you 18 would have monitoring around the landfill. So the 19 landfills are designed to be effective and contain 20 the PCB's over a long period. 21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You say you're 22 going to monitor the capping every five years. How 23 can you prove that something might not slip past you 24 about an accident that happens and the capping 25 doesn't work and PCB's leak out and causes 33 1 contamination? How can you prove that that's not 2 going to happen? Because if you are only dredging 3 every five years, something can slip past and make 4 it worse. 5 MR. HAHNENBERG: For the first initial 6 monitoring period we would do it more often than 7 every five-year period, maybe two or three times 8 during the first five years. And then after that 9 it would be every five years, but we would have 10 triggering events. There are some events that 11 happen, such as a large storm comes through or some 12 other event, maybe a big ice flow or something like 13 that or maybe a scour, possibly, from a boat, we 14 would go in and do a special monitoring event to 15 make sure that there wasn't damage from those kinds 16 of events. So we would have more than just the five 17 years if we felt it was called for. 18 MR. HILL: Under both the original plan 19 and this proposed change, there is long-term 20 monitoring not just of the cap, but there is 21 monitoring of both the water and the fish that live 22 in the river and the bay as a long-term monitoring 23 scheme to make sure that the PCB concentrations in 24 the environment are being reduced at the rate that 25 we expect them to after the remedy is implemented. 34 1 So, if there was a catastrophic effect or impact to 2 the cap or if all of the dredging did not prove to 3 be as effective as we thought, the monitoring plan 4 of both the water and the fish would also indicate 5 whether or not we needed to do something else. 6 So that's two levels of monitoring to assure that 7 the remedy that is implemented is going to be 8 effective. 9 MR. SAMPSON: My name is Dick Sampson from 10 Appleton. I'm concerned about two things. One was 11 alluded to. That is the area in the mouth of the -- 12 at the mouth of the river, such as Renard Island, 13 and, also, there are shoreland, shoreline landfills 14 that are leaking that no one has mentioned so far. 15 So that's my question. Double question, if you 16 will. And first, also, what does -- what do the 17 letters SWAC stand for? 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: Sorry about that. We 19 apologize for that acronym. We lapse into those. 20 That stands for Surface Weight Average 21 Concentration. In other words, what the average 22 concentration is in that surface layer on average 23 for that particular portion of the river. 24 To answer your question about leaky 25 landfills, as far as we know, we have eliminated all 35 1 the sources of PCB's along the river. If actually 2 people are aware of particular possible sources, we 3 would like to hear about it. That's part of the 4 reason for this kind of a comment period is if 5 people are aware of potential sources and have data 6 that tells us these things are leaking, then we 7 certainly want to know about that. 8 As far as I know right now, we don't think 9 there are those kinds of facilities along the river, 10 as far as we know. But if people know about some 11 that are there, we certainly want to know about it 12 and would welcome that information. 13 MR. VERHASSEL (phonetic): My name is Bill 14 Verhassel from Green Bay. Going back to what a lady 15 said earlier, are you figuring this cost estimate at 16 the price of stone and sand at today's prices, or 17 are you figuring to add what it's going to be nine 18 years from now when your job is finally completed? 19 In your cost estimate. 20 MR. HILL: The cost estimates are all done 21 on a similar basis. They are equalized down to this 22 year's costs. It doesn't mean -- the absolute cost 23 of the remedy isn't that important right now as far 24 as this decision goes. The relative cost between 25 capping and dredging is being done on the same 36 1 engineering cost evaluation between the remedies. 2 So it's 2006 dollars that are being compared for 3 both remedies. 4 MR. VERHASSEL: I just thought this 5 capping might create such a demand for sand and 6 gravel, the price of sand and rock and the like, 7 that the dredging might actually be more 8 cost-effective in the long haul. 9 MR. HILL: We had an engineering 10 evaluation of all the costs, projecting over the 11 period of time for construction. Just as the cost 12 of materials may be going up, the cost of energy and 13 the cost of labor may be going up as well. And so, 14 if we are capping and dredging in a nine-year time 15 frame for the proposed plan, the variation will be 16 different than if we go through a 15-year dredging 17 operation where there is more chance for incremental 18 costs. That's how the evaluation was done. 19 MR. VERHASSEL: I have one more question 20 and then I will leave you alone. When you lay that 21 sand down, how do you lay it dowm? Let's say a 22 six-inch blanket depth. How is that done? 23 MR. HILL: Number one, there is experience 24 in different places, mostly out on the west coast 25 where this has been done successfully. The closest 37 1 place, though, is up in the St. Louis River, up in 2 the Duluth Superior harbor where a cap was placed on 3 a Super Fund site in the Duluth harbor. I don't 4 know the technology. The design and the selection 5 of the equipment is yet to be done. That's part of 6 -- after the plan is adopted, then the engineering 7 design that goes for 30, 60, 90 percent, and then 8 the actual bid allows for the specific design -- 9 MR. VERHASSEL: How can you come up with 10 an accurate cost if you don't know how you are going 11 to do it? 12 MR. HILL: Like I said, sir, the actual 13 cost is not important to make sure that you get the 14 most effective remedy. 15 MR. HAHNENBERG: They have another capping 16 project, but the technology has been used in quite a 17 number of projects. We know there is technology out 18 there. There are different types of techniques in 19 terms of how you place it down. There are a number 20 of options available to us. We can pick any one of 21 those. But there are certainly choices out there 22 that it has been done, has been done successfully on 23 quite a number of projects. So it's not like it's 24 something that hasn't been done before. It has been 25 done. We do know it's doable. The details of 38 1 exactly how we do it, we haven't worked that out 2 yet, but it certainly is possible. There are 3 placement methods out there that have been used 4 successfully, and we know that it is very doable. 5 MR. SEZINSKI (phonetic): Hi. My name is 6 Jeff Sezinski from Shawano, Wisconsin. A common 7 question would be that commercial shipping is very 8 important to the Green Bay area. I guess does this 9 plan impact the access of freighters into the port 10 of Green Bay? 11 MR. HAHNENBERG: No, it doesn't. The 12 navigation, authorized navigation depth would not be 13 changed. Where there would be capping in the 14 navigation channel, the cap would be at least two 15 feet below the authorized navigation depth. So it 16 would be a two-foot buffer. If you needed to dredge 17 that area, you can dredge and still have a two-foot 18 buffer between that elevation and the actual cap. 19 And in those areas we -- you saw the models in the 20 lobby. The particular model that has big stone, 21 that would be the type of design, something like 22 that, that would be used in the navigation channel. 23 And one reason we have those rather large 24 stones in that particular instance is because it is 25 in the navigational channel. That way it would be 39 1 sure that it could resist even the propeller wash 2 and would not be a problem if you have a dredger 3 going down and wanting to go a little too deep. If 4 it bumped into that stone, they wouldn't get very 5 far. They would know that they bumped into it and 6 so it really wouldn't be a problem. So, to answer 7 your question, the navigational depths really would 8 still remain the same and would not be affected by 9 the cap. 10 MR. SEZINSKI: So then, during the capping 11 process, normal boat traffic, normal freighter 12 traffic can continue? 13 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, for both the 14 capping and the dredging project there would be a 15 temporary, perhaps, limitation of portions of the 16 river as we proceeded down the river. So there 17 would be some limitation for both the dredging and 18 the capping project for a short period of time in 19 small areas in the river during the construction 20 phase. 21 MR. AUDE: I'm a little confused on the 22 terminology being used here. My name is Dan Aude. 23 I live at 118 South Washington Street, Riverside 24 Condominiums. When you say capping and then you 25 refer to a landfill where the sediment is going to 40 1 be stored, I often think of a clay-lined base with a 2 lining in between and it's capped. Now when you are 3 talking about capping the bottom of the river, it 4 sounds as though it's only a mechanical barrier as 5 opposed to seepage that's going to continue up to 6 the surface if that's what they do. I'm not sure I 7 understand. Unless you get it all out, you are 8 still going to be -- it's basically, this cap you 9 are talking about is a mechanical protection to not 10 stir up the sediment, although it can seep up 11 through porous material; correct? 12 MR. HAHNENBERG: Good question. You are 13 right. It's different than a landfill cap. It 14 doesn't have quag, it has sand. A landfill cap is 15 designed to stop water from migrating through the 16 cover. This is not. This is a different kind of a 17 cap, you are right. This kind of a cap is designed 18 to contain the particles, the sediment. And there 19 really -- in terms of water moving through it, there 20 shouldn't be much water moving through this cap. In 21 terms of the groundwater discharged to the river, 22 it's not that significant, especially in the central 23 portion of the river in this area. But the cap 24 would be effective in containing the particles. And 25 for PCB's that's very important, because the PCB's 41 1 attach to particles and they don't really go into 2 solution very easily in the water. Therefore, if 3 you contain the particles, you are containing the 4 PCB's, and that's what the caps are designed to do. 5 MR. AUDE: So what you're saying is you 6 are kind of trapping it between this cap and the 7 existing river bottom. 8 MR. HAHNENBERG: You are keeping it in 9 place. You are keeping the sediment in place, and 10 if you keep the sediment, the mud, the particles in 11 place, you are keeping the PCB's in place. 12 MR. JOHNSON: Dave Johnson, 724 Park 13 Street, Green Bay, Wisconsin. We have approached 14 this subject for a number of years. We have 15 determined in the past that this was not the way to 16 go, this was not the way to cap. Cap was not the 17 way to go. We have gone that route. I just want to 18 know what has changed in the short term since we 19 have determined that we could not dispose of the 20 PCB's in the landfill or Georgia Pacific behind the 21 casino. What has all of a sudden came about that 22 now capping is the ultimate answer when we in the 23 past have said this is not the way to go? What 24 engineering firm? And I want the name. I want the 25 name of the engineering firm right tonight that says 42 1 this is the way and it's better, because it wasn't 2 the better way to go no more than 18 months ago. 3 What has happened in that short period of time, when 4 we just eight months ago were going to dredge and 5 dispose of this in disposals in the Georgia Pacific 6 landfill? But we ruled that out. We went against 7 that. Now all of a sudden this is the answer. I 8 want to know why this is the answer and I want to 9 know the engineering firm that says this is the way 10 to do it. 11 MR. HAHNENBERG: Good question. First, we 12 are not saying this is the only solution. We do 13 have a significant amount of dredging that would 14 still be done. In terms of capping, the original 15 feasibility study, which was the -- 16 MR. JOHNSON: I have followed this very 17 closely. 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: The decision in the 19 original feasibility study that it was based on 20 talked about capping. It didn't state capping was 21 effective or was not. The reason it was not 22 selected in the original rememdy was because it was 23 not cost-effective. It was considered to be more 24 costly than a dredging project. The new 25 information -- 43 1 MR. JOHNSON: I don't agree with you on 2 that. I don't agree with you on that subject, on 3 that answer right there. I do not agree with you on 4 that answer, because the feasibility study said that 5 capping was cheaper than dredging. I don't agree 6 with you with your answer. Go ahead. Continue. 7 MR. HAHNENBERG: There is an option, I 8 forget the alternative number, but in the 9 feasibility study there was an alternative that was 10 a partial capping project, and that was actually 11 more costly than a dredging project. 12 MR. JOHNSON: Who said that? 13 MR. HAHNENBERG: It was in the feasibility 14 study in the original -- 15 MR JOHNSON: What was the date of that 16 feasibility study? 17 MR. HAHNENBERG: 2000? 18 MR. JOHNSON: I want to know. I want 19 dates. 20 MR. HAHNENBERG: 2000 by Thermal Retech. 21 Retech was the contractor. 22 MR. JOHNSON: Whose study was that? 23 MR. HAHNENBERG: It was contracted by the 24 EPA and DNR. DNR and EPA. 25 MR. JOHNSON: You are going to be held 44 1 accountable for this. Your answers are going to be 2 held accountable. 3 MR. HAHNENBERG: That's fine. 4 MR. JOHNSON: And that's exactly what we 5 are here for. All right. Now, you said your 6 answer. I have a tape recorder in my pocket right 7 now. I got a tape recorder, and there's people that 8 know that I come with a tape recorder. Believe me, 9 there's people that know I come with a tape 10 recorder. So go ahead. 11 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, and it's under the 12 Wisconsin DNR web page. Look at the feasibility 13 study, which was dated I believe was the year 2000. 14 I'm not certain. I shouldn't say that. I'm pretty 15 sure it was 2000. Or 2002. It was 2002, because it 16 was actually finalized when we did the record of 17 decision. But, in any event, whatever date it was, 18 it was done by Retech. It was done under the 19 Agency's authority, and their evaluation did look at 20 capping and it did say that capping was adequately 21 protected. 22 MR. JOHNSON: I have been there. I didn't 23 know who made the study. 24 MR. HAHNENBERG: Retech was the -- 25 MR. JOHNSON: Retech. Okay. 45 1 MR. HAHNENBERG: Now, the Basis of Design 2 Report is being done by two contractors: Shaw and 3 Anger (phonetic). 4 MR. JOHNSON: Pardon me. Would you repeat 5 that? 6 MR. HAHNENBERG: Shaw Environmental and 7 Anger. And they are the two companies who have done 8 the Basis of Design Report. And that's also on the 9 Wisconsin DNR web page. If you look in that, they 10 talk -- actually, look in Section 5 in the Basis of 11 Design Report. It talks about -- the title there is 12 called the Optimized Remedies in that Chapter. So 13 it's in there. Also, if you look in the Basis of 14 Design Report, Appendix D, there is a contingent 15 remedy, which was actually consistent with the 16 original record of decision, which would have been 17 -- could have been done under the original Record of 18 Decision, that contingent capping remedy. This 19 takes it somewhat beyond that, but still there was a 20 substantial capping project that could have been 21 done under the original Record of Decision because 22 it was considered to be an adequately protective 23 remedy under the original Record of Decision, which 24 was based on the feasibility study by Retech. 25 MR. JOHNSON: Didn't we rule that out, 46 1 though? Didn't we rule capping out back in 2002? 2 MR. HAHNENBERG: We didn't rule it out, 3 but -- 4 MR. JOHNSON: Are you sure? Are you sure? 5 MR. HAHNENBERG: We didn't say it was 6 absolutely not a feasible remedy. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Didn't you say at that time 8 it was not a viable recommendation in 2002? 9 MR. HILL: No. 10 MR. JOHNSON: Are you sure? 11 MR. HILL: Yes. 12 MR. JOHNSON: All right. I'm glad you 13 said that. Thank you. Go ahead. Oh, no. You have 14 one more question. You have one more answer. How 15 many viable disposal sites do you have in Wisconsin 16 at this point to dispose of PCB's? How many 17 licensed points? 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: What we call a TSCA 19 facility, which -- 20 MR. JOHNSON: Toxic facility, waste 21 disposal facility in Wisconsin. 22 MR. HAHNENBERG: I want to be clear. EPA 23 has a program which allows disposal of PCB's 24 regulated under EPA called TSCA program, which 25 stands for Toxic Substances Control Act, regulates 47 1 PCB's. And anything over fifty parts per million 2 has to go to an EPA-regulated facility. 3 MR. JOHNSON: How many facilities do you 4 have in Wisconsin? 5 MR. HAHNENBERG: None that are now 6 accepting PCB's. 7 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 8 MR. HAHNENBERG: However, there is more to 9 the answer, in that the greatest portion of this 10 project are not of that concentration. It's a 11 relatively small percentage that would be to that 12 level of fifty parts per million or more. It's like 13 two hundred thousand cubic yards out of the 7.6 14 million cubic yards would be at concentrations 15 greater than 50 parts per million. The remainder of 16 that 7.6 million cubic yards would still -- would be 17 below the 50 parts per million and would not have to 18 go to a PCB facility regulated by EPA. So it could 19 be disposed of in a state-licensed landfill. 20 So I want to be clear. The vast majority 21 of the contaminated sediments could go to an 22 in-state licensed landfill. A small portion of 23 those would have to go to a more highly regulated 24 facility by EPA, but right now the only facilities 25 of that nature are out of state. But that is only 48 1 for a small portion of the project. 2 MR. REIGEL: My name is Jim Reigel, and I 3 live in Oneida. And I would like you to address 4 what I consider to be a fatal flaw in the capping 5 plan, and that is your reliance on Wisconsin DNR. 6 Wisconsin DNR has a record in terms of 7 monitoring landfills that is absolutely atrocious. 8 I have tracked the local landfills in this area for 9 the last five years, downloading all of the 10 monitoring well reports. They have been 11 consistently in violation. The monitoring wells 12 all show hazardous waste being leaked out into the 13 groundwater. These reports have all been given to 14 me by the DNR and, yet, they do nothing about them. 15 Indeed, the Wisconsin DNR Statutes state 16 that landfill violations are self-reporting. That's 17 akin to you driving down 41 and then calling a 18 policeman later and saying, "Oh, by the way, I was 19 speeding last night. I just wanted to let you 20 know." They are self-reporting in Wisconsin. And 21 the idea that Wisconsin DNR, without posting a 22 multi-million dollar bond, would somehow be charged 23 with maintenance and monitoring of a clean-up of 24 this river is absolutely atrocious. By their own 25 statement they admit that they cannot now monitor 49 1 the landfills, which is why they are self-reporting. 2 So I would like to know why and under what 3 circumstances you would ever hook up with Wisconsin 4 DNR for the maintenance and monitoring of this 5 program. 6 MR. HAHNENBERG: I want to be clear on 7 what the question is. 8 MR. REIGEL: I repeat it. Why would you 9 ever hook up with the Wisconsin DNR, given its track 10 record for landfills, for monitoring this clean-up 11 at whatever kind of concept it resolves into? 12 MR. HAHNENBERG: It's a joint project with 13 EPA and DNR, and there would be oversight from DNR 14 and EPA. 15 MR. REIGEL: Didn't you check their 16 record? I'm serious. They have a record. 17 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, I'm not -- 18 MR. REIGEL: The landfill operators have 19 to file twice-a-year reports from their monitoring 20 wells. The Wisconsin DNR collects it. Has no one 21 checked what they do with these records? They show 22 hazardous chemicals being released at the monitoring 23 well cites. Their numbers, not mine. Their 24 numbers. And so why would you arrange for relying 25 for a project of this magnitude with someone with 50 1 this kind of track record? 2 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, DNR, as far as the 3 EPA is concerned, has shown that the state-licensed 4 landfills, as I indicated, are well designed and do 5 have good monitoring programs. As I said, EPA TSCA 6 program has evaluated that, has looked at that. 7 MR. REIGEL: So you never checked their 8 records. Have you ever checked their records? 9 MR. HAHNENBERG: I personally have not. 10 I do know -- as I said, our TSCA program, which 11 regulates PCB's, has considered that their 12 state-licensed landfills are equivalent to one of 13 theirs. 14 MR. REIGEL: Have they talked to you about 15 the additional point sources of PCB's right now for 16 the Fox? 17 MR. HAHNENBERG: No, I'm not familiar with 18 that. 19 MR. REIGEL: Thank you. 20 MS. PASTOR: Let's try to move along, 21 because I'm hoping by about 8:15 or so we can get to 22 the comment portion. But I know we have a few more 23 questions. 24 MR. CRADLER: My name is Fred Cradler. I 25 live at 3481 Nicolet Drive. You mentioned before in 51 1 the long-term monitoring of the caps that you felt 2 it would work because you were basing it on models 3 that were used in projections for the future. I was 4 reminded of another geological climatological event 5 where models were used and projections were made and 6 then Katrina came along and wiped out New Orleans. 7 And this is because they had no empirical data. 8 They based everything on their computer projections, 9 which is exactly what was said to us here about an 10 hour ago. And I'm wondering why we can only rely on 11 models when we should be relying on empirical data. 12 MS. PASTOR: Let's answer that one first. 13 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, the models are 14 based on empirical data when they were developed. 15 When you develop these equations models, it also 16 ties in to various laboratory studies as well to try 17 and determine what kind of -- if, in fact, equations 18 seem to be accurately reflecting reality. There is 19 also calibrations of these models where you try and 20 refine those calculations, make sure they seem to be 21 accurate. So there is empirical data that the 22 models are based on when they develop the models. 23 MR. CRADLER: Thank you. You used the 24 word "seem" twice. I'm concerned about that. 25 Secondly, you said that if the remedies 52 1 didn't work and we had to go back in and repair 2 those caps, that we would do that. But, if I am 3 understanding correctly, by then, all of the paper 4 corporations would have been released from liability 5 and we taxpayers would have to pay for those cap 6 repairs; is that correct? 7 MR. HAHNENBERG: Not necessarily, no. 8 MR. CRADLER: Not necessarily? 9 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, there is no 10 agreement now either way that would either release 11 the companies or not release the companies, because 12 there is no legal agreement in terms of what their 13 liability could be under that agreement. But I can 14 tell you right now what the statute says is they are 15 liable. They are liable under CERCLA, which creates 16 the Super Fund, basically. 17 MR. CRADLER: Is there any provision for 18 releasing them from liability once this procedure 19 has been started? 20 MR. HAHNENBERG: That's possible, but that 21 remains to be seen. EPA has not done that on these 22 projects, generally speaking. 23 MR. CRADLER: So far. 24 MR. HAHNENBERG: Yes. I mean nothing is 25 impossible, but the statute says that they are 53 1 liable. 2 MR. CRADLER: Jim, I want to thank you for 3 your answers, and I am going to have to leave you 4 with one more question. I have been at these 5 hearings for three years, and in the last three 6 years I have been assured with the same sort of 7 strength and assurance that this is the plan that 8 will work. This plan is different from the plans 9 that I have watched for the last three years. My 10 question is why should we believe you this time when 11 you have changed it three times already? Thank you. 12 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, all I can say is 13 that, or I would say is that we have all the 14 information that's out there that we based our 15 decision on. It's in the Basis of Design Report and 16 the other reports as well that we have in what we 17 call the administrative records file, which is in 18 the libraries, and the information that's on the DNR 19 and EPA websites, mostly the DNR website. So the 20 information is out there. So if someone wants to 21 look at that information, also look at the 22 evaluations that we have done, the engineering 23 evaluations, it's all laid out there for you to 24 review it, consider it yourself, look at the 25 information yourself, and you can decide if what we 54 1 are proposing makes sense based on all that 2 information. 3 The record is open, it's transparent. 4 Everything is out there that we base our decision 5 on, or our recommendation. There is no decision 6 yet. But we have all that information out there for 7 you to take a look at to review and for your 8 consideration. And you can make your comments known 9 on that information. If you have an evaluation on 10 that data that you think differs from ours, that's 11 fine. Tell us what you think and we will consider 12 that in the final decision. 13 MS. PASTOR: I've got three people waiting 14 to do questions and then we will move into comments. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I was just looking 16 for a clarification. Two gentlemen ago you said 17 that economics are a part of this decision, and 18 maybe 10 questions before him you said economics 19 were not a part of this decision. And I was just 20 looking to see if you could actually give us a real 21 answer on that. 22 MR. HAHNENBERG: Well, it is a factor. In 23 Super Fund we have what we call nine criteria. 24 Those are -- the first two are criteria that any 25 remedy that we select must meet. One is it must be 55 1 protective of human health and the environment. 2 Two, it must comply with all laws and regulations. 3 If it does not meet those two criteria, then we 4 don't consider it. Either the dredging project or 5 the capping and dredging project, both of those meet 6 those criteria. 7 Therefore, we go to the next seven 8 criteria, which are long-term effectiveness; 9 short-term effectiveness; implementability, that 10 is, can you do it. We look at we have a preference 11 for treatment, and then we also look at 12 cost-effectiveness. We add all those together and 13 then out of that blend we come up with a decision or 14 a recommendation that tells us we think this is the 15 right proposal. It is one of those criteria. 16 By cost-effectiveness, what we mean is how 17 does it compare relatively to the other rememdies. 18 If all the things are being -- 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But it's uncertain, 20 because you don't know if something is going to come 21 along in the future to destroy those caps, if those 22 caps do, indeed, work throughout the time period 23 that you're looking for. What if we have to redo 24 them? What if we have to get rid of them and dredge 25 again? That could be millions of more dollars. And 56 1 you don't even know where this money is going to be 2 coming from, whether it will be coming from 3 corporations or the people. I think that doesn't 4 make any sense. I'm sorry. It just doesn't make 5 any sense. 6 MR. HAHNENBERG: All the modeling 7 information, the engineering information, all these 8 other evaluations that we have done, the prop wash, 9 ice scour, biological effects, all those pieces of 10 information inform us that these caps would be 11 stable over the long term. 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But you don't know 13 for sure, and dredging would get rid of it. 14 MR. HAHNENBERG: There is a hundred 15 percent (speakers talking over each other), but that 16 information tells us it would be stable. So we 17 believe those scientific and engineering 18 evaluations, and it tells us it would work. And 19 that's what we base our -- we have to base our 20 recommendation on the engineering and the science 21 and the data, and that's what it is based on. And, 22 as I said before, all that information is laid out 23 there in the record, and if people want to review 24 that and decide for themselves, we welcome that 25 input in terms of what you think. 57 1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Before you said 2 that the PCB's that were more than fifty parts per 3 million go to one landfill, but if they are less 4 than 50 parts per million they go to another, even 5 though the concentrations are different in one set 6 of PCB's and less toxic in another. So why do you 7 need different types of landfills for those? 8 MR. HAHNENBERG: The higher concentrations 9 are more toxic, and that's what the regulation says. 10 The regulation says 50 parts per million is a 11 cut-off. That was drafted years ago under the days 12 of PCB regulation. And so it says 50 parts per 13 million goes to these different, more stringent 14 landfills because they are considered more toxic. 15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So then there is a 16 study that was done that shows a cut-off for 17 toxicology? 18 MR. HAHNENBERG: Yes. Well, that fifty 19 parts per million number actually has a variety of 20 reasons why that was come up with. That was in the 21 PCB regulation years ago. It's not entirely 22 protective, quite frankly. There is a number of 23 factors that went into that. But that's the number 24 that's in the regulation. 25 MR. ACKER: Bill Acker, 3217 Nicolet 58 1 Drive. I'm an environmental coach here for the 2 Nicolet Drive Neighborhood Association. I'm here to 3 object to this plan for one main reason, that there 4 is no money for the closure of Renard Island. There 5 was in the original estimate, but that money has 6 been removed. That money that was set in the 7 original budget went into there thanks to our county 8 being proactive and looking at this and knowing that 9 they needed money to properly close Renard Island. 10 That money has now been cut. 11 As a result of that, the County is 12 struggling to try to determine how to properly close 13 it. They have no money to properly close Renard. 14 And we know from the current closure document that 15 the current test revealed that the leakage out at 16 Renard Island violates our state statutes. If it 17 violates our state statutes, the people who are 18 currently looking at a lawsuit against Brown County 19 and the Army Corps would most probably lose and the 20 cost of properly closing Renard Island will fall on 21 the backs of Brown County residents. That's the 22 main reason why I object to this plan, because there 23 is no money for the proper closure. 24 Second of all, I would like to know with 25 these different caps that you are looking at, what 59 1 is the maximum velocity that these caps, that would 2 start to actually move these caps from in place, 3 putting stuff in place, what would actually move the 4 caps? What kind of velocities would you need? 5 MR. HAHNENBERG: I can't tell you the 6 exact velocity off the top of my head. I would have 7 to look in the report. 8 MR. ACKER: Could someone get an answer? 9 MR. HAHNENBERG: We can find that for you, 10 yes. 11 MS. PASTOR: I think we will be done with 12 questions, and it's 8:20 and I was shooting for 13 8:15, so that's not bad. So if we can move into the 14 comment portion of the meeting, I think that's why 15 many of you are here. I don't know how many numbers 16 we gave out. I know the last count was in the 17 thirties. Do you have a count on that, Greg? 57, 18 so we need to get the show on the road. 19 So, again, these are your comments in a 20 statement form that if you can keep it to three 21 minutes, I'm going to have someone kind of watching 22 their watch and giving me a hi sign so that, in all 23 fairness, everybody will get a chance to give your 24 comment for the record. 25 So the court reporter is up here, and for 60 1 this we do need your name spelled. And if you are 2 with a particular organization or governmental 3 entity, we would like to know that, too. And I've 4 asked the court reporter to say she didn't catch 5 your name or to spell it so that she can get that 6 correct. So don't be offended if she interrupts you 7 and stops you. 8 So not questions, statements. And you can 9 criticize, you can compliment, you can agree, you 10 can disagree, you can do whatever you want to. So 11 who's got number one? Come on down. 12 MR. JADIN: My name is Paul Jadin, 2847 13 Lobelia Court in Green Bay. And I'm here 14 representing the Green Bay Chamber of Commerce, but 15 I also want to point out that I also was the mayor 16 in 1995 to 2003. And I make that point because this 17 was an issue when I took office in 1995 and it was 18 an issue when I left office in 2003. And I would 19 like for it not to be an issue when I leave the 20 Chamber of Commerce or perhaps even die in Green 21 Bay. 22 So, having said that, first of all, I 23 also want to commend you for being here tonight and 24 for the diplomacy you have shown to this point. 25 But, having said that, I think it's important for 61 1 everyone to appreciate that this is, I believe, the 2 first real opportunity we have had to see something 3 done on the Fox River in the last at least decade. 4 And I think that when I left office the primary 5 message I was sending to the EPA and the DNR was 6 please base your remedy on sound science. And I was 7 delighted that just not more than two hours ago I 8 left a meeting with the Governor in which he was 9 echoing that very same sentiment. 10 I think that you have shown that you have 11 applied sound science to this whole effort. I'm 12 seeing that there is collaboration, there is 13 compromise, and, indeed, a scientific solution. And 14 that's evidenced in not just the efforts of the DNA 15 and the EPA, but also the various engineering firms 16 that you have brought into the process. I believe 17 that you have come up with a more efficient 18 proposal, and, as I stated, I want to refer to the 19 document, the table that you put together showing 20 the comparison. 21 OU-3 has an estimated PCB concentration 22 after remediation of .31 to .57 parts per million 23 under the current plan. Under the proposed plan it 24 goes to .28 to .49. OU-4 goes from .32 to .37 down 25 to .25 to 2.9. That obviously is a more efficient 62 1 way to do things. 2 The second thing that's very critical in 3 my opinion is, as I watched these various hearings 4 over the years, particularly the most recent one 5 that dealt with the west side landfill, it's become 6 quite apparent that, whatever happens, there is 7 still going to be conflict with respect to 8 landfilling these sediments. And this is a solution 9 that I think obviates some of that controversy, that 10 dialogue, because of the pipeline situation, because 11 of the lower amounts of sediment that have to be 12 landfilled. 13 And, while it came up several times during 14 the questions, I think it's important to reemphasize 15 the cost situation. We have gone from a $334 16 million plan to a $395 million plan, which arguably 17 was going to be a $580 million plan. Obviously, we 18 can't discount the whole issue of what this is going 19 to do to one of our larger employers or several of 20 our larger employers in the area. 21 Ultimately, the only question that remains 22 here is: Is capping sound science? I have not seen 23 any evidence to the contrary. I have researched it 24 thoroughly, as most of the people here have, and I'm 25 satisfied that the way you've engineered this and 63 1 the way you are going to monitor it and maintain it 2 does give us the ability to be assured that either 3 it's going to do the job short-term and long-term or 4 there is going to be a mid-term remedy that you are 5 going to be able to bring to the table to resolve 6 that. So I'm here to tell you that I'm in support 7 of this remedy and I thank you for your efforts. 8 MS. PASTOR: Number two. Keep your 9 comments to like around three minutes. I have 10 someone kind of watching so that we can keep it 11 going, so please. 12 MR. ANDERSEN: My name is Curt Andersen. 13 That's Curt with a C-u-r-t, A-n-d-e-r-s-e-n, 2942 14 Jack Pine Lane, Green Bay, Wisconsin, and that's 15 actually a Suamico address. 16 In the spirit of the secret meetings that 17 were held over the last few years without all 18 parties being represented, I want to tell everybody 19 here that my wife and I have had several secret 20 meetings to determine the actual cost for cleaning 21 up the pollution left by some bad actor paper mills. 22 The actual costs involved removing Renard Island, 23 that's a toxic pile of crap dumped into the bay and 24 a recreation area by sissy politicians, bad public 25 policy, and several large gorilla corporations that 64 1 know how to both reward and threaten. The actual 2 costs include dredging the entire southern end of 3 Green Bay and removing the spoils to a proper 4 landfill. And oh, look there on the stream, there 5 is a branch in the water. I wonder if a whole tree 6 would fall in and roll around back and forth a few 7 times and punch that stupid cap up. 8 The actual costs involve lost economics 9 from a clean river, healthy tourism in Brown County, 10 a one hundred year lack of demand for river lots 11 that only changed since the clean-up plans were 12 announced, and a thriving commercial fishing 13 industry on the river bay of Lake Michigan. 14 Monitoring for a hundred years is imperative so the 15 citizens can be sure that dredging has been properly 16 executed and public safety assured. I do not trust 17 the Army Corps of Engineers, since they are also the 18 ones that have been monitoring Kitty Island. 19 A cost settlement lower than conservative 20 cost determinations is ass backwards. It costs what 21 it costs to do a clean-up. This is not a vegetable 22 fall in the Punjab. We do not barter here. Capping 23 is an idiotic measure and indicates the level of 24 corruption we have in our city, state, county, and 25 federal governments from the top down. What we have 65 1 in Green Bay and in the river is due to corruption 2 headed by former Governor Tommy Thompson, current 3 Governor Jim Doyle, and the ultimately corrupt 4 President George Bush, who have weakened DNR and EPA 5 so that they are only convenient names for public 6 relations actions. 7 Based on these points, my wife and I have 8 determined that the new costs of cleaning the river 9 and bay with toxic dredge spoils being removed 10 likely to Detroit is $4.75 billion. All of you can 11 go home now, because we have decided this, it's 12 done. That's the new cost, and we have decided that 13 a further wasting of time by the paper industry, 14 they should be penalized at the rate of $50,000 a 15 day per paper mill. So time is a wasting, you paper 16 mills. Start writing those checks. Get on with it. 17 MS. PASTOR: Number three. 18 MS. GARRELS: My name is Josie Garrels, 19 G-a-r-r-e-l-s, and I live at 219 13th Avenue in 20 Green Bay. I first want to thank you for the 21 opportunity to comment. I'm a resident in Green Bay 22 and so I'm speaking as a resident, but I'm also 23 speaking on behalf of the Wisconsin League of 24 Conservation Voters, which is a nonprofit and 25 non-partisan organization that works for (inaudible) 66 1 public health and natural resources here in 2 Wisconsin. 3 I've lived in central Wisconsin all my 4 life, but until I moved to Green Bay about a year 5 and a half ago I don't know if I could have even 6 told you where the Fox River was, let alone the 7 detailed history of PCB contamination in the river 8 or the saga of the clean-up efforts. And I 9 deliberately use the word "saga", because the people 10 in this community and others have struggled for 11 years to make the river swimable and fishable again 12 and to ask corporations to be responsible for their 13 hazardous waste. 14 Decades have passed with PCB's being 15 dumped into the river and then toxicity was brought 16 to light, and then all the studies, public comment 17 periods, hearings, and meetings were conducted. And 18 all the while the contamination sat there at the 19 bottom of the Fox River, being absorbed by all the 20 organisms, accumulating in the fish we eat, and 21 affecting our health in measurable and immeasurable 22 ways. 23 By the time we determined that the best 24 solution (inaudible) required removal of the toxins, 25 the parties involved signed a record of decision and 67 1 the people of Green Bay and other cities along the 2 Fox River finally gained some peace of mind. But 3 today we find the contamination issue is being 4 revisited to allow the (inaudible). To reopen the 5 record of decision because it's costing too much to 6 clean up the toxic mess they left behind in the 7 pursuit of profit is a slap in the face to citizens 8 who stopped fishing in the Fox River, to the parents 9 who do not let their children splash on the shore, 10 and to the city for trying to overcome the stigma of 11 a toxic waste site. Backing down from the original 12 well researched clean-up plan does not provide the 13 same level of protection for public health and 14 natural resources. 15 We would like to ask you to: One, uphold 16 the original record of decision; two, clean up, not 17 cover up the PCB's in the Fox River; and, three, 18 make sure liable pollutors bear responsibility and 19 pay to clean up their toxic mess. Green Bay and Fox 20 Valley residents in this whole area (inaudible) 21 water and our future. So, as you think about the 22 kind of gifts you want to give your children this 23 holiday season, I would like you to ask yourselves 24 if you would like to be giving them a toxic mess. 25 And thank you for the opportunity to comment. 68 1 MS. PASTOR: Number four. 2 MS. DIAZ: My name is Kim Diaz, D-i-a-z, 3 and I live at 13th Avenue here in Green Bay, a 4 couple of blocks away from the Fox River, and I am 5 just representing myself. And I just wanted to make 6 a comment that I feel like we are cleaning up the 7 Fox River now, and that's good. It's about time. 8 And I think that we should do a good job and not do 9 half measures and just cover it up. I think we 10 should stick with the original plan to clean it and 11 not do the capping, because the river runs and it's 12 going to run out into the bay and then it's going to 13 run into Lake Michigan. We don't have a lot of 14 fresh water in this world. We need to protect that. 15 And I wanted to say also that we should take care of 16 this problem because we are responsible for it and 17 not leave it for our grandchildren. 18 MS. PASTOR: Thank you. Number five. 19 MR. HOWLETT: My name is George Howlett, 20 environmental scientist living at 422 Koynee 21 (phonetic) Street in Seymour, Wisconsin. I began 22 life on the Fox River in Green Bay when I was a baby 23 at three months old in a sailboat. I am a 24 researcher who did work starting in 1968, both for 25 my dissertation research on the west shore and for 69 1 the sea grant program under Dr. Sager and Doctors 2 Wierzma (phonetic). I have a formal statement being 3 submitted. It's very, very technical. Before I go 4 any further, I want to say Jim, you did a very good 5 job of explaining it to me. I understand fully. I 6 fully support the proposal. (inaudible) for 7 scientific engineering reasons. 8 I am in part an algologist and a 9 hydrologist. I understand why the cap, the armored 10 cap works, and I want to present some information on 11 why algae are part of the situation and why the 12 capping will stop the movement of PCB's to the bay 13 and eventually to Lake Michigan. 14 Before we go any further, I have a most 15 recent book, 2006, showing that the PCB's, in fact, 16 are beginning to bioremediate bacterial action, 17 bioremedial compounds. They have been proven to be 18 doing so in the Hudson River, the Milwaukee River, 19 the Sheboygan River, and there is every sign that 20 it's happening here in the Fox River. I want to go 21 on to the main part, and that is some quoting from 22 my paper. 23 First of all, yesterday I had a 24 conversation with Steven Westerbrook, USGS scientist 25 now assigned to the project for the PCB's at 70 1 Madison, and he replaces Eric Stollers (phonetic), 2 who was doing the PCB work, and I am reporting back 3 out of things that I saw in Eric Fitzgerald's paper, 4 that the algae are the principal carriers of PCB's 5 to the river. The main thing to do is to stop that 6 transfer. And I will explain a little bit here. 7 First of all, the algae that are the ones 8 that are carrying it are principally cyanobacteria, 9 which means they are bluegreen algae. The 10 cyanobacteria are gram negative. I don't know if 11 anybody here has any background in bacteriology, but 12 the gram negative have an external membrane which is 13 a saccharide but it's also a lipid, 14 lipopolysaccharide. And the reason I say that is 15 because that shell makes contact in the bottom when 16 the bottom is exposed, exposed because it's a 17 sediment. 18 The algae also have gas vacuoles. They 19 sink into the bottom, pick up phosphate, and in the 20 process contact and also come in contact with other 21 gram negative bacteria which decomposes. So it's a 22 mix of decomposed bacteria and cyanobacteria that 23 are contacting the bottom. This bottom then is 24 giving them the PCB's, because both are nonpolar 25 rather than polar materials. The PCB is of a 71 1 variety of polarities of 209 containers, but most of 2 them are very water insoluble and very lipid 3 soluble. And so they pass to the bacteria and the 4 cyanobacteria, which rise again because of their gas 5 vacuoles and carry this until the next time that 6 they fall down. 7 And this is a reservoir, it is not a 8 river. It's very important to understand the 9 hydrology of this system, because the flows in the 10 river from the bottom only at the time when the 11 tainter gates are open during flood stage. 12 Otherwise, all those are over the top because that 13 flow that goes into the paper mills for power and to 14 the power generated rapid crush, those have to have 15 fall. You don't get power without fall. 16 MS. PASTOR: We need you to wrap up. 17 MR. HOWLETT: Okay. The principal point 18 is that it is the algae that are the carriers, and 19 the mechanisms of the algae and the paper will 20 explain more. And one thing that I can add that was 21 found this morning when I looked at my bacteriology 22 manual was that point on the polysaccharides and the 23 lipid A. Lipid A plus slimes, and I'll mention plus 24 the slimes. And vanderwall forces. Vanderwall 25 forces are doing all the work. 72 1 MS. PASTOR: Number six. 2 MS. KATERS: My name is Rebecca Katers. 3 I'm the Associate Director of the Clean Water Action 4 Council. My address is 2484 Manitowoc Road in Green 5 Bay. The Clean Water Action Council absolutely 6 opposes this plan. We are not happy with the last 7 plan because of the weaknesses that were inserted in 8 that one. But this plan goes far beyond what is 9 acceptable. We cannot support it. We are going to 10 be submitting technical comments, but I wanted to 11 devote my three minutes to talk about the processes, 12 because I think the process is the most disturbing 13 to me. 14 I have worked on this issue for 20 years 15 now on and off as part of the official planning 16 process and then the unofficial planning process. 17 I was part of the original Remedial Action Plan 18 Committee. But the last three-and-a-half years have 19 been entirely closed-door secret meetings between 20 the corporations and agencies. Completely 21 imbalanced. You talk about science. Why were you 22 not willing to allow our experts to be present to 23 participate in those meetings or even to observe 24 those meetings? They were shut. The doors were 25 shut. You and the corporations getting together and 73 1 discussing all the details at length, without any 2 public input or even observation. That is 3 corruption. 4 And you come here talking about science. 5 You give us three minutes. Industry has had access 6 to you people for three-and-a-half years. You give 7 us three minutes to comment on it. We have a 8 document this thick (indicating), but you give us 9 three minutes to comment on it. That's an outrage. 10 Other things have been happening. You 11 pick the busiest season of the year, of course. 12 It's finals for students, it's holiday for adults. 13 It's the same night as the Green Bay City Council. 14 Our aldermen should be here, our mayor should be 15 here. Don't you people check the schedules? 16 Governor Doyle planned his Town Hall meeting tonight 17 just a couple hours ago. Is that deliberate? An 18 effort to waylay the media and dominate the media 19 coverage tonight so that the public doesn't hear 20 what happened here? 21 You only made seven copies of the Basis of 22 Design Report for the public. We got a copy because 23 we are the technical advisory grant group, but we 24 had to send it to Virginia where our expert is. You 25 claim you mailed a copy, a second copy, but Fed Ex 74 1 lost it, and you refused to file a claim and get us 2 another copy. I'm sorry, but the corporations 3 should be paying for anybody to get a copy of these 4 documents well in advance so we have time to review 5 them. They are very thick, they are they technical. 6 You are talking about science, this is science 7 based. Well, let us have a chance to look at the 8 science and have a document to look at. You cannot 9 study this material on line, you can't look at a 10 disk and go through hundreds of pages of technical 11 jargon on a computer screen at the same ability that 12 you have with a paper document. It is simply not 13 possible, especially when you don't number the pages 14 accurately and you are referring to diagrams and 15 tables that are misnumbered. Try to do that on a 16 disk on your computer, sort your way through it. 17 And why did the DNR not have their website 18 updated? And why couldn't people open the documents 19 on your website for months on end? You have the 20 wrong contact named, you had two-year outdated 21 information on who to contact at DNR. You had your 22 statement there that there were no public meetings 23 planned. Finally you put a little box in the corner 24 of your Fox River page that says that there is a 25 public hearing tonight. Kind of late. I have been 75 1 checking the website. You are not providing the 2 information. There are no news releases posted, 3 there was no meeting posted until just recently, 4 and people couldn't open the documents to even study 5 them. You talk about a public involvement plan. 6 This is a lousy excuse for it. But industry had 7 access to you people for three-and-a-half years on 8 this. 9 MS. PASTOR: Number seven. State your 10 name for the record. 11 MR. HICKS: My name is George Hicks, and 12 I represent the design team of Shaw Environmental 13 and Anger Environmental. We are actually doing this 14 project of remedial design on behalf of Georgia 15 Pacific and NCR and under the watchful eye of EPA 16 and DNR. We are designing the largest environmental 17 dredging project in the United States, if not the 18 world. This project is based on sampling, on 19 analysis that's been done over the last three years. 20 We have 1400 locations as opposed to 400. We have 21 10,000 samples that we have analyzed over the last 22 three years. 23 And, by analyzing these samples, we have 24 determined differences in the river than there were 25 previously thought of. There is different 76 1 concentrations, there is different areas. We talked 2 about earlier tonight there are areas of higher 3 concentrations that weren't discovered before down 4 below the DePere dam. We are addressing those next 5 year. They are being dredged by the paper companies 6 next year. 7 All this work has given us a much, much 8 clearer picture, and I think there is -- some of the 9 other aspects should be that there are deeply buried 10 material is cleaner, there is deeply buried 11 contaminated material is cleaner (inaudible) that 12 lend themselves to capping. There is a thin layer 13 of material that is barely over the 1 ppm RAL that 14 lends themselves to capping. 15 This summer we submitted the report, BODR, 16 Basis of Design Report, recommending remedial 17 approaches to each of the areas that we found during 18 our studies. Our report received intense scrutiny 19 from DNR, EPA, their experts, and national engineers 20 and scientists from throughout the United States. 21 The DNR and EPA ultimately approved the report, and 22 now we are proposing and they are now proposing to 23 update this clean-up plan in light of the new 24 information provided within this report. 25 The core idea of the proposed remedy is to 77 1 tailor the clean-up to different parts of the river 2 using different remedies, be it dredging, dredging 3 and cap, capping by itself. Dredging these areas 4 would still remove 74 percent of the PCB mass from 5 the river that the ROD remedy would have also 6 removed. At the same time, the dredging would be 7 more focusing in the areas of higher PCB 8 concentration so that millions of cubic yards of 9 sediment containing one ppm or less doesn't go into 10 Wisconsin landfills. This allows the proposed 11 remedy to achieve an environmental target of an ROD 12 about half the size of the original, or nine years 13 versus 15 plus, all the way up to 24 years. 14 The proposed remedy applies capping where 15 the petula (phonetic) is better suited than dredging 16 to address particular areas of the river, 17 specifically in areas where dredging would be 18 harmful to the shoreline, to existing bulkheads, to 19 piers, utilities. This will insure that we don't 20 undermine docks or public or private facilities. 21 The proposed remedy still follows the one 22 ppm action level the agency set forth for this 23 project. In the proposed remedy every spot in the 24 river that's over one ppm will be addressed, either 25 through dredging or capping. Importantly, the 78 1 proposed remedy achieves a lower average surface 2 concentration than the original ROD remedy. 3 And then I want to emphasize that the 4 proposed combination of dredging and engineered 5 capping is a permanent remedy for the PCB in 6 sediments. We are using basic engineering 7 principles, governmental guidance set by the EPA, 8 and a large margin of safety to design these caps so 9 they can withstand the forces three times the 10 highest flows recorded in the river. That is, these 11 caps are designed to withstand all plausible 12 combinations of ice scour, low flow, severe storms, 13 winds, floods, and boat traffic. 14 The proposed remedy will enable the river 15 to recover faster than the original remedy, the 16 clean-up will take half the time, and will leave 17 lower surface PCB concentrations in less time as 18 well as fast removal of the fish consumption 19 advisories. This combination of dredging and 20 capping will also make the clean-up much more 21 cost-effective. 22 As closing, I want to say we are proud to 23 be doing this vital remedial action, remedial 24 design, and that the Fox River will still be the 25 largest dredging project ever conducted by tailoring 79 1 the remedial technologies to localized sediment 2 conditions. Thank you. 3 MS. PASTOR: Number eight. 4 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: My name is Zalman T. 5 Sapperstein. I live at 3155 Gibraltor Road in Fish 6 Creek, although I lived in California, Los Angeles, 7 from 1931 till about 1965. I'm an old fart. 8 First of all, I'm going to make three 9 statements. This plan is wrong. I say that as a 10 research engineer, going for my doctorate when I was 11 drafted into the Korean War. I worked in 12 engineering research my whole life. My fields 13 included material turbulence flow, mass flow, heat 14 transfer, structures, and on. I'm a Fellow of the 15 American Society of Metals. And, just to give 16 another bit, I am also a member of the (inaudible) 17 Research Society, American (inaudible) Research 18 Society of the United States of America. And I ask 19 all of you to become a water warrior. Demand safe 20 water now. 21 I now would like to read from a sheet that 22 I took out today. Last revised Tuesday, November 23 21, 2006. Okay? Three weeks ago maybe. This is 24 on the www.dnrstate.wius/org_water_wn/foxriver/ 25 happyhtml. I can give you that later. 80 1 Depending on the erosive forces present at 2 the site an in situ cap may have to be armored with 3 stone or other materials to keep the cap intact. 4 The potential for large commercial vessels to scour 5 the river bottom would necessitate a very large 6 armor stone, making in situ capping difficult in an 7 area most active navigation channel. 8 The active navigation channel in the Fox 9 River extends from Green Bay upstream to the turning 10 basin at Fort James Paper Corporation. The 11 federally authorized navigation channel extends from 12 Green Bay to the outlet of Lake Winnebego. Goes on 13 to say, "November 21, 2006, besides capping, other 14 in situ approaches to managing contaminated 15 sediments exist." And then it goes on to say, "In 16 situ caps may further reduce water depths to levels 17 that are not safe for existing or planned 18 recreational boating or may eliminate shallow water 19 aquatic habitat. Construction of an in situ cap 20 represents a deliberate change to the shape of the 21 bottom of a waterway. Future human and ecological 22 uses of the waterway may be limited by this change. 23 Sites that are capped require perpetual maintenance, 24 and there is always the risk that the cap could 25 erode from flooding, aquatic organisms, stream bank 81 1 erosion, navigation, and recreational forces." 2 MS. PASTOR: You'd better wrap up. 3 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: Ma'am, this other 4 gentlemen took five minutes and I have taken less 5 than three, and I think you are unfair. You are 6 biasing this one way. And I think I should be 7 allowed at least two more minutes. 8 MS. PASTOR: Two more minutes and then we 9 have 40 more people. 10 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: Fine. I understand. 11 But we have been listening to a lot of deception. 12 The most recent research done by Alcoa 13 shows that the capping methods that they studied in 14 2004 were subject to ice erosion and ice shoves. Do 15 you want that? Of course, ice doesn't exist in the 16 Fox River or in Green Bay. And, in fact, the PCB 17 levels went up in the sediment rather than went 18 down. Now, wait a minute, let me -- you gave him 19 much time. I'm going to read one other thing. 20 Those of you who are for this, this is a 21 staged affair. I want to say one other -- I have 22 questions that I will ask, then ask one final -- 23 it's not a question to be answered. Why do the 24 paper companies in Wisconsin use PCB's in the 25 manufacture of products for more than 25 years 82 1 beginning in 1954 when they knew that the wastewater 2 discharges would contaminated the water? Why did 3 the use of existing stocks of PCB's continue after 4 production of PCB's was banned in the U.S. in 1979? 5 Why did the political administrations in Wisconsin 6 of Thompson, McCullum, and Doyle, and the elected 7 Assemblymen and Senators over the last 30 years 8 allow PCB contamination's persistence after the 9 production ban? Why do paper companies continue to 10 use this deadly chemical even after production was 11 banned? Why does PCB contamination remain in 12 northeastern Wisconsin after more than 17 years has 13 lapsed since our elected Wisconsin government 14 officials in the Thompson administration and paper 15 industry executives agree to a comprehensive PCB 16 removal plan? 17 MS. PASTOR: Sir, we need to move on. 18 MR. SAPPERSTEIN: And I strongly urge 19 everyone here to stand up and oppose this farcical 20 remedy that is done strictly for economic reasons to 21 benefit the corporations and the government. 22 MS. PASTOR: Number nine. 23 MR. WOLFF: My name is Kelly Wolff. 24 K-e-l-l-y, W-o-l-f-f, and I'm here wearing two hats 25 tonight. The first one is Vice-President of 83 1 Operations for Georgia Pacific here in Green Bay, 2 and the second and more important is as a citizen of 3 this community, long-term community citizen. My 4 wife and I raised our family here, and are very 5 concerned about this (indicating). 6 I want to applaud the Agency for this 7 plan. This is a very good plan, and we should be 8 very excited about our ability to move forward based 9 on sound science. Thousands of hours of engineering 10 studies have gone into this. I personally have 11 asked all of the questions that you folks have asked 12 here tonight and applaud all of you for asking those 13 questions. As a steward of a company, I have the 14 responsibility of making sure anytime we spend large 15 sums of money in investments that we know that we 16 are going to get the result. This plan achieves 17 that result. 18 So, if you look at the multi-faceted plan 19 that you put together, with dredging, capping, the 20 combination of the two, it's going to insure that we 21 have the best plan. It's quicker, it achieves it in 22 half the time. And the capping really does separate 23 the organisms, so we are going to get a much quicker 24 effect in the river, less PCB's in the river. So 25 it's a good plan, again. 84 1 I'm going to be very brief. I know there 2 is a lot of other people who would like to talk. 3 but, again, for both of my hats, this comprehensive 4 plan that you have put together meets the needs, and 5 we need to support it. Thank you. 6 MS. PASTOR: Number ten. 7 MR. GARARDI: My name is Don Garardi. I 8 live at 6590 Aspen Drive. Last name, G-a-r-a-r-d-i. 9 I've lived and worked in Green Bay for ten years. 10 I'm also an avid sailor, member of Windjammer 11 Sailing Club. Love the South Bay, think South Bay 12 Fox River a very valuable resource. Studied the 13 plan. I think it's a very good plan. I think it's 14 the best chance we have of seeing this river 15 restored in our lifetimes and would like to see it 16 move forward. Thank you. 17 MS. PASTOR: Eleven. 18 MR. FRISK: Charles Frisk, 3560 Sunrise 19 Circle, Green Bay, Wisconsin. I'm also speaking on 20 behalf of the Northeast Wisconsin Autobon. I'm not 21 an engineer or anything like that, but I am a person 22 who spent a lot of my whole life messing around on 23 rivers, fishing, swimming, canoeing, and so on. I 24 can tell you that you can have a river completely 25 memorized, where the deep holes are, where the 85 1 shallow holes are, where the ripples are, and if you 2 stay away from that river for ten years and come 3 back, it's not the same river. It doesn't need a 4 hundred-year flood, it doesn't need a 200-year 5 flood. Rivers move sediments around. They move 6 huge sediments around. They move giant boulders 7 around. The idea that you can put sediment down on 8 top of other sediment and expect it to stay there, 9 because that's all this is, you are putting sediment 10 on sediment, that stuff moves around. 11 The DNR did a huge dredging project up in 12 the Wolf River a few years ago to make deeper holes 13 for trout fishing. They were just impressive as all 14 get out for the first season. Two years later, it's 15 all gone back to kind of the way it was before. 16 Rivers have the places where they put the things. 17 They cut material out, they move it. 18 Some of these caps will stay in place. 19 Some of the caps may actually get buried under more 20 sediment. But some of the caps are going to get 21 eroded completely away. Anybody that's spent a lot 22 of time on rivers knows that you can't put sediment 23 down and expect it to stay in place. It's just a 24 common sense thing. We are going to get one real 25 good chance to clean up this river, and I don't 86 1 think that this is the way to do it, because this 2 isn't going to stay in place. Thank you. 3 MS. PASTOR: Number twelve. 4 MS. SCHAEFER: I'm Patty Bernard Schaefer 5 from the Fox Valley Sierra group, and I am 6 disappointed to be here tonight. I have been 7 attending these meetings and hearings for many 8 years. I was at the June 23 meeting for the record 9 of decision, and I remember pointing out at that 10 meeting a very large loophole in the record of 11 decision, a loophole that's too big to close and 12 much too big to cap. That loophole is letting the 13 DNR and the EPA change their plan based solely on 14 economic interests rather than on human health 15 interest. The DNR and the EPA should be doing a 16 river clean-up, not a river cover-up. 17 Capping is not the permanent solution to 18 the problem facing us. The PCB's in the Fox River 19 need to be removed from the river and they need to 20 be treated and destroyed effectively and disposed of 21 in a fashion that protects human health. Removal 22 and destruction of the PCB-contaminated sediments 23 should be the goal of the clean-up, not just 24 covering up those sediments. 25 If the DNR and the EPA do insist on 87 1 capping parts of the river, then liability must go 2 along with the cap. Covering up does not destroy 3 the PCB's. Covering up does not dissolve liability 4 for the PCB's either. I support removal and 5 destruction of the PCB's, not covering them up. I 6 support a permanent, not a temporary, solution. 7 MS. PASTOR: Thirteen. 8 MR. KRANING: My name is a Lawrence 9 Kraning. I live in Little Suamico. The Weeping 10 Willow up here is an apt symbol for the EPA and its 11 statistics and generalities presented tonight. This 12 is not a clean-up. This is a cover-up which was 13 presented to you. We have had 30 years of cover-up 14 on this river. Relying on statistics from other 15 industry self-monitoring studies is absolutely a 16 farce. How much common sense has gone into your 17 statistics and the analyzing of them? You need to 18 change your name. You need to change your initials 19 to POP, pawn of the paper companies. 20 The paper companies put it in there. They 21 put the PCB's in there knowingly, they covered it up 22 knowingly. Let them get it out knowingly. Too bad 23 that there's got to be a little cave-in of the 24 riverfront, okay, the shoreline. Too bad you got to 25 go around some pipes, too bad you got to go around 88 1 some docks. Isn't the health and welfare of the 2 citizens of this state worth it? What do we care 3 whether it costs this much or that much? Are you 4 going to do your job responsibly or not? As far as 5 I am concerned, the EPA is a wasteland. 6 We faced a terrible environmental problem 7 a few years ago with the Exxon Crandon mine, and 8 over 60 organizations got together to defeat it. 9 And, if necessary, those same organizations are 10 going to get up and we are going to clean up the Fox 11 River. The same delaying tactics are going on on 12 the Hudson River with GE. We are not going to put 13 up with it. Perhaps what we need to do is hit the 14 paper companies where it really hurts, their bottom 15 line. Maybe we should call a worldwide boycott on 16 all their manufactured products. We are tired of 17 this. This is serious business to the people that 18 live in this community. Thank you. 19 MS. PASTOR: Fourteen. 20 MS. SKVARA: Thank you for listening to me 21 tonight. My name is Carolyn Skvara, S-k-v-a-r-a. I 22 live in Arapaho Trail in Hobart. My voice is a 23 small one, but I would like to share a small portion 24 of information with you. My husband was a 25 scientist. His firm was Scientific Ecology Group in 89 1 Oakridge, Tennessee. He invented a process which 2 handled nuclear waste as well as PCB's, et cetera. 3 He also did a great deal of work in Europe and was 4 responsible for the clean-up of two major rivers 5 which find their way into the ocean. It was his 6 dream to clean up these areas which are on tonight's 7 agenda. Unfortunately, he died before he could 8 accomplish this. He had associations with the EPA, 9 DNR, the Nuclear Regulatory Association, et cetera. 10 He discussed his dream with me, and I have committed 11 this to memory. I am thankful to be here, because 12 his cause has become my passion and my heart's 13 desire, and I really want to finish this for him. 14 As it's been stated, we are here tonight 15 because the lower Fox river project involves a 16 clean-up of sediment contaminated with PCB's and 17 other things, as well as restoring the natural 18 resources which have been destroyed and damaged. 19 Time is of the essence with PCB clean-up, and, even 20 though dredging is expensive and people believe that 21 there are areas which cannot be reached, I need to 22 say this simply. How can we define success? How 23 can we place a dollar amount on success? 24 Don proposed to dredge, then burn in a 25 portable incinerator, which will reduce the volume 90 1 by over one-half. It can then be transported per 2 rail car to Nevada or Utah, which has toxic burial 3 waste, and they will accept this. Vegetation can 4 then be planted to further help our cause. 5 We need to do this for ourselves and for 6 those who follow us. I pray that through mutual 7 respect, understanding, and action, we will come 8 together and turn this into a wonderful plan of 9 action. If I have offended anyone, I do apologize, 10 but I do truly know this is a correct and vital 11 plan. Don would love it. I know I am not in 12 control, but I hope this committee will be receptive 13 to hearing and seriously considering my solution. 14 Thank you. 15 MS. PASTOR: Fifteen. 16 MR. HARKNESS: Good evening. My name is 17 Larry Harkness, 5908 Moonflower Drive in Appleton. 18 I speak to you as an avid fisherman. I've fished 19 the Fox River for more than 29 years and know 20 literally every bend of that river very well. 21 I support this project for three reasons. 22 One, it's sound scientifically, its methodologies 23 have been used elsewhere and are proven. Two, the 24 capping process places cobble on top that provides 25 for an ecosystem which is very conducive to game 91 1 fish, and it's been proven that in less than two 2 years the game fish population can increase 3 dramatically. Third, it provides for timely 4 remediation, and I would like to see that happen in 5 my lifetime. Thank you. 6 MS. PASTOR: Sixteen. 7 MS. FOSSEN-RADES: Good evening. My name 8 is Christine Fossen-Rades. Not only am I on the 9 Board of Directors for the Clean Water Action 10 Council, but I also teach biology and environmental 11 science at East DePere, although this evening I'm 12 not wearing either of those hats. I'm wearing my 13 newest hat, which is mommy. I have two toddlers at 14 home, and to know that -- to think that we have a 15 toxic waste dump in our back yard and we are just 16 going to throw gravel and dirt and sand and then to 17 knowingly let our children play in and around that 18 toxic waste dump to me is unfathomable. I do not 19 have any other way to put it than that. It is 20 completely unacceptable to pass this on to our 21 children and to our children's children, because by 22 not removing, that is what we are doing. The caps 23 cannot theoretically last forever. The PCB's will 24 still be there and we are just passing this dilemma 25 on to our children, and that cannot happen. 92 1 MS. PASTOR: Seventeen. 2 MR. GRAVES: My name is Ken Graves, 3131 3 Westview Road in Green Bay. I was born and raised 4 in this area, I raised my family in this area, and 5 throughout my whole life. I went to school at UWGB 6 and got my degree in science and environmental 7 change, so I'm well vested in this area and have a 8 lot of experience. I'm also Environmental Program 9 Manager at Georgia Pacific, and I have been doing 10 that for 20 years. 11 Many of you can remember back in the early 12 seventies and late sixties the Fox River between 13 the dam and the mouth of the bay was a dead river. 14 Fish didn't go up the river because there was no 15 dissolved oxygen. There was freezing point 16 depression in the winter. In other words, the level 17 of pollution in the river was such that the river 18 actually would freeze at a lower temperature, 29 or 19 30 degrees, versus what you would normally expect. 20 Being on the end of a highly regulated 21 thing we are talking about here, one of the things 22 I wanted to point out, and a lot of people haven't 23 really thought about this, but over the past 30 24 years there's been a deliberate and effective 25 process in place to manage the health of the Fox 93 1 River. It started out bad. Right now it's a very 2 high class fishery. We went from no fish, dead, a 3 river that looked like a flowing mud stream, to now 4 is a very healthy ecosystem with respect to the 5 fishery that's there and has been a highly valued 6 resource to sport fishermen. 7 I am convinced that the project in the way 8 that it has been proposed is going to deliver the 9 most effective results in the shortest period of 10 time. What we are driving here towards is overall 11 environmental ecosystem health. The data and the 12 facts, the statistics, the research, have all been 13 done by what I believe and I am convinced are some 14 of the world's experts in this field. And I have 15 been exposed to this long enough to know where this 16 is taking us, and I am truly convinced that, as we 17 go forward in this process, what's been proposed, 18 capping in combination with all the other 19 technologies, is going to take us to the fastest 20 recovery of the Fox River ecosystem in the shortest 21 period of time. 22 I have a long history in this area and I 23 plan on staying in this area, and I want to lend my 24 support to the fact that there is credibility in the 25 management of the DNR and EPA, as much as sometimes 94 1 it doesn't feel like it as part of a person that's 2 been regulated. It's been absolutely successful, 3 and I'm convinced that it's going to be successful 4 going forward on this project the way it's been 5 proposed. The data and the facts support that, and 6 we will get there. Thank you. 7 MS. PASTOR: Eighteen. 8 MR. WILUSZ: My name is Ed Wilusz. Last 9 name spelled W-i-l-u-s-z. I represent the Wisconsin 10 Paper Council of Neenah, Wisconsin. The Paper 11 Council is the trade association for the paper 12 industry here in Wisconsin, and the Paper Council is 13 here to support the revised Fox River clean-up plan. 14 The affected companies understand that they have 15 clean-up responsibilities and are committed to 16 meeting them. However, economic realities dictate 17 that these responsibilities be fulfilled 18 effectively, quickly, and at the least cost. To 19 succeed at meeting these goals is for the major 20 affected parties to reach a voluntary agreement that 21 will avoid the Super Fund legal process, a process 22 that could add years to the schedule and millions of 23 dollars to the cost of the clean-up. 24 The process is working as it should. An 25 extensive clean-up and design effort supervised by 95 1 EPA and DNR generated significant new information 2 that allowed the best and most informed decisions to 3 be made. This new information points to a different 4 mix of technologies that involves less dredging, 5 combined with the use of engineered caps. The 6 result is a revised clean-up plan that meets all 7 evaluation criteria, will result in lower PCB levels 8 in less time, and cost an estimated $109 million 9 less than the original plan. This is clearly a 10 win-win proposal. 11 Some are concerned about the use of the 12 engineered caps. We do not share this concern. 13 Capping is only being allowed in limited areas and 14 must be as effective in risk reduction as dredging. 15 Stability and performance of cap design is 16 thoroughly evaluated against the effects of high 17 river flows, storms, high waves, and from shipping 18 and recreational use. Long-term monitoring is 19 required to make sure the caps remain effective. We 20 urge the EPA and DNR to approve the revised cap to 21 allow the clean-up to begin. 22 MS. PASTOR: Nineteen. Who has 19? Going 23 once, going twice. Twenty. 24 MR. SAMPSON: Thank you. My name is Dick 25 Sampson, S-a-m-p-s-o-n, 1013 East North Street in 96 1 Appleton 54911. I share the skepticism of many on 2 the caps, but I also have noticed that there is 3 neglect of new river input of PCB's along the Fox, 4 particularly in Neenah at what is called Arrowhead 5 Park, which is a local poison source. I lived at 6 one point back in the fifties, I lived in 7 Schenectady, New York, and happened to have visited 8 the confluence of the two rivers in Albany, and they 9 had a lethal beauty. I hope that we will get rid of 10 any lethal beauty like that in the Fox River. Of 11 course, anything made by people is imperfect. There 12 is only one source of perfection. And I think these 13 -- I'm really concerned about the existence of 14 Renard Island and the particular examples of these 15 leaking landfills. We don't need that lethal beauty 16 leaking into them. Thank you very much. 17 MS. PASTOR: Thank you. Twenty-one. 18 MS. MOLDENHAUER: My name is Janet 19 Moldenhauer. I'm from Oshkosh, Wisconsin. I am a 20 boater and a swimmer and canoeist and a sailor. 21 I think that there should be some changes and 22 revisions in this plan from what was presented three 23 years ago, but I don't like to be threatened by the 24 paper companies that if you don't do it our way 25 right now it's going to be held up another 30 years. 97 1 I think that's kind of ridiculous. And everyone is 2 refusing to go back to vitrification, which would 3 burn up the PCB's and we would be done with them 4 forever. 5 Oshkosh is one of the towns that refuses 6 to have PCB's in its landfill. And the reason this 7 is being brought up right now is that it's getting 8 expensive to ship the PCB's over to Michigan. This 9 is money. That's all there is to it. And we are 10 supposed to think of the sound science, the sound 11 science of the EPA. The EPA, whose administrator, 12 Steve Johnson, is closing all the libraries and 13 doing away with all the research that has ever been 14 collected by the EPA. We are supposed to listen to 15 the sound science of the DNR, a DNR that is so 16 emasculated they don't even have people to do the 17 jobs that are assigned to them, much less add some 18 more. I am not in favor of this. I'm in favor of 19 some changes, but not just a cover-up. We need a 20 clean-up. Thank you. 21 MS. PASTOR: Twenty-two. 22 MS. RONSMAN: My name is Taku Ronsman. 23 I live at 1688 Beaver Dam Drive in Green Bay. 24 MS. PASTOR: I think you need to spell 25 that for her, pelase. 98 1 MS. RONSMAN: It's phonetic. T-a-k-u. 2 Ronsman, R-o-n-s-m-a-n. And I'm always very torn 3 when I come to events like this, because I 4 understand and believe in the importance of our 5 businesses to have a very strong community, but I 6 also feel very strongly that when a wrong has been 7 done, which the PCB's being dumped, that was a wrong 8 that occurred, and that the price has to be paid. 9 It's human nature to figure out the best ways to 10 reduce the cost and so I can't say oh, this is 11 horrible that Georgia Pacific and the other mills 12 are figuring out ways to save money. I mean they 13 should try to do that. But I also believe that 14 sometimes you just really do have to pay the price. 15 And I wholly support a permanent solution 16 and not, as they have been saying, the covering up 17 or figuring out what's going to be the most 18 cost-effective for a temporary solution. Let's 19 clean it up for real. Let's get rid of it, the 20 problem, for real, even if it costs a lot, because 21 that's the price you pay when you pollute. 22 And I guess part of what I am saying is 23 that, even though I want these companies to be able 24 to continue to make a profit so they can exist, I 25 also want them to hurt a little bit so that lessons 99 1 are learned and that they don't get to keep getting 2 away with cutting corners and doing things that are 3 harmful to the public. 4 And my last comment is boy, I sure miss 5 having a public intervenor, and I'm looking forward 6 to the day when we have the process, what Becky said 7 about the process, where the public gets to know 8 right from the get-go so it doesn't become us 9 against the businesses, because that's what this has 10 been reduced to, the people against the businesses. 11 And it shouldn't be that way. We are all part of 12 the same community. So let's have a clean -- I want 13 to see it clean enough where we can swim in this 14 again, you know, swim in any of the waters in this 15 area, even be able to drink it. 16 MS. PASTOR: Thanks. 23. 24. 25. 17 MS. EFEBVRE: Kathy Efebvre. Kathy with 18 a K. Last name is spelled Efebvre. I live at 1731 19 East Shore Circle. I am about two blocks, maybe, 20 from Kinney Island. I've lived on the shore since 21 1971, raised my daughter there, my husband and I. 22 So I've lived there a long time. One thing was 23 mentioned, that the reason the bay was taken out of 24 the clean-up is because the PCB's aren't bad in the 25 bay, it's fine. Well, then how come someone told me 100 1 the discussion was someone went to the DNR, 2 mentioned to him that something happened to Renard 3 Island or Kinney Island here, the walls, and there 4 was a large spill out of what's in there, that they 5 would only demand that the walls be redone on the 6 island. Why? Because there is so much pollution of 7 PCB's around Kinney Island now that they wouldn't 8 know where to start or finish. This tells me that 9 there is a lot of PCB's out there. 10 I went through the flood of '73, and at 11 that time my husband was a teacher. He taught out 12 at Howard/Suamico and we did not have the Tower 13 bridge. We had just the three bridges that are 14 right in Green Bay. I was told, I heard on the news 15 that they were going to close the bridges. So I 16 called him and told him to get home. Because the 17 water during this flood, the bay pushes up the river 18 past all the bridges, what do you think happens when 19 that bay, when the wind stops, what happened to that 20 water? I'd say it was probably like flushing a 21 toilet. It goes up; when that wind stops, it's just 22 going to go right out. 23 Now, during that time, did anybody 24 measure, actually measure how much sediment or give 25 a real good guess how much sediment was moved out of 101 1 that river during that flood in '73? And that was 2 only a 20-year storm. Even when there is just a 3 rain. Three, four years ago we had a heavy, heavy 4 rain in spring where people were being flooded all 5 over their back yards and little creeks and 6 everything were flooding. I went over Tower Drive 7 bridge. The whole bay, you could just see, and it's 8 mainly on the east side, you could just see brown as 9 far as you could see. How much sediment was moved 10 out of that at that event? 11 You can have all the models that you want, 12 computer models, and it ain't going to tell you the 13 whole truth. You have to know how much in a 20-year 14 storm was moved out, actually moved out. Because 15 you talk about sound science, computer models, world 16 class engineers. They got two examples. Wait a 17 minute. They use computer models to predict the 18 weather. Well, today they can't predict from one 19 day to the next. You'd better listen in the morning 20 to know what that day's weather might be. Also, 21 what about, and I had to mention it, the World Trade 22 Center. You had world class engineers designing 23 this building, and it wasn't supposed to happen what 24 happened. I mean the results. But it came down. 25 Tragically. I want to just quick a couple other 102 1 things. 2 MS. PASTOR: We need to move along. 3 MS. EFEBVRE: Are you aware that between 4 Kinney Island and the shore, which is a dike, 5 doesn't move, there are 10 to 15 acres of sediment 6 build-up? That all came out of the river since the 7 -- we know it's there since Kinney Island was built. 8 That's in the late seventies. That's almost half an 9 acre a year just coming out naturally. This is 10 after the big flood. So we need to know all this. 11 And I also want to hold you responsible 12 for this, the EPA and the DNR, to finally stand up 13 like you used to. You can tell the people who are 14 responsible to clean-up their mess, and you can give 15 them a date and you can start fining them if they 16 don't do it. Don't give us this crap that they -- 17 oh, if we don't do this plan they are not going to 18 play. Come on. You are the power, not them. You 19 work for everybody, not just the paper mills. You 20 work for the public, for everybody. So stand up and 21 have some guts and do it. 22 MS. PASTOR: 26. 27 is on deck. 23 MR. MAHONEY: My name is Mark Mahoney, and 24 I live in the village of Howard here in the Green 25 Bay area. And I've lived in northeast Wisconsin for 103 1 about 30 years. I'm glad to see that a number of 2 younger people are here today, because I'm here 3 today because of something that happened to me when 4 I was their age, and it had to do with a river. 5 When I was their age I lived on the Illinois River, 6 and I heard my grandfather talk about what a 7 marvelous fishery that was in his day, all the clams 8 that were in the river, all the species of fish, how 9 clean it was, and how you could eat the fish. And 10 when I was their age the Illinois River was a 11 disaster and it was nothing like it was with my 12 grandfather. And I thought how could that happen? 13 How could anybody get away with this? How could 14 that happen? How could somebody poison and destroy 15 this river I love to fish in? 16 So I did a little bit of research, and I 17 found out that part of the problem was that the City 18 of Chicago didn't want to pollute its own back yard, 19 which was Lake Michigan, so they reversed the course 20 of the Chicago River. So instead of flowing into 21 Lake Michigan they sent all their junk down the 22 Illinois River. And when I heard that, I thought 23 how could you possibly get away with that? 24 And you say well, what does that have to 25 do with this river here? Well, I've never forgotten 104 1 that, ever since I was their age. And I thought how 2 could that be? How could people get away with 3 poisoning a valuable resource like this? And how 4 can they get away with it? It has to do with just 5 cutting corners. The paper companies saw here we 6 can save some money if we just get rid of this waste 7 and put it into the river, we can save some money, 8 save some dollars. So now, once again, we are faced 9 here with the issue of either we are going to cut 10 corners or we are not going to cut corners. 11 I think about my own situation. If I were 12 to throw this piece of paper outside my window on 13 the way home, that's littering. If a cop saw me, he 14 would pull me over, fine me, it would be against the 15 law. If I took a trailer up to Lake Shawano and 16 dumped a bunch of stuff into the river, what would 17 the police say to that? I would be lucky if they 18 said well, cap it and we will see if it's okay. No. 19 I would be in jail, and I don't know if I would ever 20 get out. I wouldn't be able to get away with it. 21 So let me just conclude by saying that, if 22 I could be so bold, I don't know who would speak for 23 the river. We have the corporations speaking 24 apparently to the regulators here, we've got the 25 public talking perhaps when it's too late and the 105 1 decisions have been made. But who speaks for the 2 river? And if I may be so bold, I would say that 3 the river says somebody put this poison in the 4 river, take it out. Thank you. 5 MS. PASTOR: 27. 28. 6 MR. VANDERLOOP: Ron VanderLoop, 7 V-a-n-d-e-r-capital-L-o-o-p. In listening to the 8 introduction today, we heard quite a few things, and 9 several times I heard the word "Super Fund." And I 10 questioned myself what is that word being talked 11 about at this meeting today? We are not -- I 12 understand we are not in a Super Fund, we are in a 13 negotiated process and it's not being forced by 14 federal. 15 And I'm thinking of well, it's used so 16 that it kind of covers up some things. And that's 17 the part I don't like and don't understand. And I 18 didn't ask the question earlier, because I want you 19 to think about this for a much longer period of 20 time. That is totally ridiculous. As I understood 21 it, it's a separate deal. So why those words were 22 used in here is to make it look well, if this 23 doesn't work, the Super Fund is going to put in to 24 do this. I kind of doubt that. 25 So you've come up with too many poor, 106 1 negative suggestions. And this program, this 2 covering up, there was a few that was mentioned 3 earlier in previous sessions that there would be a 4 few places we would have to do that. Now all of a 5 sudden all kinds of them are good. Bull. 6 MS. PASTOR: 29. 7 MR. RUSS: My name is Ben Russ, that's 8 R-u-s-s, and I live at 302 East Allouiez Avenue. 9 I'm speaking partially on behalf of the East High 10 Environmental Club. And we believe that this issue 11 is not just about funds or whatever, it's about 12 morality versus reality, and what that boils down to 13 is really right versus wrong. It's wrong to leave 14 those PCB's in the river. Twenty, thirty, forty 15 years down the road when I am in the prime of my 16 life and many of these people here are too old to 17 care, it's still going to be an issue. If you don't 18 get those PCB's out, they are still going to be 19 there when I am starting a family. 20 Unfortunately, I'm just 16 right now. A 21 16-year-old doesn't have a whole lot of questions. 22 I'm sure I care about this issue just as much as 23 anyone else here, but I am only 16. A 16-year-old 24 doesn't really matter much. A little more than a 25 week ago the East High Environmental Club found out 107 1 about this issue, and we mobilized. We held an 2 emergency meeting, and hundreds and hundreds of 3 students were very passionate about this issue. 4 Lists like this (indicating) signed by, this was 27 5 students, were all over the school. There are 6 hundreds of students that signed up for this. We 7 all care, but we couldn't be here today. There were 8 20 people from East High here, protesting this 9 issue, and they had to go. Students have curfews, 10 we have homework, we have to get up tomorrow 11 morning, and we were not allowed to be here because 12 of the time. I think that's wrong. And I think 13 that we should be considered. 14 I think that these people from these 15 various corporations should step down from their 16 comfortable pedestals. They should think about the 17 people who this issue is the future to. It is the 18 future. That's all it really is. I'm fully against 19 this capping, and I think we should get rid of these 20 PCB's. And, on behalf of my fellow peers, I think 21 that these suits and ties should consider us. Thank 22 you. 23 MS. PASTOR: Number thirty. Thirty-one on 24 deck. 25 MS. HELGESEN: Gusta Helgesen, 2372 108 1 Jubilee Drive, Green Bay. H-e-l-g-e-s-e-n. I am 2 also speaking on behalf of the Environmental Club at 3 Green Bay East High. I am 18 years old and I am 4 currently a senior. I plan to go to college, and I 5 have decided to (inaudible) to help environmental 6 problems like this problem right here get solved. 7 All my life I have had to deal with the 8 contamination of the Fox River. I have seen 9 families fish in the river, families that do not 10 have enough money for food but need to fish in the 11 water to eat. My dream is to swim in this water and 12 to be able to fish in this water without worrying 13 about PCB's and other contaminants. It's not only 14 my own dream, but also many in this community, many 15 people in this room. 16 The caps are temporary solutions, not a 17 permanent one. We need to clean this water. I know 18 my 18 years of experience in life may not seem as 19 much, but I have learned one important thing in my 20 life. There are no shortcuts in it. Why take a 21 chance in a shortcut for the Fox River to clean up 22 this plan? That would pose more problems for future 23 generations when we can take care of it the right 24 way, which is now. 25 The caps might cost less, but in the long 109 1 run where will it put us? It will cost more money 2 if it screws up. But money shouldn't even be a 3 factor. It will cost more then, more time and more 4 money. We need to clean up, not cover up, as 5 everyone basically here said. For future 6 generations, for me, for you, for everyone, the 7 person next to you, the world. People need water. 8 We need to clean it now. 9 MS. PASTOR: 31. 10 MR. KRIEG: My name is Rich Krieg. I live 11 in Green Bay at 118 South Washington Street. First 12 of all, I just want to talk as somebody who loves 13 rivers. I've been looking at that picture all day, 14 and I just think it's morally and ethically wrong to 15 turn a river into a landfill. To me, a river is 16 sacred, and this will just be one more insult to 17 this natural system that we have. 18 And, secondly, I guess I'm more a man of 19 science. I understand how science works. I 20 understand science, I have a science degree, and I 21 do know one thing: You can find a scientist to say 22 just about anything. I can find a Ph.D. scientist 23 to tell us tonight that the earth is flat. And 24 that's the truth. I can find a Ph.D. scientist to 25 tell us tonight that the earth is only three 110 1 thousand years old. That's the truth. But I'll 2 tell you I couldn't find one scientist in this 3 country or in the world that says a cap on the 4 bottom of the river is a permanent solution to this 5 problem and that those caps would last forever. And 6 that's where we stop with science and go to values 7 and ethics. 8 People, the citizens, want a permanent 9 solution to this problem. Businesses want a 10 permanent solution to this problem. That's what's 11 going to be good for our economy and good for 12 business. And I just think this is morally -- the 13 solution is morally wrong. 14 And I do have a problem with the process. 15 I wanted to talk about that last. Something is 16 wrong with the process when they propose a landfill, 17 and it's a state of the art landfill, and because 18 some wealthy influential people don't like that 19 proposal, within a couple of weeks we are not going 20 to use that landfill. Now, maybe it's that we 21 shouldn't be doing that, but, still, in a couple of 22 weeks all of a sudden we are not going to use that 23 landfill. But it takes citizens like this hours of 24 signing cards and petitions and having meetings and 25 going to hearings and writing to lawmakers to get 111 1 anything done and to get people to do the right 2 thing. There is something wrong with the process. 3 Thanks. 4 MS. PASTOR: 32. 5 MR. GLEASON: My name is Ryan Gleason. 6 I'm on behalf of the Ecology Club at DePere East 7 High School. I may not be the strongest voice and 8 I may not be the most experienced person. I'm only 9 15. But I would rather, I don't know, I would 10 rather decide not to do this only because of certain 11 reasons. I read this only cleans up 74 percent of 12 the river. 74 percent. That's impressive. That's 13 a great way to get rid of it for to the maximum of 14 two hundred years. Two hundred years will last 15 through us, so a few people consider this a good 16 idea. 17 Well, you are just saying well, instead of 18 fixing the problem, how about we wait another two 19 hundred years and maybe a better scientist could 20 figure a way out, when we could actually wait, spend 21 less money and time and effort for this, and try and 22 figure out a different solution. If I have to spend 23 the rest of my life, and this thing has actually got 24 me very interested into ecological sciences, I would 25 spend the rest of my life working to find a cure for 112 1 this permanently than to actually help spend money 2 towards fixing it for temporarily. I would rather 3 decide not to do this, because it's unethical. 4 There is no real reason to do this. You are just 5 wasting time and money on a solution that will wait 6 to be fixed. Thanks. 7 MS. PASTOR: 33. I just sent one of my 8 colleagues out to see of the library will really 9 throw us out at ten o'clock or if we can go a little 10 bit longer. We gave out 58 numbers, we are only 11 halfway there, so we will see if we can go a little 12 while longer. 13 MR. SCHALLER: Good evening, ladies and 14 gentlemen. My name is Mark Schaller. My residence 15 is 1500 Greenfield Avenue in Green Bay, Wisconsin, 16 and I have been a life-long resident of this 17 community. My wife and I have enjoyed the bay, we 18 have boated on it for over thirty, forty years, and 19 we are very concerned with the waterways. 20 We find your plan reasonable and well 21 thought out. We support this plan wholeheartedly. 22 It's time that things get under way and that the 23 river begins to be cleaned up. There are no perfect 24 solutions, there is no one hundred percent 25 guarantee, and there never will be, but it's time we 113 1 get this started. This plan makes sense. It makes 2 sense in dollars and cents and it makes sense in 3 common sense. We support this plan, and I believe 4 the vast majority of the community does as well. 5 Thank you for your efforts to bring the plan to this 6 point, and we hope it goes forward. Thank you. 7 MS. PASTOR: 33. 8 MS. DELACRUZ: Denise Delacruz. 9 D-e-l-a-c-r-u-z. I don't believe the capping is the 10 right way to go. I believe that we should get this 11 problem over with, get it done, clean it up, do it 12 for generations to come, do it for us, do it now. 13 MS. PASTOR: 34. 35. 36. 14 MR. REIGEL: Jim Reigel, R-e-i-g-e-l, from 15 Oneida or Hobart. I would like to add another bit 16 of piece to the puzzle, so I'll be very brief and 17 very quick and add a couple of pieces. There is one 18 entity here that has escaped any focus or any 19 criticism, and that is the Brown County Solid Waste 20 Board. They are active participants in this plan. 21 They are at ground zero point. They are the ones 22 who own the landfill that they want to take the 23 spoils to, and they have been very quiet in the 24 meetings but very, very active behind the scenes. 25 You may not have any leverage with the 114 1 EPA, you may not have any leverage with the DNR, 2 but I would strongly encourage you to contact your 3 County Board Supervisor, because the Brown County 4 Solid Waste Board is influenced by what the County 5 Board does. They are gambling in this because they 6 will make tens of millions of dollars for every ton 7 of spoils which goes to the Holland landfill. So 8 this is a gigantic crap shoot by the Brown County 9 Solid Waste Board, and if anybody wants the details 10 I'll be glad to give it to you. 11 It's been going back, it started with the 12 Town of Holland agreement in the eighties all the 13 way up to the Tri-County agreement. The reason we 14 are hauling our garbage to Oshkosh is for the PCB's 15 to go to Holland, just so they will (inaudible) in 16 terms of caps and dredging versus dredging. 17 I just wanted to raise one additional 18 point, that even though the caps may now handle a 19 short-term problem, it makes remedial action later 20 very difficult. If 10, 20, 40 years down the way 21 there are additional contaminants in the river, what 22 do you do? Add on another foot and a half to the 23 cap? Pretty soon you have berms going down the 24 middle of the river. Correction for additional 25 contamination becomes extremely difficult, and the 115 1 higher you go with these caps the more likely they 2 are to be affected by turbulence. The University of 3 Wisconsin at their (inaudible) complex uses the most 4 complex computers in the world to deal with 5 turbulence, and they can't get a handle on it. And 6 so it's a little bit arrogant to think that with 7 lesser computers we can deal with the turbulence 8 matters of the Fox River and be so sure much how 9 they are going to move sediment around. Thank you. 10 MS. PASTOR: 37. 11 MR. HARBATH: Thank you. My name is Randy 12 Harbath, H-a-r-b-a-t-h. I live at 3101 Westview 13 Road in Green Bay, Wisconsin. I have lived here in 14 the Green Bay area for the past 29 years. I'm 15 employed at Georgia Pacific for those 29 years. I 16 have worked at the Broadway facility in a number of 17 technical and management positions, including the 18 operation of the wastewater treatment plant, as well 19 as the recycling facility there. Over those years, 20 the folks that work for me and work with me are 21 extremely proud of our operation of our treatment 22 plant, which for years has operated well below our 23 discharge permit levels. 24 The PCB's that we discharged into the 25 river were not done out of spite. They were not 116 1 done -- they came to us in the waste paper that we 2 recycled that we kept out of the landfills. In 3 fact, Green Bay and many of the municipalities sent 4 their waste paper to us to be recycled. We did this 5 and went through this and operated our plant at 6 extremely low efficiencies and, as I said, well 7 below the discharge limits. 8 I believe that, if you look at it, you 9 look at this plan, it's got the technological base 10 that's necessary. In the years of being in 11 management, I've learned that you listen to the 12 technical experts, you look at the things that have 13 been done elsewhere in the country, and you follow 14 these leads. Therefore, I wholly endorse this plan 15 and urge you to get on with the clean-up of the 16 river. Thank you. 17 MS. PASTOR: 38. 39. 18 MR. CRADLER: Fred Cradler, C-r-a-d-l-e-r, 19 3418 Nicolet Drive. I don't understand the science, 20 I worry about my politicians, and really don't know 21 about you guys, but I do know one thing. If you put 22 a certain provision into this plan I'll buy it 23 wholeheartedly, and it's made up of two parts. 24 One, you have the corporations sign a warrant of 25 liability that if this plan doesn't work that they 117 1 pay for the remediation; and, secondly, that you 2 have an independent agency do the evaluations of how 3 well the plan is working. Thank you. 4 MS. PASTOR: 40. 41. 42. 43. 5 MR. HERMANSON: I'm 42. John Hermanson, 6 and I live in Luxemburg, Wisconsin. And I just 7 wanted to comment on making sure that all the things 8 have been thought of. And one of those, like the 9 sediment washing, is something that can be done, 10 even to detoxify the PCB's rather than try to, of 11 course, bury them. I think people are not too happy 12 about that plan. And so I think that's something 13 that should be strongly considered. I know that it 14 costs from forty to two hundred dollars a ton, from 15 the literature I have seen, to process sediment to 16 get rid of the PCB's. So I hope that that's looked 17 into and I hope that was considered in this plan. 18 If not, I think it should be revisited. If we are 19 going to revisit this whole plan, I hope that that's 20 been currently considered. Thanks. 21 MS. PASTOR: 43. 44. 45. 46. 22 MR. SERVAIS: James Servais, 4607 23 Reforestation Road, Green Bay, Wisconsin. Just a 24 few notes, I guess, in listening. I have been 25 following this thing for a long time. Born here, 118 1 raised here, raised a family here. I, too, am a 2 fisherman, canoeer. Been sailing on the bay off and 3 on for over 40 years. Even with George's brothers. 4 My point is I got a few little points here. Where 5 were all these people that gathered all of this 6 recent data over the last 18 months? Where were 7 they with all the money and engineers and sampling 8 power for the decades before the plan was made? If 9 they were that interested in the river, seems to me 10 they would have been on deck themselves. 11 Capping was sold to the people in Michigan 12 on a river that flows from the Selon (phonetic) bay. 13 They planned for I think a hundred-year storm, 14 figured that capping would do it, but they got a 15 storm bigger than that just within a year or two of 16 the time they put it in, and I guess it's scoured 17 the river bottom right down to the bedrock. We have 18 been told they will do monitoring on all of these 19 caps, but what good does it really do to look at a 20 cap after a storm has taken it off out into the bay 21 along with the PCB's? All the monitoring does is 22 say yes, there it goes. It doesn't stop it. 23 Rivers change, they have been changing for 24 thousands, millions of years, and they will continue 25 to. This is truly temporary. I don't want my 119 1 children exposed to it. It is a cheap way to get 2 out. It was a loophole put into the original 3 contract so that they could pull this stunt. For 4 all we know they had it planned that they are going 5 to swoop in, gather new data, and secretly hold 6 their meeting and then descend upon us suddenly with 7 this whole new idea that would save them tons of 8 money and we should buy it. 9 I think we should keep in mind that some 10 of the people promoting this thing or many people 11 promoting it or people working for people promoting 12 it have an interest in the money and some people's 13 jobs depend on it. And I can understand that, but 14 I also know, and I can't quote this directly, 15 probably, but something to the effect that when a 16 man's job depends on understanding something you 17 won't be able to. If it threatens his job, he can't 18 quite get his mind around it, if it is going to get 19 him out of work or lose money. 20 MS. PASTOR: 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 21 Anybody got anything in the fifties? What do you 22 have? 23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 57. 24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 52. 25 MS. PASTOR: 52, come on down. 120 1 MR. WESTBERG: Randy Westberg. I live at 2 1815 East Shore Drive. We live on the bay, right 3 across from the toxic dump. My main comment is it 4 kind of boils down to a matter of trust here. 5 What's been presented tonight sounds good to me. It 6 could work. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. 7 What I do know is removing the PCB's will work. So 8 everybody has got to search their own conscience. 9 And where do you see your trust lie? In a maybe or 10 a yes, this will definitely work? Thank you. 11 MR. WANG: Louis Wang, W-a-n-g. I live in 12 Green Bay. I am a mechanical engineer, and I live 13 in Green Bay. I have two of my kids sitting back 14 there, and I believe that this solution that has 15 been shown to us today is very solid. One of the 16 things I do like about this is that I've heard it 17 termed as an engineered armor cap, and a lot goes 18 into that term. And some of the people have talked 19 about this. The algae, the cyanobacteria growth 20 that help to adhere to the PCB particles in the 21 sediment and then be able to cover that and hold it 22 down and then make sure that it is sound. That is a 23 very, very solid idea, especially that you can have 24 wildlife growing there within two years. 25 I'm thinking of my kids, and if it was not 121 1 that, if the other alternative was taken where 2 dredging was done and then you are talking 15 years, 3 I'd like to fish, and with my kids there, very soon. 4 And if I wait 15 years, my kids, my daughter, Jade, 5 she would be 22, my other daughter, Tiffany, she 6 would be 26. And by then the thrill, they would be 7 gone, they are in college. They are carrying on 8 with their lives. And I would like to take 9 advantage of this time to enjoy the river now. 10 So then I think also I've heard, and 11 correct me if I am wrong, that the level of PCB's 12 that we are talking about capping with this 13 engineered capping is about one part per million. 14 And then I also know, understand, that the fish that 15 we eat, I love to eat fish, fish makes up the 16 majority of my diet, the limit for commercial fish 17 is above that, several times above that. I'm 18 thinking if we have a scientific, engineered and 19 proven technology, we haven't heard anything that 20 showed otherwise, that this, that the levels of 21 PCB's around one part per million can be permanently 22 capped with the 74 percent removed. I would say 23 that that is the best solution. 24 We talk about economics. I mean I am an 25 engineer. Of course, what we do design, we don't 122 1 design the ideal, most expensive, throw in all the 2 bucks and make this happen, no. We want to be 3 feasible. We are Americans. I am American. I am 4 American born. I am Chinese, but I'm American born. 5 And we know that we do want to preserve our 6 business. 7 And the lady before earlier had talked 8 about how we want a solution that's good for the 9 business as well as the public. Well, Green Bay, 10 Wisconsin, makes up the bulk of our paper industry. 11 Right here in Green Bay. And, like I said, I am 12 Chinese. I just read today that China is invading 13 the tissue business. Kimberly-Clark, Proctor & 14 Gamble, Georgia Pacific, we are all going to be 15 affected. Heavy infiltration of low-cost paper. 16 This is only one thing that is affecting the entire 17 economy. And so if we are this close to a solution 18 for a multi-million dollar armored engineered 19 capping along with 75 percent of dredging, that's 20 the best of both worlds and the best of both 21 technologies. Let's pool together and make that 22 happen and focus our attention towards preventing 23 our economy in other places. Thank you. 24 MS. PASTOR: 54 still here? 55. 56. I 25 know 57 said he was here. 123 1 MR. LAURENT: Allen Laurent. 153 North 2 Breeze Drive, Appleton. I'm representing myself, 3 really, but I'm also a Sierra Club member and one of 4 their leaders. I worry, I guess, about the 5 permanence of the solution. I worry about the 6 quality of the job and will it last forever, and I 7 worry about who will pay for any future monitoring 8 and clean-up, which it sounds like the capping is 9 something that will last forever. I think that is a 10 private system and stuff that for several hundred 11 million dollars of cost we had better be able to 12 demand a very good job. I don't want something 13 that's just temporary. 14 I worry that capping becomes future 15 dredging and future disposal problems down the road. 16 I worry that capping takes lots of material, lots of 17 trucking, lots of fuel, lots of highway traffic. 18 The stuff that they want to cap with, the stone, the 19 gravel, the sand, that all has to come from 20 somewhere, and that's a bad environmental thing 21 also. I worry about putting stuff in the river. 22 A river wants to carve out. That's why it's there. 23 It's dug out the ground for millions of years and it 24 will continue to do that. I worry that putting 25 stuff in it changes the shape of it, the depth of 124 1 it, the width of the flow, flooding the ecology. 2 Who knows what it will do. It's not going to be 3 something that we like. 4 Landfilling ought to be local. It's our 5 problem. We have to deal with it. We should not 6 ship it to Michigan. It's not reasonable that we 7 should have to go that far. We should not allow 8 local landfill problems to dictate the type of 9 clean-up that we are doing here. Landfilling is 10 believed to be safe and relatively permanent, but 11 burning or vitrification at high temperatures can be 12 even safer and is very permanent and offers very 13 minimal landfilling needs. 14 I understand that there are also other 15 kinds of contamination other than PCB's in the 16 rivers. I don't know that much about them, but they 17 are there. Dredging certainly also deals with those 18 things. The proposed changes to the clean-up plan 19 are based on higher-than-planned cost, and I wonder, 20 partially because I've seen all the trucks going to 21 the little Butimore place where they are doing some 22 of this stuff, I have seen hundreds, maybe many 23 hundreds of trucks hauling stuff, and I wonder how 24 can we be sure that their money is not actually 25 being wasted in this effort? Hundreds of millions 125 1 of dollars ought to be able to do a very good job, 2 and maybe it's being wasted somewhere. That's not a 3 good reason to change the clean-up plan. 4 We need to make sure that people, 5 businesses, whatever, are accountable. So for 6 hundreds of millions of dollars we should be able to 7 demand a good job. Thanks. 8 MS. PASTOR: Thank you. And thank you for 9 hanging in there. We're right up to ten o'clock. 10 If you didn't get a chance to make a comment and you 11 want to, if you want to say more, e-mail us, fax us, 12 write us. You've got till January 1. Any questions 13 or anything, give us a call, e-mail us. We are 14 there, we will be happy to answer your questions. 15 Thank you. 16 (The hearing concluded at 10:00 p.m.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 126 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 STATE OF WISCONSIN) 3 ) 4 COUNTY OF KEWAUNEE) 5 6 I, Nancy M. Baux, Certified Professional 7 Reporter, hereby certify that I reported in shorthand the 8 proceedings had at the Public Meeting for the Lower Fox 9 River/Green Bay Site and that I have carefully compared 10 the foregoing with my stenographic notes and that the 11 same is a true and correct transcript. 12 Dated this 18th day of December, 2006. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ________________________________ 20 Nancy M. Baux 21 Certified Professional Reporter 22 23 24 25 127