FR 2021-03880

The document is a public notice from the Department of Justice regarding a proposed legal settlement, or consent decree, related to a lawsuit filed under an environmental law known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This lawsuit was initiated against the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation in relation to hazardous substance releases at a site in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. The United States seeks reimbursement for expenses incurred in responding to these environmental issues. In exchange for this consent decree, the United States agrees not to pursue further legal action against the company under specific environmental regulations.

Summary of the Document

The Department of Justice has reached a consent decree with the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation to address the costs incurred in managing hazardous substances at a site in Manitowoc, Wisconsin. This agreement is part of a broader legal action under CERCLA, a federal environmental law aimed at managing and remediating hazardous waste sites. The public is invited to review the decree and submit comments within 30 days, ensuring an opportunity for public participation in the process. The decree can be accessed for free online, although a fee is charged for physical copies.

Significant Issues or Concerns

Several issues could be of concern to the public:

1. Cost of Accessing Documents: Obtaining a paper copy of the decree involves a fee of $43.50, which may deter interested parties from accessing the complete document. The cost may be seen as significant, especially considering that a major portion of the fee is attributed to the inclusion of exhibits.

2. Use of Technical Terminology: The document includes technical legal and environmental terms such as "Superfund Alternative Site," "CERCLA," "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)," and "injunctive relief." These terms may be challenging for individuals without a legal or environmental science background, potentially causing confusion about the document’s implications and purpose.

3. Public Participation Limitations: While the notice opens a period for public comment, the technical nature of the document and associated costs could serve as barriers to meaningful participation by the general public.

Impact on the Public

Broadly speaking, the document represents efforts to address hazardous environmental conditions in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, which could help mitigate potential health risks associated with contamination. By involving public commentary in the decree process, the Department of Justice demonstrates a commitment to transparency and community involvement.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

The consent decree could have different implications for various stakeholders:

• Residents of Manitowoc, Wisconsin: The local community may benefit from the remediation efforts that the lawsuit and decree facilitate, improving environmental quality and health safety in the area.

• Wisconsin Public Service Corporation: For the company involved, this consent decree likely represents a compromise that limits further legal exposure while addressing obligations under environmental laws.

• Environmental Advocacy Groups: Such organizations might view this decree as a sign of regulatory enforcement and accountability, though they may also scrutinize the settlement details, especially regarding public accessibility and involvement.

Overall, while the decree plays a critical role in environmental cleanup efforts, attention to public accessibility and understanding of the document could enhance its effectiveness and community engagement.

In reviewing the referenced document, which concerns a proposed consent decree involving the United States and the Wisconsin Public Service Corporation, financial details emerge primarily with respect to the reproduction costs associated with obtaining a physical copy of the decree. These costs are highlighted in the document and merit further exploration to understand their relevance and implications.

The document specifies that individuals wishing to obtain a paper copy of the consent decree must enclose a check or money order for $43.50, calculated at 25 cents per page. This cost is payable to the United States Treasury. Additionally, the document notes that for those who desire a paper copy of the decree without the exhibits and signature pages, the cost reduces to $11.50.

Financial Implications and Access Concerns

The mentioned costs raise important considerations regarding public access to legal documents:

1. High Reproduction Costs: The fee of $43.50 to cover the reproduction cost of the consent decree might be perceived as excessive by members of the public, especially considering the option for free digital access. This poses a potential barrier to accessing important legal information for those without internet access or adequate technological resources.

2. Cost Breakdown: The significant difference between the full copy cost ($43.50) and the reduced cost ($11.50) for a copy without exhibits and signature pages suggests that the inclusion of these elements substantially increases the total cost. This breakdown implies that exhibits and signatures contribute heavily to the page count and thus cost, potentially deterring requests for the full document.

Public Accessibility and Understanding

The intent behind these charges appears to relate to offsetting the costs associated with printing and handling physical copies. However, such financial requirements could be criticized for not promoting optimum public access to federal legal determinations. Individuals interested in the intricacies of this legal case, particularly those unfamiliar with digital resources, might find the cost prohibitive, which could limit thorough public oversight or engagement.

Furthermore, the absence of an explanation for terms like "Superfund Alternative Site" and statutory references such as CERCLA and RCRA within the document might compound accessibility issues. Interested parties compelled to spend financially for access would benefit from more clarity and context within the document to justify such expenses.

Overall, the financial references within the Federal Register notice reflect choices about resource allocation that impact public engagement. While digital access provides broad possibilities for acquiring information free of charge, the monetary costs prescribed for physical documentation highlight an area where access equity remains a critical consideration.