Proposed Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R1-2010-0033
NPDES No. CA0024040.WDID NO. 1B831180MEN

California Regional Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

This is not an English assignment.  Just send them something that says you are against the permit.  Hand write it if necessary.  No English teacher will correct your spelling.  We just need them to know that people care and don't want the mill.
Realworld
4/3/2010 07:16:23 am

Thank you for the address as to where I send my response.I find the new permit to be reallistic and to the point.
For far to long, mis-information and out-right un-truths has been spoken about the outfall of the mill.
BOD's are a lack of O2,wich like your fish tank is re-O2ed by the wave actions of the sea.
NO Dioxins are emitted or created at that mill thats a fact and you all at this thread know it,
The truth is what each person should seek on their own.Dont just get rieled-up on what some one else tells you.
Youse you brain and search out the truth about this remarkable mill.
So me and manny others will send are blessings to the board .

Reply
Qouted
4/4/2010 02:33:50 am

would like to thank those of you who have taken the time to search for facts rather than recycle the same "Pulp Fiction" for decades. For the sake of clarification, the only pollution standard the Samoa mill cannot comply with is biochemical oxygen demand "BOD". In short, BOD is organic sugar. You could just as easily refer to BOD as fish food or plant nutrients. If the Samoa mill was discharging its pollution to the Eel River it would be a problem because both plants and fish thrive on it. Unfortunately, BOD causes plants/algae to grow, which then depletes oxygen and strangles fish. However, BOD in the Pacific Ocean is not an issue or concern due to the size of the receiving water (Pacific Ocean), and because the ocean constantly producing oxygen through wave action and tidal influence. In fact, studies have been conducted over 20 years, which you can confirm through Humboldt State University, that conclude the Samoa mill's BOD has no oxygen impact to the receiving water, but the fish thrive at the end of the outfall line. You could accuse the Samoa mill of chumming the fish! The real issue is truly about a 37 year old antiquated EPA evaluation system that regulates BOD, regardless of where pulp mill effluent is dischaged,i.e., stream, river, lake, or ocean. As you might guess, this is a politically backed decision supported by industry lobbyist'a to eliminate a perceived environmental advantage ocean discharging pulp mills have in comparison to pulp mills located on northwest rivers and the Great Lakes. There are only two pulp mills remaining on the west coast with ocean outfall lines. We intend to make sure one of those pulp mills remain. Lastly, don't judge a pulp mill by its age. There haven't been, nor will there be, any pulp mills constructed in the United States or Canada for over 20 years. A 45 year old pulp mill in North America is relatively young, cleaner than their Soutn American and Asian competitors, and the Samoa mill is run be experienced workers who care about their community. Did you know that Evergreen invested $26 million during its four years of operation? Did you know Louisiana-Pacific invested $175 million during its 28 years of ownership? FTC intends to invest $50 million in its first five years of ownership. Admittedly, the Samoa mill is badly in need of a paint job and corrosion repair. But permanently closing and tearing down the Samoa mill for numerous reasons, both environmental and economic, would be a monumental mistake. For those of you too young to remember, a group of men intervened and rescued the Ingomar Club from extinction or it would be been torn down. We all know how well the Ingomar has become an icon for Eureka and it continues to bring enjoyment for its members. With the support of the entire community, the Samoa mill will set new environmental standards for the pulp industry. Our community needs another Ingomar type story. United we stand, divided we fall.

Reply
Frank
4/4/2010 09:39:05 am

Evergreen's last fines were primarily for violations of BOD levels. People who deny the harmful effects of BOD to water quality are the equivalent of Climate Change deniers, either ignorant or intentionally deceptive.

Reply
Eureka
4/5/2010 01:58:34 am

Right back at you,,,,
Frank,either ignorant or intentionally deceptive.
Read the post above.
Seek out answers to what BOD's are.
And yes the Climate is going through changes.It allways has and allways will.
Proving one reason or another to be at fault,,,You cant doit and neither can anyone else. Climate change is a huge area of research. Well some things about whats happening are understood.Most of whats going on is not .And thats TRUTH .

Reply
Frank
4/5/2010 04:41:04 am

Of course,current global climate change (according to the majortty of authorities, mostly human caused) and growing low-oxygen levels in the world's oceans are very complex issues and I wouldn't pretend to being an expert. However,scientists such as Gregory Johnson and Steve Bograd of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Jack Barth and Franncis Chan of Oregon State have recently reported on current disturbing disruptions of patterns of exchange between deep water "dead zones" of low oxygen and surface waters where depletion is normally recharged. Humboldt Bay and the Samoa pulp mill (and their ecological impact processes) are only a microscopic (relatively speaking)sub-set of a macroscopic global ocean-air system that is itself failing as a total system due to human population growth and industrial/fossil fuel impact. So? I guess I just don't want people on this blog thinking I think BODs are some kind of 'wierd' toxic chemical effulents. This whole discussion tends to remind me of H. P. Lovecraft's stories of the seaside town of Innsmouth. Any comments on that? Bottom line: can the people trying to revive the 'Humboldt rust hulk' be trusted to maintain adequate pollution controls? Where's the evidence?

Reply
Eureka
4/5/2010 06:10:58 am

Frank,
Your obviously an inteligent educated man. And yes , I , like many have concerns over any pollutions going out into or world. Man has left horrific messes around the world. And nature has also. Yes co2 does contributes to warming im sure. But with all natures varibles in play. I dont believe any real concencus to cause can be reached.
6-8 billion people breathing , the ocean burping , vocanic releases , Cow farts , termites, Cars, fireplaces e.t.c
This mill is on the leading edge of pulp tecnoledgey. AND can improve !
You ask can "they" be trusted ?
Well I say,,,Like are legail system, inocent untill proven otherwise.
Lets work to get them running , then watch close what goes on. And with this new permit . There is a clause to shut them down in a heartbeat if or when they prove they cant be trusted.
Believe me the rest of the worlds mills dont even come close to this mills attempts at running cleaner.
lets work together , for jobs and the earth,,peace brother
Sorry for bad spellin,,,,

Reply
westeureka
4/5/2010 07:23:41 am

We are opposing the mill opening, because it cannot meet federal standards. It wants the law to be waived.
Mr. Simpson acknowledged in the Water Board Hearing held at the Wharfinger that he cannot meet the environmental standards. The Executive Officer's Summary Report dated March 24, 2010 said,
"FTC (Freshwater Tissue) acknowledged
that the discharge could not immediately comply with separate National Effluent Limitation Guidelines for mills ... and has proposed the construction of a ...treatment plant.FTC has estimated the final design ...will take 2-3 years to complete."

The Draft Permit summarizes the recent history of violations, "For the 35 months from February 2005 through December 2007 the pulp mill ...exceeded the monthly average BOD limitation ...for eleven months...(T)he discharge exceeded the monthly Aldrin concentration limitation for one month. For the nine months of operation in 2008... the discharge from the Pulp Mill exceeded the monthly average BOD
limitation for all 9 months of operation and the daily maximum BOD limitation for 143 days." Evergreen was fined. They didn't pay and it has been referred to the Attorney General's Office.

This is not just a matter of people picking on the mill. This is a matter of protection ourselves and our environment and upholding the law.

Reply
Realworld
4/5/2010 07:55:59 am

I lived on west Grant. from 04-08.
Smelled the mill maybe twice during that whole time. And as far as the BOD violations,,Ask any fisherman where is the beat area to catch . Guess where !
HSU has proven a healthy enviroment thrives of shore here,NO DEAD ZONE there. And also not a single drop of anything goes to the bay.
Hey its ok that its a personal campain and to dislike the mill.
But it appears you would rather see production go overseas,,and let the real poisins reach us sooner or later.
Just state what you truley mean here. NOT IN MY BACK YARD, and thats that right ?

Reply
cricket
4/6/2010 06:27:52 am

Of course I don't want the mill in my backyard. I could smell odors from Evergreen's operation frequently and I feel my health suffered. I have multiple chemical sensitivity and there were times I could hardly breathe. In 2005 there there were 2 times we had to leave our home. In August 2005, there was a massive fugitive release that resulted in mpre than 100 complaints to the Air Quality Board, some from as far away as Cutten. A visible cloud from the mill was seen over the Court House. The local Air Quality Board has documents related to this emission. There's a segment of the population here in Eureka that almost worships the pulp mill like a cult. I don't have to be a part of that cult.

Reply
Eureka
4/6/2010 08:10:08 am

Cricket,,
Respectfully thats a lie .
I worked there ,and I live in west eureka.no re;eases ever took place like that day or night .I have extreme sensitivity to chemicals due to another DOD sight I worked for years in my 20-30's.In the mill I worked direct contact with most everything in the mill. me and all I no have fine health records
The crap said on this blog. Narrow simple minds only believe.

Reply
cricket
4/7/2010 06:32:04 am

Are you saying there was not a fugitive release in August 2005 that was noted in Air Quality records and elicited over 100 complaints or just that you are not aware of it? Issues like this are important because they relate to the ability of people living near the pulp mill to trust mill management in relation to pollution control. This release is something many people experienced. Massey Energy in South Carolina told mine workers they could be trusted. Look at what has just happened at Big Branch mine. Louisiana Pacific assured us they could be trusted. Look at the large fine they incurred in the 1990's. Evergreen said they could be trusted. They left the U.S. with a large unpaid fine for environmental violations. Freshwater Tissue orginally assured us they would have a "green operation" and now they are already asking for variances -- just like Evergreen did. I really need more than testimony from ex-mill workers.

Reply
Eureka
4/8/2010 06:47:18 am

Cricket,,
The "fugitve release" you refer to, was what is known as stripper condensate.
Well the odor is and was foul smelling.It is akin to something like skunk or sewage. just as your senses may be offended by those odors.their were no harmfull chemicals in said release ,,,it dont work that way
anoying yes,,should you have to smell it NO. That system has been replace due to that event. So if you dont want to believe in what ex workers say. why would you believe what others say about the mill. Can you say double standard.
Next time you use some paper, ask your self where did this come from, here where its regulated by agenceys. Looking to protect you or say russia where its left unchecked running next to a town and really poisioning the people. Spend some time looking through HSU studys on the mill . maybe that could edducate you to some of the mills true effects to the area.

Reply
Cricket
4/10/2010 05:15:03 am

Do you really think I'm just going on hearsay and haven't read literature on the subject? We all have the Internet. I don't want to go on and on about this because I'm afraid that arguing with you about the physiological effects of pulp mill air emissions would be like arguing with you about man made climate change. We'd just be throwing studies against each other. As for HSU studies, I hope you are not referring to anything by the professor of chemistry at HSU whose daugther worked at the pulp mill. I admit I use paper as we all do. As for pulp mills in Russia, they are not in my back yard. Yes, I admit to being a "not in my back yarder". Again, the issue comes down to pollution control and whether or not I can trust mill operators on this factor. When you say air emissions just smell bad, and continually make other excuses, that doesn't raise my trust level. It's not the odors I'm talking about. It's the particulant matter, TRSs, VOCs and metals.

Reply



Leave a Reply.