In the Water Permit that was approved on July 15, 2010 (NO. R1-2010-0033), there is a list of chemicals that need to be monitored by Freshwater.  If these chemicals are detected during required testing, they will already be in the Pacific Ocean.  The four chemicals that have shown "reasonable potential" to be released by the mill are aldrin, DDT, HCH (hexachlorocyclohexane) and TCDD (chlorinated dibenzodioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans).  These four chemicals are listed by the state of California as known causes of cancer.  In addition, Freshwater must monitor for the following chemicals--We are listing them to give a picture of the enormity of the danger presented by the Samoa Pulp Mill.
TSS                                          phenolic compounds
Oil and Grease                            chlorinated phenolics
Arsenic                                      endosulfan
Cadmium                                    endrin
Hexavalent Chromium                   acrolein
Copper                                      antimony
Lead                                         bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane
Mercury                                     bis(2-chloroisopropyl0 ether
Nickel                                        chlorobenzene
Selenium                                    chromium
Silver                                        di-n-butyl phthalate
Zinc                                          Dichlorobenzenes
Cyanide                                     Ethylbenzene                                    Endosulfan                                 Fluoranthene
Endrin                                       hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Chlordane                                  nitrobenzene
Dieldrin                                      thallium
Heptachlor                                 toluene
Heptachlor Epoxide                      tributyltin
Toxaphene                                1,1,1-trichloroethane
Ammonia                                   acrylonitrile
Diethyl phthalate                        benzene
Dimethyl phthalate                      benzidine
4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol           beryllium
2,4-dinitrophenol                        chlordane
carbon tetrachloride                    chlorodibromomethane
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether               chloroform
bis(2-ethelhexyl) phthalate          dichlorobromomethane
dichloromethane                         dieldrin
1,4-dichlorobenzene                    halomethanes
3,3'-dichlorobenzidine                  hepachlor
1,2-dichloroethane                      isophorone
1,1-dichloroethylene                    PAHs
1,3-dichloropropene                     PCBs
2,4-dinitrotoluene                       hexachlorobenzene
1,2-diphenylhydrazine                  hexachlorobutadiene
hepachlor epoxide                       PAHs
hexachloroethane                       toxaphene
N-nitrosodimethylamine                trichlorethylene
N-nitroso di-N-propylamine           tetrachloroethylene
N-nitrosodiphenylamine                trichlorloroethylene
vinyl chloride                             1,1,2-trichloroethane
2,4,6-trichlorophenol

The Water Board would not require that emissions from the mill be monitored for these chemicals if there was not a chance that they would be found.  Once they are detected by mandatory testing, it is too late. They are already in the Ocean. You can check the proposition 65 list of
chemicals known to cause cancer and reproductive problems to learn more about these chemicals. Our source is the Freshwater Tissue Co. Water Permit that can be found on the site of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Board site.

          
 

8/26/2010 01:49:43 pm

Carol,

Your readers should be directed to our website where they will find a complete list of all the chemicals used in the mill and the daily quantity consumed in our process.

I recently added letters received from two of our largest suppliers stating hexavalent chromium is not present in their chemicals. It is important to understand that regulators frequently require companies to test for chemicals even though they may not be part of a process. And occassionally laboratories will get a positive read for a chemical even when the chemical isn't present. Even science isn't perfect.

Reply
Steve
8/26/2010 02:18:15 pm

If we can't rely on science then what do you suggest?
What about Aldrin and DDT?
"The four chemicals that have shown "reasonable potential" to be released by the mill are aldrin, DDT, HCH (hexachlorocyclohexane) and TCDD (chlorinated dibenzodioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans)."
That doesn't sound too good to me.
What about the hexavalent chromium found in one of the wells?

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/26/2010 07:59:57 pm

Steve,

Great question. DDT and hexavalent are currently being reviewed and appropriate for our discussion. These two chemicals demonstrate how chemical screening, which is very scientific, is not a perfect process. A small trace of one chemical chain can be mistaken for another.

The Samoa mill has never purchased or consumed DDT in its pulp process. I encourage you to visit our website an read the list of chemicals yourself. Regardless, at some point an effluent sample tested positive for DDT. I recently asked CH2MHILL Engineers what could have caused this occurance. There were two possibile answers. First, the lab mistakenly identified another chemical as DDT. This is a common mistake with infrequent trace samples. The second possibility is the DDT was present in the water recieved from the Mad River. Historically, DDT was an approved pesticide and broadcast spraying was common. It is highly speculative to determine where the source is. We intend to find the answer.

Prior to startup, every chemical we use in the pulp mill, regardless of what the chemical safety data sheet indicates, will be analyzed for background chemicals to determine whether any hazardous components are present in our chemicals.

Our first chemical research is to identify possilble sources of Hexavalent Chromium. Thus far, the responses received from suppliers regarding hexavalent are negative. I posted the suppliers letters on our website. We will continue this practice until each component has been identified.

Because traces of DDT were detected in the Samoa mill effluent, DDT testing is required until we prove it doesn't exist. We are developing a specific sampling plan to prove DDT is not introduced by the Samoa mill chemicals process.



Reply
Patrick
8/27/2010 12:18:51 pm

Government environmental, health, and safty regulatory agencies are a battleground where the interests of capitalist owners and effected workers and pubic clash. Recent events as varied as the BP Gulf oil spill, the nation-wide egg recall, an ammonia leak in Theodore, Alabama and the trapped miners in Chile all validate the reasonableness of West Eureka residents to be suspicious about the Samoa mill. My interest for the past several years has heen HAPs (hazardous air pollutants) associated with kraft pulp mills. I understand the basic components of the kraft process: digestion, white liquor, blow tank (in batch digesters), washers, black liquor, recovery, etc. This process produces a complex mix of HAPs; a fact admitted in industry, academic and government literature. Long ago, people living near kraft mills were exposed-unprotected-from this health threat. Slowly, through public protest, government action, and industry initiative, systems of pollution control came to be installed in most mills. The degree to which residents near a kraft mill are protected from kraft HAPs depends on the nature (effectiveness)and degree of maintenance of any particular mill's pollution control system. It is generally conceded, however, that these pollution control systems are almost never completely effective. I just want to say this as a general background statement to what I will be posting in future posts on this blog. Remember there are two separate, but related, issues: Pollutants inately (chemically)connected with the kraft process, and HAPs that get through the pollution control system and effect nearby residents. Reaching a scientifically accurate evaluation of either of these-in any particular case-is a difficult matter--for a number of complicated reasons I won't go into here. But just as a foretaste of what we can get into--between July 1991 and November 1994, the EPA gathered HAP emission data from a varity of sources. Dipping into this report, we find that a sample taken from flue gas from the Smelt Dissolving Tank Scrubber Outlet involved measuring of the following HAPs: acetone, methanol, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, chloroform, dichloromethane, 1.2-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, 1.2,4-trighlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene, styrene, toluene, xylene, benzene, alpha-and beta-pinene, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone. This merely illustrates a small area in a large and foggy scientific/public health question- land. People living in West Eureka who choose not to want to risk living in such a question-land are not irrational; they are making a rational, democratic, personal choice.

Reply
Shaw
8/27/2010 01:40:33 pm

Can people please include links to their sources, or at least provide enough information so others can find the paper you are siting.

I am going to have to guess that the Dissolver stack tests were done on a mill that used chlorine bleaching, because most of those compounds contain chlorine. To have chlorine containing emissions you have to be putting chlorine into the system somewhere. I would suspect that those emissions would be significantly reduced if not eliminated.

A laundry list of chemicals is meaningless other then to incite fear in chemophobes. To get any useful information you need to have emissions levels versus hazardous exposure levels.
If you want a laundry list of trace emissions you should look up car emissions, smoking, wood burning, or even burning of natural gas. The list of trace emissions might just surprise you.

Almost all of the pulp mill's emissions are the same found in the decompositions or burning of organic materials, because that is what we do. We accelerate the breakdown of the wood to free the fibers and then we burn the organic glue that we dissolved.

Other mills produce a list of other chemicals from the chlorine bleaching, but our mill used hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which breaks down into water (H2O) and Oxygen (O2).

Reply
8/28/2010 04:20:15 am

By posting all the chemicals that the mill uses in making bleached and unbleached pulp, is Freshwater saying that this is all we have to be worried about? Basic chemistry, as taught in elementary and high school, says that elements and compounds interact and change and become other chemicals. In other words, what goes into the pulping process is not what comes out.

The chemicals that Freshwater must test for are listed, because these are the chemicals that pulp mills might be expected to produce both in chlorine and chlorine free pulp mills.

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/28/2010 07:22:01 am

Carol,

Freshwater isn't saying anything other than we have posted each of the chemicals on our website. We are now seeking to find out the specific components of each chemcial. Once this is complete then we start the next phase of studies.

I think you will agree, Freshwater has been transparent with the community and we intend to eliminate fiction as a means of building community trust. Our response letters and results will continue to be posted.

In response to Patrick, does it make sense to quote reports from 1992 -1994 when the Samoa mill didn't eliminate chlorine until March of 1993? In fact, 1994 was a trial and error year. Could you quote current test data, preferably from the Samoa mill, and tell us your source of information? Are you a chemist? What do you


Reply
Bob Simpson
8/28/2010 07:23:27 am

Sorry. Hit send my mistake. Patrick, you seem to enjoy chemistry, so what do you do?

Reply
Shawn
8/28/2010 07:40:03 am

You are right that chemicals react with other chemicals to create new chemicals, but you are a little off on the rest.

One of the basic rules of normal chemistry is you get out what you put in, just in a different form. If you put X amount of an element in you will get the exact amount of it back out. It may be in another chemical then what it was contained in as it went in, but atom for atom it will be there.

Nuclear chemistry is the only way to change one atom into another through the use or fission or fusion.

So, unless you thing we are going nuclear, the only way for compounds containing chlorine to be in our emissions is for equal amounts of chlorine to be present in our inputs.

Reply
Patrick
8/28/2010 12:04:21 pm

As the Samoa mill's change from chlorine to hydrogen proxide bleaching in the '90s demonstrates, kraft pulp making and bleaching are two separate processes. This is why a mill can sell unbleached pulp. The EPA study from which I quoted focused on recovery furnace, BLO units, smelt dissolver, and lime kiln emissions. These can all function separate from bleaching, and from certain periods during Evergreen's operation did. Whether bleach operation emissions would be involved in these streams would I suppose depend on the particulars of a mill's pollution control system. My point in listing a few chemicals wasn't to "scare" anyone but to illustrate the complexity of the problem. In my post I wasn't speaking of the Samoa mill but of kraft pulping-excluding bleaching-in general. The standpoint of people I know living in West Eureka who oppose a new start up of the Samoa mill is based on the FACT that kraft pulping produces HAPs in the form of particulate matter, reduced sulfur compounds, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, metals, and volatlle organic compounds (VOCs)-- of course in various amounts. Our only assurance of protection from these kraft associated HAPs is trust in the mill operator's maintenance of an adequate pollution control system. And we don't have to trust this. No one can make me trust it. I choose not to and that's my democratic right. The EPA study I cited from should be well known to anyone in the paper industry; its still on the web. The fact that it dates from 1994 doesn't change it's general significance. I will cite specific references when I choose. Just as I will do what I legally can to protect the quality of the air I breathe. I just think probably my chances of stopping the Samoa mill are better than my stopping Highway 101.

Reply
Shawn
8/28/2010 01:12:11 pm

Unfortunately you can't separate bleaching from pulping in a mill that does bleach. The one thing that makes the Kraft pulping process work is the closed loop for the chemicals. A general rule in pulp mills is everything goes to recovery. All the containment area are even pumped to the recovery department, so even rain water gets sent to recovery to be evaporated and then sent to the boiler.

The only change in unbleached is the application of the bleaching chemicals get turned off. Its still used all the same equipment and all the same flows.

If the paper you are citing is still on the web could you please provide a link or more inflammation so I can find it. The EPA puts out a lot of studies each year. Is it just about pulp mill emissions? Was it Fed EPA or Cal EPA? Anything that would help narrow it down would be appreciated.

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/28/2010 11:43:46 pm

Patrick,

Your comment is partially correct. Some kraft mills can produce bleached and unbleached pulp. The kraft process refers to the chemical process (white liquor) used to clean the cellulose and the recovery of spent chemicals, which includes all process stages.

The Samoa mill is unique in several ways. It has an oxygen delignification stage to remove lignin, it uses hydrogen peroxide to bleach the cellulose, it recycles nearly all of the bleach plant water, and it captures organic pollutants before entering the waste stream.

The Samoa mill added oxygen delignification to the kraft process. This allows the Samoa mill to remove lignin without damaging the cellulose. This stage is critical when bleaching with hydrogen peroxide. Unlike chlorine, peroxide does not penetrate through lignin well, and peroxide is destroyed by organic metals. Therefore, the cellulose must be much cleaner prior to bleaching in the TCF process vs. chlorine bleaching.

Perhaps the most significant benefit of eliminating chlorine from the Samoa mill bleaching process is our ability to recycle bleach plant water. Mills using chlorine compounds can't recycle bleach plant water to the recover boiler because the chlorine compounds would destroy their recovery boiler. Chlorine causes corrosion.

The Samoa mill pollution prevention system is also unique. It captures oganics prior to entering the effluent stream. The idea of the system is to capture organic fuels, such as methanol, and direct the fuels to the recovery boiler where they are burned to make steam and electricity.

The Samoa mill BOD compliance issue poses no threat to the Pacific Ocean. In fact, fish thrive on it. The objective of pollution prevention is to capture all BOD, eliminate the discharge of organic fish food and capture 100% of methanol for the generation of steam and electricity. In other words, every pound of BOD discharged to the ocean is an extra pound of natural gas purchased from PG&E. I refer to this as double jeopardy. The mill gets fined by EPA and it pays PG&E for gas it didn't need to buy.



Reply
8/29/2010 06:59:52 am

You can dress it up all you want. If this mill were clean, it would not have to have a cease and desist order that gives it until 2014 to meet the standards of the Clean Water Act. It would not have the history of violations that it has. It would not be a legally mandated clean up site (See Geotracker.).The wells at the mill would not be full of toxic cancer causing chemicals like hexavalent chromium, arsenic, chloroform, nickel and a long list of others.

As the State Water Board put it, (July 9, 2010)"As you are no doubt aware, the Samoa Pulp Mill has a long history of violations stemming from the facility's inability to meet applicable effluent limitations due to its lack of secondary treatment."

The E.P.A. said a similar thing on June 10, 2010,"The existing facility has been operated by previous owners in a state of noncompliance with Clean Water Act ("CWA")requirements for years. We are concerned that the new owner, Freshwater Tissue Company, has
decided to reopen and operate the existing facility, which cannot achieve immediate compliance with effluent limitations that all existing facilities must meet in order to discharge under the NPDES program. Moreover, Freshwater Tissue has offered no clear assurances that actions necessary to comply with the new permit as soon as possible are being taken."

We have used these quotes before, but they are worth repeating.

This pulp mill has run out of chances.


Reply
Frank
8/29/2010 07:53:17 am

Shawn, if you're not simply joking you apparently don't understanding the basics of modern chemistry. True all compounds are various combinations of the fixed number of atoms of the periodic table. But each compound, once formed, has its own unique characteristics: taste, odor, strength, flexibility, toxicity, etc. Furthermore, compounds can combine to form new combounds, with their own unique charistics. The whole of modern technology is based on these simple facts--which have been understood since John Dalton reintroduced the concept of the atom from the ancient Greeks. In other words, Westeureka was essentially correct and you--somewhat confused I guess is the best way to put it.

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/29/2010 09:34:29 am

Carol,

Please read the support letter posted on our website from CH2MHILL. You really should take me up on my offer to visit the plant. You have nothing to lose but your current beliefs. But then again, what would you do if you didn't have a cause to wake up to in the morning?

Reply
Shawn
8/29/2010 09:42:24 am

Frank,
I think you are misunderstanding me. I know full well that some compounds are more toxic then other, ie Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is much worse then Sodium Chloride (NaCl).

What I have been trying to say is that you need a source of an element for you to create compounds that contain that element.

If there is no chlorine going in there will be no chlorine containing compounds coming out. There is just know way around this short of a nuclear reaction.

Reply
Frank
8/29/2010 11:20:45 am

Shawn,
That's easy; suppose there's chlorine in the environment from a source other than the mill. I think the whole point westeureka was trying to make was uncontrolled interaction between pulp mill emissions and other, unknown, compounds in the local environment.

Reply
Cricket
8/29/2010 11:25:28 am

When Evergreen closed, I read in the Times-Standard that federal funds were allocated for job retraining for mill workers. Was any retraining carried out? How many ex-mill workers received retraining?

Reply
Patrick
8/29/2010 12:04:45 pm

My,my where to begin? You folks seem to habitually confuse levels of abstraction. I was talking about kraft pulp mills IN GENERAL. Most of these are chlorine bleach operations. I used a specific example to illustrate the complexity of tracking HAPs from kraft mills IN GENERAL--not the Samoa mill. The general situation connects with the specific situation here locally after appropriate specifications are taken into account--which I haven't even gotten around to yet. Be patient. As for pulping vs bleaching, I still say these are, technologically, separate operations (that is you can run a digester/recovery operation without a bleach operation); granted this may not make much economic sense. Economically it makes absolute sense to have a circular operation combining bleach and recovery. The pollution control system has to cover all this, but these systems always leak (over time) to various extents. Yes, of course in 1991-1994 the mills sampled were all chlorine bleach operations, and I don't doubt this effected HAP parameters. But that wasn't my point. I just wanted to point to an issue of general chemical complexity. As for my source, it was a Federal EPA report; that's generally what people mean by "EPA" when no qualifications are made. As for internet location? I guess I'm still wanting to see if someone other than me is smart enough to find it. I don't think the (Federal) EPA has done any recent updates on pulp mill HAP standards. That's the point of the recent 60-day notice sent in by CATS and the Center for Biological Diversity. But since you think I wasn't playing fair by citing a HAP soup list from the '90s and the bad old chlorine days, tomorrow or the next day I'll post Evergreen's Smelt Dissolver Tank emissions estimates from July 2005. Right now I'm too tired to go down the list. Patience. Patience.

Reply
Shawn
8/29/2010 12:12:37 pm

Frank,
The point is that the list of chemicals that was quoted was stated as a sample from a disolver stack. A heavy majority of the chemicals contained chlorine which leads me to believe that chlorine was being used to bleach. In a mill using Hydrogen Peroxide to bleach, those should be significantly reduced or eliminated all together.

The other point that I made, which has been ignored, is naming chemicals is meaningless without giving some measure of quantity. I am trying to find the paper quoted above, but all I am finding is papers listing "trace" or barely detectable levels. And if you guys are getting upset over trace levels, I suggest that you look into the trace emissions of your everyday activities.

Reply
Shawn
8/29/2010 12:58:20 pm

Here is an example of the laundry list of trace emissions from an everyday source.

http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf

This is some of the emissions from the combustion of natural gas.

Organic Compounds:

2-Methylnaphthalene
3-Methylchloranthrene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Butane
Chrysene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dichlorobenzene
Ethane
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Formaldehyde
Hexane
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Naphthalene
Pentane
Phenanathrene
Propane
Pyrene
Toluene



Metals:

Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Zinc

The point is everything produces trace emissions, what matters is the quantity of those emissions versus the levels that start to pose a health risk.

Reply
T.P.W
8/29/2010 01:05:49 pm

Shawn,
They dont want to agree on any point.
The more you give them. The more they twist it up. Notice their mind track . They jump from water to air and backwards.
They dont like it (the mill) and thats all they will ever agree to.
So lets let the real world work its way throuh it,,,Because they will never here you or Mr Simpson at any point .

Reply
Shawn
8/29/2010 01:13:19 pm

T.P.W,
Yep, I know.
But someone has to contest this misinformation and scare tactics just in case someone finds this blog while looking for information. So until the owner of this blog decides to block all comments that disagree, I will hang out here.

Besides, its kind of fun seeing what they come up with.

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/30/2010 01:11:09 am

I thank all of you who seek facts rather than fiction. I hope my comments below will allow you to folow your heart and leave the land of the blind to join the land of the kind.

In my opinion there are two options to choose from when dealing with the pulp and paper industry. First, we can pretend the world doesn't consume paper and therefore close every pulp mill in the world down until the industry can operate pollution free. Any sane person knows this is not an option. As stated before, industrial evolution will reduce or eliminate pollution. History has proved this statement.

Second, we acknowledge our use of paper products and reward pulp and paper makers who seek to eliminate pollution. This is the logical and responsible choice. I believe the majority of the North Coast community agrees.

The alternative choice which Carol Binder and her friends advocate, is the selfish choice. I refer to this as the "Blinder Choice"

The Blinder choice is a modified version of choice #2. This is the choice of self-purported environmental advocates who use paper products, they just don't want a pulp mill in "their community". They pretend pollution is a local issue vs. a global issue. They know better but they don't care about anybody but themselves.

The Blinder choice promotes unchecked pollution in developing countries vs. supporting the only chlorine-free pulp mill in North America, operating in a regulated country by owners who are committed to eliminating pollution.

The unintended consequences of the Blinder choice has caused the closure of North American pulp mills, the loss of jobs, and the relocation of the pulp and paper industry to developing countries like Brazil, Chile, China, Russia, Uraguay and Vietnam. These developing countries are suffering from the consequences of unchecked pollution and the countries political leaders care more about building economic wealth than protecting environmental health.

The Blinder choice has no social conscience. This allows Blinder advocates to ignore how their choice is killing rivers and making people sick. The Blinder advocates don't care if they cause economic hardship to families in Humboldt County; they don't care whether northern California experiences greater frequency of forest fires; They don't care about promoting pollution technology. If you are a selfish person then join the Blinder choice.

Make the sensible choice and get your vision back in focus.

Reply
T.P.Wypins
8/30/2010 01:23:56 am

Shawn;
You see thats just it. They won't meet you in a head on debate. They qoute science and list a bunch of nasty chemicals. They trust that science has defind these chemicals as the "cause" of all thats wrong with their health. But they don't trust science to control these chemicals during their use.
Every time you meet them with the truth. They will not answer you. They wait a few days then start over like you were never here.

Simply they are NIMBY's, Or Kasinski's
Thats about it,,
An Entitlment check,,And a foul streak towards everthing.
Look these people up ,Carol Binder And group. They oppose everthing that comes along.
She and her group even opposed the teen center/Shelter.
From North to South county,For years they oppose anything for a buck,,,,

Reply
8/30/2010 02:56:00 am

You try to muddy the issue all you want, and you can try to personally belittle us, but there are some facts that you can't refute: Freshwater Tissue cannot meet the standards of the Clean Water Act; The Samoa Pulp Mill has a history of violations, accidents and breakdowns; The Samoa Mill is a legally mandated clean up site; There are cancer causing chemicals in the wells at the pulp mill site; Pulp mills are notorious polluters.

We have given you lots of specific government documents to back up what we have to say. You have offered only insults and innuendos. What government documents can you offer to support what you have to say?

Who is spreading pulp fiction?

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/30/2010 04:03:04 am

Carol,

You are just wrong. EPA and the State Water Board issued a new NPDES permit and CDO. I don't know an industrial plant in the United States that hasn't received a violation. If EPA was concerned with past performance they would not have issued a new permit. John Hopkins, which is a cancer research and treatment center disagrees with you and they actually know what they are talking about. All documents you provide are history. I prefer to look to the future.

The problem with the Blinder advocacy group is that you have no faith that anything in this world can be improved.

In the eyes of the Blinder group, if a car fails a smog test you would have it destroyed. If a house is in need of remodeling you would have it torn down. Your negativism is destroying our community.

Perhaps you should consider relocating to the land of the blind where the one eyed man is king!

Reply
Patrick
8/30/2010 05:39:06 am

As is true with many other industries, when the modern pulp industry began operating in the late 19th and 20th century, it operated without pollution controls and poisoned environments and communities indiscriminately. The fact this condition has improved over the decades is primarily the result of citizen resistance, such as you're experiencing now with west Eureka activists. We won't go away and we won't shut up. As for situations around the world, Brazil, China,Indonesia or where ever, local people in those areas need to mount their own struggles of resistance. I know that in many cases the odds are overwhelming in many of these countries, but people have overcome such odds in the past and will do so in the future. As for 'future improvements' the real evolution of modern industry after peak oil will be more in the line of deteoriation rather than advancement. Anyway, enough philosophy. Here is Evergreen Pulp's chemical list for its Emission Estimates for the Samoa Mill's Smelt Dissolving Tank (document dated Wednesday, July 06, 2005): acetaldehyde, acetone, alpha-pinene, arsenic, benzene, beta-pinene, cadnium, copper, formaldehyde, lead, manganese, mercury, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobtyl ketone, methyl mercaptan, particulate matter, selenium, styrene, terpenes, toluene, total reduced sulpher, volatile ortganic compounds, xylene (o-), xylenes, zinc. Remember, I have said again and again these are complex issues; please no hasty comments saying I am saying more than I'm actually saying here. I'm just saying this is one particular Evergreen documenent and this is the list of chemicals for which emission estimates were made.

Reply
Cricket
8/30/2010 05:44:07 am

Since no one has commented on the retraining received my mill workers (if any) and what occupations they are now working in, it is important to know how much the closure of the mill has actually effected the job related economy. Perhaps the L.A. Times reporter can check into this.

Reply
Patrick
8/30/2010 05:51:23 am

Sorry, Shawn. I didn't read your last post carefully until now. Yes, of course, amounts are important - - although beyond rough estimates it's not always easy to know how much of a particular HAP actually enters the local atmosphere. Another factor is that 'trace' amounts can have a significant effect on health over extended periods of time. Age and health condition of those effected are also significant factors.

Reply
Jim
8/30/2010 08:34:27 am

Cricket;
In Truth ,,The "re-trainging" .Is and was,,Just a continuince of are Edd check. What I've re-trained at dont hire.
Those of us who have stuck it out for this future project,,,,, 180 at the least.Waiting on the economy and B.S complainers.
You know how this started for us? They said close it down tuesday night graveyard,,,Go home and in 3 month come back ,,,,,22 months and some of us feel and are screwed,,,,,,,,,
\
Bottom line like others have said ,,,this site is a mis-information site,,,

Reply
8/30/2010 09:18:09 am

If the Samoa Pulp Mill is about to start up, why aren't you all busy doing pulp mill stuff? If I was a pulp mill worker waiting for a job, I would be a little concerned that the President of Freshwater Tissue Co. has so much time to spend on this blog.

Reply
T.P.W
8/30/2010 12:15:08 pm

Ummm,,,Not a bad point WestE,,,,,,,
Ahh Bob,, what about it ?

Reply
Cricket
8/30/2010 01:38:09 pm

Jim,
I don't understand. Do you mean the kind of training offered didn't pay enough or lead to job opportunities? Or do you mean training wasn't available? Or that you decided not to accept it and wait for the mill to reopen? Did Evergreen ignore the Warren Act? I believe the requirement is to give 60 days notice of plant closures.

Reply
Oliver
8/30/2010 01:51:04 pm

I don't see a great amount of intentional "misinformation" being put on this blog by mill opponents. Most of what I see is in one way or another factual. Maybe the emphasis isn't what people supporting the mill would like to see and maybe mill opponents - not being trained pulp mill technicians - occasionally make some minor mistakes about details of the pulping process; but misinformation? I don't see it. Most of the information posted is from government documents or scientific journals.

Reply
Patrick
8/30/2010 03:00:29 pm

Oliver, well said. Here's a fact: Between January 2004 and May 2005 the Samoa Mill reported over 155 equipment upset/breakdown events. The majority of these, according to Tetra Tech, resulted in excess emissions being emitted. May 2005 was of course just two months before the spectactular 8/4/05 emission event--well documented on this blog including the complete breakdown report by Carol Romero to the Air Quality office.

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/30/2010 06:23:06 pm

Carol,

As you know, you filed an appeal against Freshwater's NPDES permit and CDO shortly after the permit was issued. Until your appeal has been dismissed there will not be any investment in the plant. Your selfishness has caused families additional hardship. Shame on you.

On July 15, 2010 EPA and the State Water Board issued a new NPDES and CDO to Freshwater. Both of these agencies believe the Samoa mill is capable of operating within EPA's guidelines for pulp mills or they would not have issued a permit. It is time for you and the Blinder advocates to stop living in the past and causing economic hardship for working families. Your arguments are as old as the violations you quote.

With the help of Congressman Thompson, I have eliminated another of Carol's pulp fictional stories. In an earlier blog Carol quotes a letter written by Mike Thompson dated August 9, 2010 as a topic of her blog. I asked Carol whether the letter was in fact released in 2009. Carol assured everyone the date of Mike's letter was August 9, 2010, just three (3) days after Mike wrote a support letter addressed to our Governor.

Carol was correct about the date of Mike's letter. What she didn't do was verify the letter was purposely sent by Mike. The fiction is now revealed and can be read on our website by clicking the support section and reading Congressman Thompson's explanation. In short, one of Mike's staff members mistakenly released a copy of a 2009 letter. Mike wrote another letter of support to EXIM Bank last week. Please be sure to read our new support letters from Assembly Speaker Perez and Wesley Chesbro.

Reply
Worth-repeating
8/31/2010 01:26:19 am

"Until your appeal has been dismissed there will not be any investment in the plant. Your selfishness has caused families additional hardship. Shame on you."

"On July 15, 2010 EPA and the State Water Board issued a new NPDES and CDO to Freshwater. Both of these agencies believe the Samoa mill is capable of operating within EPA's guidelines for pulp mills or they would not have issued a permit.
It is time for you and the Blinder advocates to stop living in the past and causing economic hardship for working families. Your arguments are as old as the violations you quote."

Carol and friends'
Now you take the food from our mouth's ?

Reply
Oliver
8/31/2010 11:13:32 am

Talk about Pulp Fiction!!
First of all, the appeal isn't what's holding things up, Mr. Simpson asked the State Water Board for a 90 day delay at the July 15 hearing -- to try to get investors. Isn't the general condition of the world economy and the present state of the pulp and paper industry specifically part of the problem? Furthermore, if the mill were able to open and meet the Clean Water requirements, a Cease & Desist Order would not have been issuesd at the same time as the permit. And as you know, the permit was issued against the advice of their own Enforcement Dept. who pointed to the mill's long history of violations.

Reply
john
8/31/2010 11:54:47 am

Re:food from mouth argument

Food from the mouth now is better than poison in the air and water later. Prove it's save with all the agencies first!

Reply
John
8/31/2010 12:43:55 pm

Prove it's safe for the Bay, Land, and Air first. Is that Chinese company still financing this in the background they still owe there x employee's there last pay check? Somethings not right. if it looks smells and quacks like a duck!

Reply
Bob Simpson
8/31/2010 02:52:59 pm

Oliver,

You need to do your homework. The present state of the pulp market is fantastic. We have an offer from an investment fund but the funds will remain in equity until the appeal is dismissed. The CDO was issued at the same time as the NPDES permit. Go to our website, hit the environmental icon and read the CDO and NPDES dates. Three strikes and you are out.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/1/2010 12:11:58 am

John,

You have been watching too many Aflac commercials. The issuance of our NPDES permit should have been your clue that agencies are satisfied.

Reply
Oliver
9/1/2010 05:40:07 am

I'm not sure what "fantastic" means. but I'll admit I haven't read Paper Age recently. My general impression is that the pulp economy unstable over the long run. Thanks for the "homework" suggestion. Being retired, I do love to do homework. However, it's still difficult for me to believe that your 'investors' (who specifically is listed on your web site? I don't see any.) would be forced to hold back by one little citizens' appeal. When Lee & Man was here, they went ahead with their operation immediately, dispite a critical local APO (Lawrence Odle), citizen street protests and a Writ of Mandate. Hmmm

Reply
T.P
9/1/2010 07:32:25 am

Oliver'
"Retired". No wonder,,You and your group dont give a Shiiit about jobs !

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/1/2010 10:28:50 am

Oliver,

How did that work out for Evergreen? Call a bank and ask them if they would loan money before an appeal of a required permit has been determined.

According to RISI, the price of pulp peaked at $1,010/ADMT. This is nearly an all time high. The market is now stablized at $850. If you read our business plan it really isn't that difficult to believe.

China's economy is growing and consumers have disposable income. China's consumption of tissue products is growing at 12% annually. With 1.2 billion people to provide for, China is the driving paper consumption.



Reply
Frank
9/1/2010 10:50:56 am

Oliver, you might start your homework with the Freshwater home page. If you look at the Market Summary under the Business Plan. You'll see a somewhat more measured assessment that gives some support to your reference to world market conditions. To quote Mr. Simpson's assessment: "While the entire pulp and paper industry is going through significant changes, the silver lining is China. China represents the only real glimmer of market strength and hope for market pulp people, and significant increase in consumer spending." I guess we all hope the Chinese bubble doesn't burst like the Japanese economy a couple of decades ago. Personally I think there may be some dark clouds in China's future. Anyway, if Lee & Man couldn't make a go of it how does Freshwater think they can pull off the deal? Through the Korab/Noramex Swedish wizard?

Reply
patrick
9/1/2010 01:00:45 pm

Bob, Oliver and Frank, this discussion of China and the pulp market has been interesting but I think it has taken us somewhat far afield from a very interesting and relevant thread started by Westeureka on 8/28/10 with her comment that "--elements and compounds interact and change--." We had Shawn's essentially misinformed attempt at a lesson in chemistry. I responded; but then things kind of got lost. With 101 traffic, Fairhaven, and potentially a start-up of the Samoa mill those of us actually living in West Eureka have very good reason to be concerned with chemical mixtures in the air we are forced to breath. Shawn, there is an entire section of scientific study concerned with chemical mixtures and their impact on human health. As a good example I would refer you to V. J. Feron, et. al., "International Issues on Human Health Effects of Exposure to Chemical Mixtures": ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, Vol. 110-Suppliment 6-December 2002. Particularly pertinent to Westeureka's statement is this quote, "Synergistic interactions of pollutant gases and ambient PM have been studied from the early 1950s. Amdur et. al. established that fossil fuel irritants such as SO2 can interact physiochemically with soluble metal salts to generate particles intrinsically more toxic than the primary compounds. More recently, SO2 was shown to react with combustion-associated ZnO emission PM in a humidified atmosphere, resulting in acid sulfate that can be carried deep into the lungs of test animals." This is a dense survey article with 114 supporting references--so please no comments about how the chemicals in the above quote don't apply to the Samoa mill. Again, what's involved is a GENERAL scientific principle. As Paper Age commented in an Oct. 20, 2009 article, part of the problems that have plagued the Samoa mill from the beginning have been environmental issues due to its costal location.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/1/2010 02:18:15 pm

Frank,

China's industrial era has begun. GM sold more cars in China last year then they sold in the United States. It won't last forever, but it will last for a number of years.

Lee & Mann suffered from illiquidity. They were a victim of the economy and greed.

Korab is our customer and they have been in business 97 years. They have committed to buying 100% of our pulp with weekly payments for our production output. The term of the contract is 10 years. I encourage you read the recent letter from Korab to EXIM Bank which is posted on our website in the project support section.

Reply
Shawn
9/1/2010 03:47:57 pm

Patrick,
You proved my "misinformed attempt at a lesson in chemistry" when you posted the the trace emissions actually from our mill. All the chlorine containing compounds seem to be missing...

Also you still resort to scare tactics and don't include the quantities of those emissions. Maybe you should show your support for the ban of Dihydrogen Monoxide. After all, quantities required before chemicals become a health threat don't matter. If its a threat at any level, its a threat at all levels, right???

Reply
snoopy
9/1/2010 04:36:40 pm

Reply
snoopy
9/1/2010 04:44:36 pm






In response to Bob on Aug. 30, 8:11:09 above, I believe there are other ways to make paper that do not pollute the air and water. Maybe you could check them out.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/2/2010 02:39:40 am

Snoopy,

Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the toilet paper industry. How do you propose to eliminate pollution?

Reply
Patrick
9/2/2010 08:07:25 am

Shawn,
You are consistenly missing my point, basically by not being able to follow the slow and patient pace of my argument. In my post concerning the 1994 EPA report, I was not intending to say anything about emissions from the TCF Samoa mill specifically. I was only giving a single illustration of the complex problem of kraft HAPs. I in no way intented to imply that chlorine based emissions, such as are involved in the chlorine bleach process, relate to our local mill. In my second post concerning emissions from one source in the Samoa mill, I was simply intending to indicate the complex chemical parameters involved in monitoring emissions from the Samoa mill. I am not hung up at all on the "chlorine/dioxin" issue that was involved in the 1990s Surfriders suit, etc. It is possible that, in terms of the "chemical mixture" issue reported on in my most recent post chlorine MAY (note I am not saying IS) is involved in our local HAP totality due to the sea salt factor. I posted my third reference basically to show that chemical mixture is a well recognized scientific issue in measuring HAPs. As for quantity, I entirely agree with you that this is critical. I simply haven't gotten to dealing with this yet, in part because it is a complex issue involving not only crude estimates but unrecorded fugitive emissions, long term trace emissions, in other words chronicity. I think if you have been following this blog you will remember that I said I was undertaking an extended argument which, unfortunately because of the nature of 'blog communication', has to be presented in a piece meal, chopped up fashion. I know this makes some intellectual demand on viewers-which is why I keep asking for patience-and I am assuming you possess this level of intellectual attention.

Reply
Shawn
9/2/2010 09:22:21 am

I fully get your point about the complex nature of emissions. To that point, if you look up in this chain of posts, you will see that I posted the HAPs for the combustion of natural gas. I did so to point out that the complexity is not just limited to the pulp mill.

My point with the chlorine is to show that there is a significant reductions in variety of HAPs coming from our mill due to the use of the TCF bleaching process. I do believe I am allowed to make my own point instead of simply contesting yours. I will continue to make any point I can support for as long as someone on this blog is contesting it and comments like "misinformed attempt at a lesson in chemistry" imply that it is still contested.

Reply
Patrick
9/2/2010 01:01:17 pm

Shawn, If you will take a look at CH2MHILL's October 2006 Evergreen Pulp Human Health Risk Assessment and then look at Table A-1, page 1 of 12 pages, you'll see listed among other HAPs the following: 1,1,2-Trichorothane, 1.2-Dichorethylene, Chloronbenzene, Chloroform, Tetrachloroethylene,and Trichloroethylene. I'm just starting to scratch the surface. I discussed this report with the Air Quality Office when it first came out. By the way, have you noted that your post of 8/28/10 where you say "All the containment area are even (sic) pumped to the recovery department--" is apparently contradicted by Mr. Simpson's post of 8/29/10 he explains that in a chlorine bleach mill chlorine compounds can't recycle bleach plant water to the recovery boiler because they would cause corrosion and destroy the boiler.

Reply
Patrick,
9/2/2010 01:19:29 pm

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/2/2010 01:22:25 pm

Patrick,

Here is the CH2MHILL 2006 Summary:

The cancer and chronic health risks associated with the Samoa mill’s emissions are below the NCUAQMD significance thresholds for worst-case residential and worker exposure scenarios. The acute health risk exceeds the NCUAQMD threshold, based on estimated acrolein emissions from the pulp dryer. In July 2007, additional lime kiln work was completed that reduced emissions below their reported level.

Reply
Shawn
9/3/2010 02:43:00 am

Patrick,
Yes, I notice Mr. Simpson's comment. I didn't contest it because Simpson has direct experience with a mill using chlorine bleaching and I do not. I had to base my information on what I have read and on conversations with workers from other mills. I should point out the I believe that Simpson was stating that chlorine bleaching mills dump their bleaching wash water directly into the sewer, which sounds worse to me, and was not referring to the spill containment areas. The whole idea of a spill containment area is to keep spills out of the sewer so it really wouldn't be a containment area if went to the sewer...

Now, Patrick, I have to ask what is the point you are trying to make with the post. I have been very careful to say that TCF will "significantly reduce or eliminate" chlorine emissions. I am a huge fan of the motto "never say never." Trace chlorine can be brought in with raw resources. I never contended this. My point has always been that by not directly adding chlorine we are significantly reducing chlorine emissions and may even be eliminating some of those emissions. Do you contest my point?

There are literally dozens of papers and studies that support my point. They come from a wide variety of source including paper companies, independent labs, surfrider foundation, the Canadian government, and U.S. government agencies like the EPA.
Since the EPA seems to be accepted by both sides of this blog I will quote it.

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t3/fact_sheets/pandpfs.pdf

The three general approaches to bleaching are:

Elemental Chlorine Bleaching is the process currently in place at existing bleaching plants, and uses chlorine (Cl) and hypochlorite to brighten the pulp. When elemental chlorine and hypochlorite react with the lignin, they form chlorinated pollutants such as chloroform, dioxins and furans in the wastewater stream.

Elemental Chlorine Free Bleaching (ECF) replaces chlorine with chlorine dioxide as a bleaching agent and hypochlorite in no longer used. The use of ECF bleaching results in reduced levels of chlorinated pollutants in the air and water waste streams.

Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) bleaching uses no chlorinated bleaching agents to bleach the pulp. Instead, bleaching agents such as oxygen and peroxide are used. TCF bleaching eliminates chlorinated pollutants in the air and water waste streams.

Reply
Confused
9/3/2010 03:21:35 am

Name should say it all. Ive read most of the posts in the various forums listed on the homepage of this site, and I still cannot figure out what West Eureka and supporters are trying to say.

My education in chemistry is mediocre at best and environmental awareness limited to the here and now rather then 'potential' 100yrs in the future.

Can you clarify for me precisely and specifically what chemicals, processes, quantities you are opposed to? Can you explain in terms other than EPA cut and paste, how each of the chemicals listed affects the local environment, as well as any variables that may change and/or alter the findings? Can you spell out in a clear, articulate manner, the process each element undergoes as it is processed by the mills machinery, how each element is changed into the compounds objected to, and what direct impact each compound has on environmental factors. I would also ask for a clarification on how much of a compound is enough to show direct effect, in regards to pollution levels and the 'potential' environmental/health risks.

From my vantage Simpson and his supporters have filled these forums with attempts to educate me on the above questions, and what they cannot answer they freely admit to not knowing and cite sources to which I may pursue my own research. All I can understand from the west eureka group is. Omg it's a CHEMICAL and CHEMICALS are bad!!!! we cannot tell you why but trust us they are.

Reply
patrick
9/3/2010 06:39:12 am

Confused, I don't wonder you're confused. To give a definitive answer to the questions you ask would take a book, not a few blog posts. There are 40 or more "toxic" (using California Air Resources Board terminology)chemicals involved in pulp mill air emissions. The people on this blog who oppose the Samoa mill reopenning are primarly long-term West Eureka residents who would experience long-term exposure to these emissions. The effects of such exposure are to breathing, eyesight, nerve function and mood. Cancer risk is also by law evaluated in pulp mill health risk assessments. Roughly the situation of living near a pulp mill is similar to that of living near an oil refinary. Supporters of the mill generally contest these statements. They have an obvious financial interest in doing so. Hopefully before too long this blog will post one or more brief general survey articles on the hazards of pulp mill air pollution.

Reply
9/3/2010 06:41:34 am

Confused

For starters read our article "Pulp Mill Workers, Cancer and Freshwater Tissue Co." dated 5-17-2010.

Check out the proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer and birth defects. Then look at the list of chemicals known to be present at the Samoa Pulp Mill site.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/3/2010 07:50:36 am

Carol,

I find it pointless to participate in your blog. If you truly thought the pulp mill was impacting your health then you and your friends would have moved out of Eureka years ago.

The fact is, your objective is to be seen by your peers as a local martyr. To accomplish your goal, you create issues by spreading pulp fiction via your blog. In my opinion, if the Samoa mill were permanently closed you would become irrelevant within a matter of days. The anxiety from your failure to become a martyr may shorten your life, but the Samoa pulp mill air and water emissions will have no effect on your health.

Reply
Still confused
9/3/2010 10:51:26 am

Srry but that really does nothing to answer why you object to freshwater pulp specifically. Your arguments seem to be an across the board report that can be applied to any element, compound, chemical currently known to man. I mean in all reality, over exposure to Clorox or Tilex can have the same adverse health risks as any of the chemicals the mill emits. And cancer has more known causes then treatments at the present time. For all I know the increased cancer rates could be due to the increased population influx, cell towers, local drug usage, Heck it could just be nature's way of telling us were screwed.

Let me try to scale down the ?'s a bit. How much of each chemical is necessary to cause what health risk over what period of exposure time.

Example: Ammonia.
The above chemical listed by the blog is present in various day to day products as well as our own urine. We know the exposure to the chemical can cause problems, both short term and long term, Obviously the quantities required to truly affect us on a anatomical level are higher then nothing, else we would be unable to inhale while we urinate. So how much is to much? How much Ammonia needs to be emitted within a defined space over a period of defined time to cause issues? How do variables effect those equations? And where is the hard data to support the results?

From what I have seen so far including the last posts you cannot answer these ?'s. You want me to believe that the mill will discharge 'potentially' dangerous levels of toxins into the local air and water over a period of years, yet you have not given me the hard conclusive data (specific to the freshwater pulp mill, not kraft mills in general) that this is the case. If I am to believe in your opinion of the matter I am going to need more than generic reports I don't understand and opinions based on speculations or 'Potential' 'Probable' 'Possible' arguments.

And I have to agree with Bob, considering the Mill has been in it's present location since the 1960's the ppl living in West Eureka had fore knowledge of the situation into which they were entering. I personally would not Choose to live in a situation that I believed caused harm to myself or my children, furthermore I would not attempt to hurt the county economy and residents simply because a few people may regret the choices they made.

Simple Version. Present me with pure data that proves the validity of your arguments, free of speculation, opinion, interpretation. Data that accounts for all variables, not just the ones you wish me to see. Data that is specific to the local situation and Freshwater mill. Data that incorporates past, present, and future. Data that can be duplicated and cannot be contradicted.

And West Eureka, until you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt free of exceptions, the cause of cancer / Birth defects and how the mill / Bob Simpson bear the full responsibility for those causes, I am going to have to continue to side with the people willing to feed and clothe my children, rather then those who would see me dependent on the already over abused welfare system.

"Yes honey I know your hungry now, but at least your risk of getting cancer 60 yrs down the road 'may' be significantly reduced"

Reply
Cricket
9/3/2010 11:26:02 am

Bob, I'm not moving, I don't have the money. I know that pulp mill emissions adversely effected my health and my family's. There are observable differences in air quality since the mill closed. And I'm not talking about 'odors'. You can deny scientific studies, reports on air emissions from Evergreen reports, government documents, etc. all you want. You can belittle the personal experiences of honest, educated, intelligent local residents, but you can't change reality and you can't intimidate me.

Reply
Patrick
9/3/2010 12:02:43 pm

Still Confused, I'm sorry this issue is complicated but it is. I get the impression you don't have a very good understanding of the science of epidemiology, but maybe I'm wrong. You have to start with the fact that international and national governmental bodies and scientists have had a consensus for decades that kraft pulp mills are public health hazards. This is why they are required to have pollution control systems, are regulated and operate under Title V permits. The local pulp mill is no exception to this general situation. The burden isn't on us to redo volumes of scientific research on this blog. The burden is on you, if you have an open mind are really interested, to educate yourself. The people who are in oppositional to the local pulp mill and who communicate with each other via this blog have done that self education and we don't have to fill in every detail for people who haven't. You asked for specific causitive connections. Some of these are difficult to prove absolutely because of the complexity of epidemiological situations. Others are easily demostrated. Some of us have kept extended journals recording observations and corresponding immediate effects. These observations have corresponded to records kept by the Air Quality Control Office. In at least one case, such journals have been accepted in court as evidence. Although not the only such incident, probably the most dramatic recent event was the mill's August 4, 2005 fugitive emission of toxic neurological compounds. If you have been reading this blog you have noted that we even posted the verbatum report of the mill's environmental officer concerning this release. The Air Quality Control Office received over 100 complaints regarding this event. On a personal level, the experience of those exposed was difficulty breathing, nausea, and mental confusion. This was not an isolated incident. Such reduced sulfur compound releases are considered "tracers" by scientists because they have a perceptible odor. Many of the mill's hazardous emissions, such as particulants, cannot be seen and are odorless; nevertheless in a great body of scientific literature they are linked with diseases such as asthma, for one example. I wonder if your attitude doesn't simply reflect the old Humboldt County timber industry mentality that is unwilling to look at things outside of an old established local cultural pattern. As I said earlier, we will hopefully post some general articles on hazardous pulp mill air emission with some of the supporting reference material. Unfortunately your attitude is almost like someone who has suddenly been told the earth moves around the sun and demands proof.

Reply
9/3/2010 01:01:43 pm

The bottom line is that there are environmental rules. This pulp mill can't meet them except with a complicated cease and desist order that allows them to break the rules of the Clean Water Act until 2014.

Furthermore, the Samoa Pulp Mill site is a legally mandated cleanup site. You can find the latest tests 2010 on the Geotracker site of the State Water Board.

Reply
Not as confused
9/3/2010 01:46:27 pm

Once again I see only opinion and interpretation rather then any real conclusive, definitive answers. More generalizations and across the board averages then specific detailed analysis.

You say it is not your job to educate me and it is my responsibility to pursue my own research, yet you make claims and argue a logic that requires me to put faith in your interpretations and observations. You are correct in that I lack an understanding of a lot of sciences governing this issue, but your lack of any valid, comparative, definitive data tells me that your understanding is based in interpretation and speculation. You simply cannot prove beyond any doubt that what you claim is fact, rather you have taken available facts and attempted to pass off your opinion on the matter as undeniable truth.

You fully expect me to believe that you and you alone recognize the potential hazards of the mill, that despite the data available, and the studies done, your interpretation and observations are more conclusive and truthful then those of your opponents. That you are better educated and of a higher intellectual perspective then not only the people who conduct the various studies, but also those who review the data and decide on the proper course of action.

My attitude (as you term it) is that of a concerned Humboldt county citizen watching the local economy drown in the decaying reek of our own bay. You may not agree with Bob and his supporters I can respect that, you are entitled to your opinion. But at least they are making an attempt at repair, rather then sitting on their bums crying about all the stuff they think is being done wrong.

And yes I do demand proof that the earth revolves around the sun. Unlike many I do not simply believe in blind faith, or random opinion. True science requires that a fact be provable beyond any doubt or contradiction. Until it can be proven, validated, duplicated, and the results consistent over a period of time it is a theory and open to various perceptions.

I remember a time when eggs caused cholesterol (bad), when red meat was OMG BAD! for the body, when foam pillows were the only type that didn't cause asthma. Babies were supposed to sleep on their backs, no wait fronts, no wait sides to lessen the risks of sudden infant death syndrome, when the Ozone holes would never fill back in and aerosol cans were one of the leading causes of pollution. I Didn't confuse truth with theory then, I don't now. Your lack of specificity in your arguments and attempts to demean the intellectual abilities of those who do not come to your conclusion is rather sad. I can only hope that others see beyond the cloud you have placed yourselves on to the rest of us working below.

This will be my last post, you will either get it or you won't. Either way I have more important concerns then (as I have come to believe) agenda motivated propaganda driven by the selfish few.

God Bless and Good luck Bob

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/3/2010 02:12:41 pm

Carol,

There are no cleanup and abatement orders issued to Freshwater, Evergreen or LP.

There is a huge difference between an order to cleanup a piece of property vs. being directed to monitor wells. Do you understand the difference? If not, call Catherine Kuhlhman.

Cricket, if a guy owns a Ferrari and he gets a ticket for doing 100 mph, is it the fault of the car or the driver? When the driver sells the car should the car be impounded because the former owner received a speeding ticket? Should the new owner of the Ferrari be harassed because he purchased a Ferrari that once received a speeding ticket?

Reply
Cricket
9/3/2010 03:23:04 pm

Bob,
I would respect you more if you would admit there are two sides to the debate going on here. For example, when we talked about a major fugitive emission from the Samoa mill on August 4, 2005 you denied it happened. When we posted conclusive evidence that this was a fact you simply ignored us. When we posted, from official Air Quality Control documents, that there were 155 breakdown events (many resulting in emissions above regulation limits) between January 2004 and May 2005 you ignored that. The fact that you will not admit that our concerns are based on factual evidence makes it difficult for us to trust or respect you as a future operator of the Samoa mill. If you would admit that our concerns are rational, although they may differ from your's because our self interests are different, I would have more respect for you. Instead, you and your supporters merely belittle us. It's true that I do not have a financial interest in seeing the pulp mill reopen. This is a democracy and our society is based on conflicting interests. No one on this blog has said you do not have the legal right to try to reopen the mill. On the other hand, we have an equal right to use persuasion, and what legal means are available to prevent it from opening; or to see that it is properly regulated should it open. Let's be rational and honest. The Samoa mill has had many past problems meeting environmental regulations. Surely you know this. Didn't the conversion to TCF result as a response to legal or regulatory actions? Why can't you just say that you know there is a possibility of hazardous air pollution without the proper maintenance of the mill's pollution control system and even some minimal pollution of nearby neighborhoods when the system is working as it should?

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/3/2010 08:45:42 pm

Mr. Cricket,

There are always two sides of a debate or it isn't a debate.

I suspect in fact you may have seen a black cloud. The question is, what made the cloud black. I suspect it was the position of the sun. Remember, a cloud doesn't have to be black to be toxic.

Honestly, I don't have time to go back through years of records to see what did or didn't happened. I am concerned about the future rather than the past.

Using my Ferrari analogy, it doesn't make any difference to me if the last owner of the car received 155 speeding tickets. I just need to know the car is mine and I can drive the car without getting a speeding ticket.

I agree, let's be honest. the air violations concern me much more than the water violations because BOD, the Samoa mill's water pollution issue, has never been a pollution issue it has always been a regulatory issue. On the other hand, air violations must be eliminated. The air violations are mostly human errors not technology errors.

Let's assume you have a fireplace at home. You burn through your dry wood in one month. Now you throw on green wood. Your fire smokes up the neighborhood. Is it the fault of the fireplace or is it the owners fault for making the decision to burn green firewood? The following summer you sell the house. Should the new owner repair the fireplace or should he burn dry wood? In your scenario, you would have the owner knock the house down.

Reply
Cricket
9/4/2010 06:49:29 am

I have never mentioned "black clouds" and I am not talking about 'bad odors'. I am speaking about toxic TRS air emissions and have made that perfectly clear. You throwing the 'dark cloud' taunt is just another example of you trying to belittle my intelligence. Let's assume the color of the emission plume on 8/4/05 is simply left out of the discussion. Actually the opacacity of that particular plume may have been partly a result of particulate density and partly due to atmospheric conditions. I experienced physiological effects associated in the scientific literature with TRS exposure, and so did the people who were with me. The official report from Evergreen covering the Daily Recovery Log for that date records excess emissions of sulfur dioxide and TRS. Although this may have been the largest fugitive discharge under Evergreen operation (there was another notable one in the spring) it was by no means the only one. It is very difficult for me to trust you as a mill owner/operator when you persist in playing these games. As you say, the air violations are mostly human errors, this includes "errors" in maintenance. When the Samoa mill was raided just before Evergreen took over, multiple "errors" in equipment maintenace were discovered and recorded. Given your attitude towards people living near the mill and your obvious lack of adequate funding, why do you expect me to have any faith that you will do better than Stockton Pacific or the mill's other past operators. If you are really concerned about hazardous air emissions, you might start demonstrating this by stopping your belittling of people who live within the mill's emission zone.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/4/2010 08:18:17 am

Cricket,

I don't have the time or desire to study what may or may not have happened in 2005. And if I did you would dispute the facts anyway.

The people who you accuse me of "belittling" have filed an inadequate are all fictional anyway. So what difference does it make. Provide a real name and I will take you seriously.

If you have a scientific report from a credible lab providing a conclusion that indicates your physiological effects are substantiated then please release your report for the public to see. If not, stop spreading pulp fiction, look forward, and judge me by how the mill operates under our managment.

Don't expect me to take your criticism serious when you hide behind a fictional charachter name like Cricket or Snoopy.

Reply
9/4/2010 10:23:42 am

Concerning the clean up of the Samoa Pulp Mill/Freshwater Tissue site, there is more than monitoring of the wells going on. Louisiana Pacific is planning a cleanup of the site. In a letter dated December 14, 2010 the Water Board staff said, "Failure to comply with this request may result in further enforcement activities that could include issuance of a cleanup and abatement order pursuant to Section 13304 of the California Water Code."
SHN Consulting Engineers have prepared a schedule of the clean up (March 10, 2010 and April 20, 2010). The schedule leads to implementation of the remedial action plan for Area of Interest 8 in July-September 2011 and a Remedial Action Work Plan Site Wide April 2012.
Louisiana Pacific is not doing this out of the goodness of their heart, but because if they don't they will be slapped with legal action. This is more than monitoring; This is a legally mandated cleanup due to the dangerous chemicals on the mill site. All this is part of the public record and can be checked easily on the State Water Board's Geotracker site.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/4/2010 11:23:20 am

Carol,

It seems your ignorance of this issue has no boundaries. I suggest you contact the State Water Board. Perhaps they can enlighten you. At this moment, there are no orders or plans for cleanup. Only additional investigation. LP has taken responsibility for the monitoring and investigation because their indemnification from Evergreen Pulp is meaningless.

Reply
Frank
9/4/2010 01:26:21 pm

Cricket,
I see it like this. If I'm thinking about taking up smoking, no one can guarantee whether I will or won't get lung cancer. There's a chance I will and that's something I have to make a decision about. There are hazards associated with living near a pulp mill. No one can guarantee whether the potential hazards will or will not affect me personally. It's something I'll have to make a decision about. Some people on this blog have made the decision they do not want a pulp mill reopened in their neighborhood; just like some people have decided they won't smoke.

Reply
9/5/2010 05:34:23 am

We can read. Concerning cleanup of the site, I refer you back to the letter dated December 14, 2009 from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board to Bob Simpson Freshwater Tissue and Ms. April Ingram Louisiana Pacific. "We request that you provide us with a reasonable schedule by March 1, 2010 for the preparation of an FS/RAP (Feasibility Study/Remedial Action Plan and Remedial Action Plan) implementation. As discussed, we appreciate working cooperatively on the cleanup and abatement of dischargers at the Site. Timely continuation of the required activities to address soil and groundwater pollution at the Site are required. Failure to comply with this request may result in further enforcement activities that could include issuance of a cleanup and abatement order pursuant to Section 13304 of the California Water Code."
April 20, 2010 letter from SHN Consulting Co. to the Regional Water Board sets up a schedule for monitoring and CLEAN UP which includes a implementing the Remedial Action Plan for Area of Interest 8 July- September 2011 and Remedial Action Work Plan (Site Wide) April 2012.
How is this not a cleanup???

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/5/2010 06:02:56 am

Carol,

As I previously stated, there are no cleanup orders issued. Just monitoring for now. LP will review the wells in the area of interest in September.

Reply
9/5/2010 07:03:31 am

Anyone interested in the chemicals on the Samoa Pulp Mill site and monitoring and cleanup of the site should look at Geotracker for themselves. Google Geotracker. Type in Samoa, CA. Hit on Evergreen on the menu below. Hit on Evergreen. Hit on Regulatory Actions. Then you can view the letters yourself.

Reply
Bob Simpson
9/5/2010 08:33:22 am

Carol,

I haven't disputed any letters you have cited. But in fact, there are no cleanup orders issued. Don't take my word for it, make a call.

Reply
T.P
9/5/2010 10:33:34 am

People for the mill,,
It seems by us trying to help these people understand the mill better. We just lend more information for them to twist around as if they understand it better than "us". Bob is right this blog is reaching a point of not being worth the time to respond to any longer.
"Old retired martyrs" well said Bob !

Reply
5/8/2012 04:14:31 pm

Nice post.Thank you for taking the time to publish this information very useful! I've been looking for books of this nature for a way too long. I'm just glad that I found yours. Looking forward for your next post. Thanks :)

Cholo
www.0y7.net

Reply
6/27/2012 04:51:41 pm

Excellent! I admire all the helpful data you've shared in your articles. I'm looking forward for more helpful articles from you. :)

Joseph Aidan
www.arielmed.com

Reply



Leave a Reply.