There is a new letter on Geotracker dated May 4, 2010 from the Water Board to Louisiana Pacific and Freshwater Tissue.  It approves a new schedule for the cleanup.  Details of the schedule are included in a letter dated April 20, 2010 from SHN Consulting of Eureka the company that is working on the cleanup.  We will find out more about this. Apparently there was some monitoring of the wells in 2010, but the results are not available yet. Louisiana Pacific is responsible for the cost of the time the Water Board staff spends on the cleanup.

The consulting firm SHN Consulting is doing a feasibility study that looks at options for cleanup.  When they have determined that there are one or two options that look promising, they will do a pilot study.
At that time there will be a public comment period.






Endgame
5/10/2010 08:21:56 am

'Oliver'
This ones up yours (alley)
LOL,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Hit us with that,"over the head" smarts of yours again.

Reply
5/10/2010 11:35:05 am

Let me simplify it for you. The mill has a lot of nasty chemicals on the mill site. The Water Board is making Louisiana Pacific who used to own the mill clean it up and pay for the time they spend on enforcement. A local company is going to do the cleanup.

Reply
Endgame
5/11/2010 01:20:01 am

Simplified,,,
Not untill the mill permenantly closes and is being torn down. O,and after 10-20 years of Ballon track style arguments. So 20-30 years from now , maybe.

Reply
Oliver
5/11/2010 02:00:15 pm

Endgame,thanks. I don't know much about the specifics of site clean-up at the Samoa mill. However, as recent events with Massey Energy and British Petroleum in the Gulf demonstrate, corporations have a well documented practice of putting profits before public and environmental safety. I would assume Louisiana-Pacific is no exception in this instance. As someone who lives in the vicinity of the Samoa mill, this concerns me because of the general nature of kraft pulp making (the process used at the Samoa mill). Most local people don't look at it this way but kraft pulp mills-because of the chemical process involved-are essentially big brew pots producing complex mixes of toxic waste products (along with pulp for paper making). This waste mix is kept out of the environment only by the careful maintenance of a fairly complicated pollution control system. These systems leak or breakdown for a wide varity of reasons, resulting in various degrees of toxic leakage into the surrounding envirounment (between January 2004 and May 2005, the Samoa mill reported 155 such 'upset/breakdown' events). That is, in the operation of kraft pulp mills there is a constant two-way pull between the need to spend money on production or on pollution control maintenance. Too often it is the control system that loses. As for the general relationship between kraft pulp making and the production of toxic waste by-products, this is so well established that there are literally hundrededs of studies and reports-private industry and govermental-from which to choose. Here are just two: World Bank, 1996, "Pollution Prevention and Abatement: Paper and Pulp Mills". Draft Technical Background Document. Environment Department, Washington, D.C.; and Weyerhaeuser Company, Material Safety Data Sheet, "Black Liquor". (Weyerhaeuser MSDC WC 074-08, page 1 of 6 Rev. 04/05/2004. I should point out that what I am talking about here has nothing to do with bleaching (which is another issue). The first step in kraft pulping is the "digestion" of wood chips (a process in which "white liquor" dissolves the lignim that binds the cellulose fibers. After this 'washing' separates "black liquor" from the pulp. Black liquor, which is further processed and recycled,contains a wild mix of toxic chemical compounds. At this point the kraft 'cauldron' is producing so many waste toxics that the mix is generally divided into groups for environmental reporting. One classification system is metals (arsenic, lead, mercury, etc.), total reduced sulfurs (TRSs), which are neuro-poisions among other things, terpenes (a-terpininol, a,b-pyrene, etc.), and volitol organic compounds (VOCs) (acrolein, acetaldehyde, methanol, etc.) Enough for now. I'll follow up later with a few epidemiological studies of the actual health impact of this brew on neighborhoods surrounding kraft pulp mills.









Petroleum

Reply
Snoopy
5/11/2010 05:17:06 pm

So, Endgame, are you for getting the mill operating clean before opening or not?

Reply
Endgame
5/12/2010 01:29:06 am

'Oliver
Pretty good,

The Black liq is then burned off (Re-fluxed) through the recovery boiler instead of staying on nat-gas. So some is burned and some recycled. your left with a by product,Guess where its used . The wine fields of Napa.O and baseball fields.Thats truth . Think of that with your next glass of wine. Even creeps me out a little. None of this goes out to sea.
Most waters in the mill go out through the drying of the sheet.


The "bleaching" is done with peroxide and O2. NO chlorine.

Snoop,
By all standards it is a clean mill.
So yes back to work .

Also L.P. is only on the line for 40 million in clean up cost. No more.

Reply
Endgame
5/12/2010 01:38:26 am

Also,As I pointed out before,Freshwater plans to have a Public Oversight board.
That will show all information month by month. Look into joining this board if you want up to date findings.

Reply
5/12/2010 01:46:07 am

If it is a "clean mill", why can't it meet environmental standards? Why so many violations? Why did they lose their water permit? Read their new permit and the cease and desist order.

Reply
Endgame
5/12/2010 02:25:54 am

Just like your car must get up dated(tune ups) So must the mill. And thats good and fine. The term "Violations" Is like a check-up to your health and life style,and what you should change to be healther, Or say like a broken tail light on your car.Its a violation on your car ,but the engine is running ok.But you should fix it for everyone to be a bit safer.
And we didnt "lose" the permit. It was near the end of a 5 year time limit. And with the transfer of ownership and shut down,it made good sense to all sides. Hows the mill gonna prove anything unless its running.
West
The cease and desist order should make you happy,it provides just what you say you want.

Reply
5/12/2010 07:26:12 am

Yes, they did lose their permit for a list of serious violations that was pages long. We were there. The decree is on the Website for the California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Order no. R1-2004-0047
NPDES No. CA0005894. Evergreen could have been fined $59,297,999,000.

Reply
Endgame
5/12/2010 08:50:01 am

West,
You see this is the problem with arguing with you guys.You really dont understand the law I guess.
59 billion good lord
Dude I worked there, I am a Quality controler. You've been mis-lead,mis-read or missed-out on the real events here .

Reply
snoopy
5/12/2010 03:06:09 pm

If it's so clean, Endgame, how come the new owner needs three years to bring it into compliance? that's what the June hearing is all about.

Reply
Endgame
5/13/2010 12:55:54 am

Snoop,
If you read the new permit guidelines,
You will see that the mill is in compliance of standards. When running brown stock.
The economic desire is to run white stock, The off and on runnig of white is where Evergreen fell into violation. Freshwater plans to run brown stock untill the treatment plant is built. Then we will run white within the standards.
Look I realize Evergreen ran the place kinda shady. Screwed us to.When they went to sell thats why the permit was pulled.
They owe us 400,000 in back medical bills also.
Again I say to you.Your barking up the wrong tree. Direct protest of the mill gets you nothing.Its a slam dunk deal here.
Protest the feds. go to congress , change the LAWs, Protesting at the june meet. That just gets you laughed at,
Sorry but thats how it is.

Reply
oliver
5/13/2010 02:47:15 am

Endgame'
I drink on average about one glass of wine a year and I don't especially enjoy baseball. More seriously, we're speaking different languages based in different self-interests, so I don't think we'll ever agree. However this ongoing assumption by mill supporters that all Westside Eureka residents who oppose the mill oppose it out of ignorance (of mill processes or of regulatory law) are simply wrong. Obviously I don't understand kraft pulp mills like an industry worker or technician, but I have a pretty good lay understanding. For example, I didn't say black liquor waste goes into the Bay. I understand its recycled for energy. The kraft process was developed in Germany in 1879, and hasn't changed a great deal since. Step 1: chips are "digested" with sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide. Step 2: "washing"--black liquor is separated from digested chips. Step 3: "Recovery"--chemicals are recovered from the black liquor for reuse (and waste products like turpentine and tall oil may be sold). The recovery process is one point where pollution control is important. Smelt tank emissions may include methanol, acetaldehyde, dimethyl sulfide, methyl mercaptan, etc., etc. These enter the air when devices like demisters or venturi scrubbers fail. In 2001, at an international symposium on wood and pulp chemistry in Nice, France, Klaus Niemela presented the results of gas chromatography-mass spectrrometry (GS/MS) analysis of typical black liquor. He identified more than 40 organic sulfur compounds and in addition "a large number" of unidentified long-chain sulfides in foul condensates. The point is, I don't want to live next to what is essentially a toxic chaos process (in the technical sense, see Gleick, 1987). Mill pollution controls breakdown on an unpredictable basis (the essence of chaos). Anyone who wants to can get breakdown compliance reports from the NCUAQMD with a public information request--examples, 5/22/05 when the Woodward Governor failled; 8/03/05 "creation of a public nuisance". Point is, don't want it; don't need it; history of long term economic failure at the Samoa mill is there for all to see.

Reply
Endgame
5/13/2010 03:03:03 am

'Oliver,
That was awesome,
qoute
"Point is, don't want it; don't need it;,,,,
I can respect that !
Peace and long life friends.

Reply
Freshwater
5/13/2010 04:00:16 am

Pulp Mill Odors
The pulp and paper industry is notorious for its foul odors. The sulfur stench is derived from the chemical reaction produced during the cooking of the wood fiber. When wood fiber is cooked to separate lignin from the cellulose fiber, the process generates a by-product called black liquor that is used as fuel to generate power and steam. The black liquor contains the odorous compounds, which is the primary source of the pulp mill odors.

In 1990, LP invested $100 million in the installation of a low-odor chemical recovery boiler that greatly reduced its sulfur-like smell. The new boiler reduced the odorous sulfur content from 30 parts per million to 0.3 parts per million. In other words, the Samoa mill reduced its odor by a factor of 100. In 1995, an additional odor collection system was installed to eliminate more of the residual odors.

While the Samoa mill is not odorless, it is believed to be one of the lowest odor generating pulp mills in North America. Further reduction of odors will be achieved through the addition of new process controls, improved maintenance, and additional containment.

Reply
Cricket
5/13/2010 08:30:45 am

Yes, I've known all that for years. I keep trying to explain, it isn't the odor that upsets me. The sulfur compounds you are referring to, known in the trade as total reduced sulfurs or TRS, are a class of chemicals with well documented toxic effects on human health. At highest impact, such as accidental exposure inside a pulp mill, they can cause death. At various lower levels (ppm) they injure the human nervous system (confusion, depression, etc.), damage eyesight, damage the respiratory system. This is all well documented beyond doubt in the medical literature. Exactly how TRS effects the health of people living near a mill is a complex issue. Some people, such as children, the elderly and people with chronic illnesses, can be affeected at very low levels. There's also the issue of long term exposure. There's also the largely unexplored question of the interaction of TRSs with other air pollutants and the synergistic impact on humans. In terms of long term health effect, low odor mill emissions can still be a real problem. Do you think we are children who don't understand the difference between odor and the health impact of sulfur neurotoxins? Besides, it is a documented fact that long term residents in pulp mill neighborhoods may become desensitized to TRS odors--or learn to live in a state of denial. Also, for those who have not seen it, there is a good article entitled "What's wrong with Freshwater Tissue Company's 'eco-friendly' fantasy" at voicesofhumboldtcounty.com

Reply



Leave a Reply.