The California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region has released the draft Cease and Desist Order that is to accompany the water permit. The Public Comment Period has started.  Both the Cease and Desist Order and the permit will be considered at the June 10, 2010 meeting of the board.

Highlights of the Cease and Desist Order include:

The mill can be fined for violations of the Clean Water Act while producing bleached pulp.

The mill cannot be fined for violations while producing unbleached pulp.

The mill must submit a plan to minimize discharges of BODs and TSS until the treatment plant is built. (Oct. 8, 2010)

Some of the other deadlines include: provide "financial reassurances" for funding the wastewater treatment plant (August 8, 2010)

submit a project proposal (August 8, 2010)

submit complete application to Humboldt County for development permits (Sept. 7, 2010)

submit complete application to the Air District for the treatment plant (Sept. 7, 2010)

award contracts for design of plant (Nov. 11, 2010)

commence construction of the plant (Feb. 29, 2012)

FULL OPERATION OF TREATMENT PLANT (Sept. 21, 2013)

The only cease and desist part of this order is the following:

"It is further ordered that if, in the opinion of the Executive Officer, the Discharger fails to comply with the provisions of this Order, the Executive Officer may apply to the Attorney General for judicial enforcement or issue a complaint for Administrative Civil Liability or bring back before this Regional Water Board an order to revoke WDR Order No. R1-2-1--0033." Notice the word may.  Also any action could take a 30 day comment period plus wait for the next convenient meeting.
 
POLLUTION IMMEDIATE AND CERTAIN. ENFORCEMENT SLOW AND UNCERTAIN.

This order and its companion permit give a huge black eye to environmental enforcement and pose a huge danger to the Pacific Ocean, the animals and plants that depend on the Ocean and to the people who live by the coast.  As we are learning daily, the damage will not be limited to the people of West Eureka, Humboldt Hill and Samoa or even to Humboldt County.  What damages one part of the World damages the whole Earth.
Freshwater
4/26/2010 04:04:41 am


Home ›
Environment


1987 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (6 mb)
1988 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (7 mb)
1989 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (8 mb)
1990 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (10 mb)
1991 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (8 mb)
1992 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (8 mb)
1993 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (8 mb)
1994 301(m) HSU Ocean Monitoring Report (7 mb)

The comprehensive receiving water study completed by Humboldt State University in 1994 provided Louisiana-Pacific with sufficient data to compel the company to make environmental changes to the Samoa mill. The data ultimately led to an extension of the outfall line, installation of steam stripping, and it revealed the need to make significant changes to the Samoa mill spill prevention plan. The success of these improvements is evidenced by the results of the later two studies conducted by ENSR and CH2MHILL.

1995 John Hopkins Study - Health Profile Of Pulp Workers (2 mb)

Study concludes, “The results of the study indicate that all workers in the pulp and paper industry do not have significantly higher rates of mortality from all causes or from any specific cause of death compared to the US population and, in fact, usually have significantly lower mortality ratios than the comparison population.”

1997 ENSR Receiving Water Study Part A (9 mb)
1997 ENSR Receiving Water Study Part B (8 mb)
1997 ENSR Receiving Water Study Part C (6 mb)

Study concludes, “Evaluation of the available data, including statistical, graphical, and tabular comparisons, indicates that no significant increase in sediment contaminants or bioaccumulation has occurred as a result of the discharges. Furthermore, there is no evidence that benthic infauna or epibenthic fish and invertebrate communities have been adversely affected by the discharge. These findings are consistent with the improvements resulting from the outfall extension and changes in plant processes.”

2007 CHM2Hill Receiving Water Study (8 mb)

Study concludes, “The data collected over the course of this study do not suggest that the Mill’s discharge has the potential to negatively affect DO (a measure of BOD) or sediment quality in the receiving water under the range of typical discharge conditions. This is consistent with the findings expected because of the nature of the discharge, prior receiving water studies, plume modeling, and DO depression estimates.”

2009 Letter to President Barack Obama regarding the release of the dioxin report (1 mb)

Excerpt: “You have both stated that it is time to bring science back to the EPA, and that science should not be trumped by politics. Unfortunately for almost 20 years, science has been trumped by politics. It is time for the U.S. to prioritize science over politics and release the Dioxin Reassessment.”

2009 Speech from an EPA administrator on the subject of scientific integrity (3 mb)

Excerpt: “My commitment to ensuring the quality and integrity of EPA science while providing this information to the public in a timely way was also the impetus for my asking staff to develop a science plan for our activities related to dioxins in the environment. This plan includes completing the comprehensive human health and exposure assessment for dioxin, commonly called the “dioxin reassessment,” and a review of dioxin soil clean-up levels currently in use across the United States. The plan identifies important milestones In these efforts, including my goal to complete the dioxin reassessment by the end of 2010.”

Reply
Cricket
4/26/2010 04:54:54 am

Naturally people supporting the mill can quote selective studies that support their position. This doesn't negate the documented history of violations for pollution the Somoa pulp mill has racked up over the years. Of course, we're supposed to believe this is just 'politics'--or a conspiracy by the 'new world order'? None of this, however, does away with the actual observations and experiences of people living near the mill. You can say these aren't true but I know what I've lived with.

Reply
Eureka
4/27/2010 01:07:35 am

Cricket,
In your post if your changed the word mill,with westeureka.And history of violations, with history of improvements. You should clearly see that this is just "politics".
Also I would add,I live on westgrant and worked at the mill. My actual obsevations and experiences strongly differ from yours. Seeing how the mill is or was my full time life.It would appear my observations on a daily basis,would be a bit more informed than that of someone who only thinks of the mill when bothered on occasion.
Does that make this a conspiracy now?

Reply
cricket
4/27/2010 06:27:25 am

'Eureka'
Our family kept daily observation records of plume appearance, odors and when applicable, personal physiological responses for a two year period during Evergreen's operation of the mill. We correlated these observations with emission data obtained from the North Coast Air Quality Board. This document was accepted as evidence in a civil action case against Evergreen. Also we made an extensive study of research on pulp mill emissions in general. It's possible people who work at the mill or who have lived in Eureka for a long time simply grow used to the mill's impact and thus come to ignore it out of habit. That's all right but it doesn't refute our systematic observations. We noticed definite improvements in air quality during the later part of the last year Evergreen operated the mill after pressure had been put on them to improve their pollution control system. We have also studied documents outlining the exact nature of the mill's pollution control system. In summary, our observations were pretty much in line with what has been reported in research and studies of other pulp mills. Again, the basic facts are (1) kraft pulp mills produce large amounts of toxic pollution by the nature of their process, (2) a good deal of this pollution can be kept out of the environment if adequate pollution controls are maintained, and (3) for many and various reasons these controls, sometimes frequently, fail. These are FACTS documented in medical, technological, and applicable scientific literature. You can't make these scientific facts go away any more than creationists can rationally deny the scientific facts of geology.

Reply
Eureka
4/28/2010 12:59:45 am

Ouch,,
Good response,,,

Reply



Leave a Reply.