In reading the draft water permit, it is clear that when Freshwater Tissue releases pollutants into the Pacific Ocean the consequences for the environment will begin immediately and will be a sure thing. Those pollutants cannot be taken back. However, monitoring and enforcement are slow and unsure. Freshwater Tissue has admitted that it cannot meet environmental standards and will pollute. Much of the draft permit deals with monitoring, how often Freshwater Tissue is required to submit reports and what is to be included in these reports. If these reports show too much of a pollutant, they must submit more reports more frequently. Minimum sampling frequency for chemicals like hexavalent chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and benzene if twice a year. Does this mean that the mill could put out large amounts of hexavalent chromium for 6 months before it was sampled? Consequences of violations are not spelled out in this permit and are not a sure thing. While the permit allows the Water Board to shut down for violations, this does not appear to be automatic. It seems to be at the discretion of the Water Board. Fines are not ruled out, but are not spelled out in this permit. While outside companies may be brought in, much of the monitoring is done by Freshwater Tissue. Since past owners have not shown themselves to be honest (Evergreen Pulp) and Mr. Simpson seems to disrespect environmental laws (See the Humboldt Herald), this does not give us a lot of confidence that we will be protected from pulp pollution. One thing is clear. Humboldt County and the people who live here will be the biggest losers if this permit is approved.
16 Comments
Realworld
4/14/2010 08:02:38 am
Shuffold and re-stacked misleading Pulpmill fiction.
Reply
Morgan
4/14/2010 02:40:49 pm
Really, real world? Do you have an actual counter argument??? Do you have any information that contradicts this? Or are you just going to make empty statements?
Reply
dedicated westender
4/14/2010 05:33:02 pm
The fact is that if Freshwater TP Copmpany start polluting, the only way that anyone is going to find out about it is by being harmedd by it or by Freshwater actually reporting that they are polluting. Then what? Well, then the water board will ask them to submit a report and another report and maybe fine them. It would be nice if we could prevent this from happening by making them meet the standards first by designing a plant that eliminates the illegal polutants and doesn't just let them go until some future date. Isn't that what regulations are all about? Huh?
Reply
Realworld
4/15/2010 12:52:13 am
The arguments have been going on with point counter point for weeks where you been.
Reply
Realworld
4/15/2010 01:17:46 am
1995 John Hopkins Study - Health
Reply
Realworld
4/15/2010 01:29:50 am
West ender,,,
Reply
Realworld
4/15/2010 01:37:56 am
West ender,,,
Reply
4/15/2010 04:40:17 am
I am glad that Realworld brought up the health risk assessment which had a lot more to say about cancer risk and the pulp mill than they quoted. "The cancer risk at the point of maximum impact is about 35 in 1 million. However, the PMI is located on the facility's north fenceline, which is not a residential or commercial/industrial receptor." This is well over the accepted 10 in a million level. One wonders who owns this land and how workers are not impacted.
Reply
Bolithio
4/15/2010 05:18:31 am
Beyond all the pulp-fiction and sensationalism here, you guys need to consider the big picture here.
Reply
4/15/2010 05:33:36 am
Environmental laws are put in place to allow a certain level of pollution, but to prohibit pollution that is a danger to people or the environment.
Reply
Realworld
4/15/2010 06:10:21 am
West,
Reply
Beatingdeadhorse
4/15/2010 06:19:13 am
West,
Reply
Spitshitsays
4/17/2010 03:18:01 am
F-in enviro-Poser's...
Reply
Frank
4/17/2010 05:57:49 am
Everyone, whereever we live, should, and in a sense only can, fight for 'our own backyard'. Just because my 'back yard' includes the Somoa Pulp Mill doesn't mean I'm ingnorant and unaware of facts. The owners of industrial facilities, whatever kind, can always cite 'studies' that support the environmental benignness of their operation. Even Nassey Energy, in whose Big Branch mine 29 miners, could cite 'safety awards' it had received. Part of the problem with these 'studies' is that many if not most are paid for by the owners of the facility they are studying. Citing a 1995 study by (some one or group) at John Hopkins, out of context, doesn't really tell us much.I have read CH2MHILL's October 2006 Study. What 'realworld' says is technically true but again this was a study paid for by Evergreen and, in my opinion, CH2MHILL of Redding has a history of providing 'thumbs up studies' for local environmental regulation issues. Earlier on this blog, HSU studies relating to the mill were referenced. Richard A. Paselk, Professor of Chemistry at HSU (who retired in 2004) was Chair of the HSU Chemistry Department,I believe, from 1986 to 1988 and from 1995 to 2004. At some point before Evergreen left I believe Dr. Paselk's daughter Deborah had a job at the mill. The only point I am trying to make in saying this is that communities dependent on a narrow industrial base tend to develop a cultural and socio-economic structure that self validates the industry in question. Coal mining, coal miners and coal mine owners in Appalachia is a classic case in point. Humboldt County, with its history of dependency on first the lumber industry, then the pulp mill, and now on pot and - maybe-the pulp mill again presents a similar situation. Trying to speak out against the pulp mill in North Humboldt County is literally like trying to talk athesism in a communtiy dominated by "that old time religion". Again I encourage people interested in this pattern to read H.P. Lovecraft's alagorical story " The Shadow of Innsmouth". This is especially appropriate because Innsmouth is a sea coast community dominated by a facility known as the Marsh refinery. To quote briefly, "He found the Marsh refinery a queer place--books in bad shape, and no clear account of any kind of dealings". Again I encourage reading the story to see how this all comes out. I recently saw Massey Energy's CEO Ed Blankenship, on TV. He was dressed in red, white and blue addressing a Tea Party crowd bad mouthing the concept of mand-made climate change. This is the same Mr. Blankenship who has in the past made light of government mine regulations. I'm troubled when I see these two denials linked by a supporter of Freshwater on this blog. Finally, I would also refer readers to the cover story of the North Coast Journal for July 1998. This story covers Lousiana Pacific's Western Division under original General Manager Harry Merlo, and his successors. Sixth in the line of succession was Robert Simpson who, according to thie story, was "being groomed as Merlo's replacement". Merlo saw Simpson,according to this story, as "the person who was going to bring California back into the limelight as a profitable operation". However, in 1996, "awash in lawsuits and federal probes, the Louisana Pacific Board of Directors fired Merlo". Simpson apparently lobbied to be Merlo's replacement but was refused by the Board and resigned. This was, of course, at a time when Lousiana Pacific incurred some of the largest environmental fines in US history. Yes, I know the 'glorious story' of chlorine-free bleaching but as a backyarder here in 'Innsmouth' I still have to be convinced there is some reason why I should trust the 'Marsh refinery'.
Reply
Rich
4/17/2010 04:10:48 pm
Frank,
Reply
Frank
4/19/2010 06:00:31 am
Rich,
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWe live here in West Eureka have been victims of Evergreen Pulp's pollution. Now Freshwater Pulp wants to start it up again. We would like to know your thoughts and experiences with this. Now that Freshwater is not going to reopen, we are concerned about the massive quantity of contaminants that have been dumped on the site. These sites usually leak into adjacent areas and people live 750 yards from the point of maximum impact, the most polluted point, a Hot spot. We are also concerned that the Marina center site be properly cleaned up and will continue to discuss other local issues here. However, we will not let the mill issue rest until we actually see the smokestacks go down and the site is cleaned up. Archives
June 2019
Categories |