Just as Bob Simpson and his Freshwater Pulp partners have crept a bit closer to their pulp mill-revival dream, here comes a new whuppin’, of sorts, from CATs — the Eureka-based org helmed by toxics warrior Patty Clary — and company. OK, it’s delivered to the EPA. And it’s regarding all kraft pulp mills.
From a CATs news release issued today:
Today Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and the Center for Biological Diversity officially notified the Environmental Protection Agency of their intent to sue the agency in 60 days for its failure to review and update Clean Air Act rules, called New Source Performance Standards, for kraft pulp mills. …
The release says the EPA hasn’t reviewed these pollution-emission standards for such mills in 24 years, even though the Clean Air Act requires review every eight years. Says Clary, in the release:
“Over the last 24 years technology has come a long way, but kraft pulp mills are still stuck in the ’80s.”
See the release, and a fact sheet, here.
This article appears in On the Covers.
Oh, for crying out loud.
I can only assume that this is referring to the federal EPA instead of the California EPA, because almost all of the compounds listed, if not all, were already monitored and controlled at the Samoa mill. If it is the federal limits the suit is about, I expect little to no effect to Freshwater Pulp because the pulp mill was operated under the state limits, which were already more strict then the federal ones. When we former workers say that the Samoa mill is one of the cleanest in America we aren’t blowing smoke. Every time I had a chance to talk to workers of other mills they we surprised to hear the emission limits we operated under and even more shocked to hear that we could meet those limits. The people that want the mill to stay closed have be grasping at straws and using misinformation to scare people into fighting the restarting of the mill. Most of the problems at that mill have been BODs and Particulates, which are overviews of water quality and air quality respectively. They bring up these problems then start talking about some of the more hazardous emissions of the kraft pulping process, which, to my knowledge, never been a problem for the mill to stay under the legal limits and some of which are not even generated at the Samoa mill because of the TCF bleaching process
To All:
I applaud CATs effort to hold EPA accountable when necessary. We agree with a portion of the claim Cat’s will likely make should they proceed with filing a lawsuit, but a portion of their claim will likely be dismissed. Please find below our recap of Cat’s letter to EPA.
What CATS is threatening is a lawsuit to compel EPA to review “new source performance standards” (NSPS) at pulp mills) for purposes of updating them periodically. NSPS rules can, but typically don’t, apply to a mill like the Samoa mill. This would take far too long to explain.
One caveat – though the proposed lawsuit is mainly about a violation of a timetable for reviewing and updating NSPS rules, they’ve thrown in a request for development of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions guidelines applicable to existing pulp mills. That’s a totally different subject. We don’t think there’s a basis for arguing that EPA has violated any timetable for creating GHG standards for either new or existing facilities, and if we are right that part of the claim will be rejected and we would be surprised if Cat’s pursued it in court. Judges can only compel action by EPA if there’s a violation of an emissions standard or limitation or a non-discretionary duty to regulate, and absent a legal, and breached, deadline for promulgation of regulations, there’s no violation and hence no claim.
GHG emissions cannot and will not be ignored – California will start regulating them by 2012, from existing as well as new facilities, and it’s likely the Samoa mill will be a part of that. The Samoa mill is already planning for these new regulations.