Surfrider Foundation's 1st Pulp Mill Case: Humboldt County, California, 1991
Surfrider Foundation in the USA got its first big exposure after winning a huge legal battle against two pulp mills on the coast in Humboldt County, California. The company was Louisiana Pacific. Ironically, the success of this victory almost killed the Surfrider Foundation. Are you ready for success?
posted by Surfrider Foundation at 2:07 PM
2 Comments:
IN CALIFORNIA, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION / EPA SETTLE SUIT AGAINST PULP MILL BEACH POLLUTERS
EDITOR'S NOTE: Although this case deals with point source violations of the CWA, its significance to nonpoint source managers lies in the application of toxicity testing against state water quality standards and the human health (swimmable) and aquatic life (fishable) goals of the act and the maintenance of the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem as a beneficial use. In addition to WQS and CWA goals, more and more watershed management programs will involve the application of biocriteria to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution within the aquatic ecosystem.
*****
The Surfrider Foundation and EPA announced on September 9, 1991, the signing of consent decrees with owners of two northern California pulp mills which were in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The consent decrees will resolve violations of federal discharge permits issued under section 301(m) of the CWA.
The decrees requires Louisiana Pacific Corporation and the Simpson Paper Company, which discharge effluent close the shore of a Humboldt County beach, to each pay $2.0 million, the third largest penalties levied by; EPA for CWA violations, and the largest in the western United States. The settlements also require the mills to implement treatment measures or process changes which will abate the violations.
In a statement issued at the time of the settlement announcement, Daniel W. McGovern, EPA Region IX Administrator, said:
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to protect water quality for all beneficial uses, including marine life and public recreation. The pollution from these pulp mills clearly impacts recreation and risks harm to public health and marine life. Specifically, the effluent discharges from the pulp mills creates two different water pollution problems, both of which are addressed by the decrees.
First, the mills' effluents are toxic to marine life. Tests have shown that the effluents interfere with reproduction, normal development, and other basic life functions of marine organisms.
Second, surfers and others who have been exposed to the effluents adjacent to the mills complain of nausea, headaches, and skin and eye irritation. To illustrate this point, we have photographs of a typical day of surfing near the mills and the murky effluent plume frequently encountered by water users.
EPA and the Surfrider Foundation brought suit against the mills in 1989 to address CWA permit violations that have persisted for several years. EPA filed suit after administrative orders issued in November 1988 failed to fully abate the mills' permit violations.
Mark Massara, general counsel of the Surfrider Foundation, said:
This is a great victory for surfers and Surfrider, but more importantly, the case proves that 167 million people who annually use California's beaches can take back our shorelines. The environmental and legal implications are precedent setting and national in scope.
Former United States Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, a co-author of the CWA and Surfrider co-counsel said:
These are the types of actions Congress intended when we enacted the Clean Water Act. This case will result in the elimination of toxicity from over 40 million gallons of pulp mill effluent discharged into the Pacific Ocean daily.
Both companies will develop changes in the manufacturing processes designed to remedy the water pollution problems. The changes include reducing the use of chlorine in the pulp bleaching process. Reduction in chlorine use will decrease the level of dioxin and furans (highly toxic by-products of the chlorine bleaching process) in effluent discharged by the mills.
Other requirements of the consent decrees include the extension of outfalls to remove effluent from beach and surfing areas, the conduct of environmental audits, and the correction of any pollution problems detected during the audit.
In separate consent decrees involving just the Surfrider Foundation and the pulp mills, the companies agreed to the following:
1. >Louisiana Pacific and Simpson will pay Surfrider Foundation $500,000 for attorney's fees.
2. The companies will contribute $350,000 toward the creation of a recreational facility on federal land located near the companies' mills. This facility, which will be open to the public, will include camping facilities, a small conference room, and solar-assisted showers.
3. Simpson will produce its environmental compliance reports on partially recycled paper.
*****
POSTSCRIPT: We sent a copy of this story to Mark Massara, Surfrider Foundation Chief Legal Counsel, so he could check out the accuracy of our reporting. We pass on his FAXed reply, as received:
You are correct in your Editor's note that true value of case lies in the use of chronic toxicity test results to enforce Act, thereby using effects of discharge on marine ecosystems as standard for enforcement (in addition to numerical parameters, not in lieu of). Surfrider Foundation catalogued over 40,000 violations of CWA by L-P + Simpson, making this case far + away biggest water pollution case we've ever seen. Vast majority of violations occurred on chronic toxicity + black plume parameters -- both which affect the public's ability to recreate + marine environment. That's the real story.
*****
[For more information contact: Lois Grunwald, U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Phone: (415) 744-1588; or Mark A. Massara, Esq., Surfrider Foundation, 1642 Great Highway, San Francisco, CA 94122. Phone: (415) 665-7008; FAX: (415) 665-9008.]
IN CALIFORNIA, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION / EPA SETTLE SUIT AGAINST PULP MILL BEACH POLLUTERS
EDITOR'S NOTE: Although this case deals with point source violations of the CWA, its significance to nonpoint source managers lies in the application of toxicity testing against state water quality standards and the human health (swimmable) and aquatic life (fishable) goals of the act and the maintenance of the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem as a beneficial use. In addition to WQS and CWA goals, more and more watershed management programs will involve the application of biocriteria to both point and nonpoint sources of pollution within the aquatic ecosystem.
*****
The Surfrider Foundation and EPA announced on September 9, 1991, the signing of consent decrees with owners of two northern California pulp mills which were in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The consent decrees will resolve violations of federal discharge permits issued under section 301(m) of the CWA.
The decrees requires Louisiana Pacific Corporation and the Simpson Paper Company, which discharge effluent close the shore of a Humboldt County beach, to each pay $2.0 million, the third largest penalties levied by; EPA for CWA violations, and the largest in the western United States. The settlements also require the mills to implement treatment measures or process changes which will abate the violations.
In a statement issued at the time of the settlement announcement, Daniel W. McGovern, EPA Region IX Administrator, said:
The Clean Water Act requires EPA to protect water quality for all beneficial uses, including marine life and public recreation. The pollution from these pulp mills clearly impacts recreation and risks harm to public health and marine life. Specifically, the effluent discharges from the pulp mills creates two different water pollution problems, both of which are addressed by the decrees.
First, the mills' effluents are toxic to marine life. Tests have shown that the effluents interfere with reproduction, normal development, and other basic life functions of marine organisms.
Second, surfers and others who have been exposed to the effluents adjacent to the mills complain of nausea, headaches, and skin and eye irritation. To illustrate this point, we have photographs of a typical day of surfing near the mills and the murky effluent plume frequently encountered by water users.
EPA and the Surfrider Foundation brought suit against the mills in 1989 to address CWA permit violations that have persisted for several years. EPA filed suit after administrative orders issued in November 1988 failed to fully abate the mills' permit violations.
Mark Massara, general counsel of the Surfrider Foundation, said:
This is a great victory for surfers and Surfrider, but more importantly, the case proves that 167 million people who annually use California's beaches can take back our shorelines. The environmental and legal implications are precedent setting and national in scope.
Former United States Congressman Paul N. McCloskey, a co-author of the CWA and Surfrider co-counsel said:
These are the types of actions Congress intended when we enacted the Clean Water Act. This case will result in the elimination of toxicity from over 40 million gallons of pulp mill effluent discharged into the Pacific Ocean daily.
Both companies will develop changes in the manufacturing processes designed to remedy the water pollution problems. The changes include reducing the use of chlorine in the pulp bleaching process. Reduction in chlorine use will decrease the level of dioxin and furans (highly toxic by-products of the chlorine bleaching process) in effluent discharged by the mills.
Other requirements of the consent decrees include the extension of outfalls to remove effluent from beach and surfing areas, the conduct of environmental audits, and the correction of any pollution problems detected during the audit.
In separate consent decrees involving just the Surfrider Foundation and the pulp mills, the companies agreed to the following:
1. >Louisiana Pacific and Simpson will pay Surfrider Foundation $500,000 for attorney's fees.
2. The companies will contribute $350,000 toward the creation of a recreational facility on federal land located near the companies' mills. This facility, which will be open to the public, will include camping facilities, a small conference room, and solar-assisted showers.
3. Simpson will produce its environmental compliance reports on partially recycled paper.
*****
POSTSCRIPT: We sent a copy of this story to Mark Massara, Surfrider Foundation Chief Legal Counsel, so he could check out the accuracy of our reporting. We pass on his FAXed reply, as received:
You are correct in your Editor's note that true value of case lies in the use of chronic toxicity test results to enforce Act, thereby using effects of discharge on marine ecosystems as standard for enforcement (in addition to numerical parameters, not in lieu of). Surfrider Foundation catalogued over 40,000 violations of CWA by L-P + Simpson, making this case far + away biggest water pollution case we've ever seen. Vast majority of violations occurred on chronic toxicity + black plume parameters -- both which affect the public's ability to recreate + marine environment. That's the real story.
*****
Post a Comment
<< Home