|
THE
LUFKIN PAPER MILL’S GOOD NEIGHBOR STATUS
Justifiable
or not?
For
months now the Lufkin community, the communities adjacent to Sam Rayburn
reservoir and the Jasper community have been subjected to an intensive public
relations campaign designed to protect the interests and profit margins of the
Canadian owned Paper Mill and local pulp wood interests. This publicity campaign has made several unsubstantiated assertions while
focusing on several topics. The topics are:
· The
paper mill has been good a neighbor over the years.
· A fact versus fiction, science
versus rumor, science versus innuendo argument has been promoted in news
paper and radio ads, editorials, biased newspaper articles, and more recently,
Donohue's “UPDATE” newsletter.
· The mill will reduce their
pollution by 50% when the planned expansion is completed.
· The
upper reaches of Sam Rayburn water Use Standards must be downgraded or
the mill will be shut down because they cannot produce effluent discharges that
will support the current standards.
· The
economic value to the community is enormous. Those who conceived this campaign would have you believe that the local
paper mill is the only viable market place for East Texas timber.
Lets
tiptoe through the twaddle, look at the hoopla generated in this publicity
campaign in the order given above, and see what is - point by point.
Are
they good neighbors? The 1998
EPA toxic release records document the release of nine hundred eighty six
thousand, seven hundred seventy two (986,772) lbs. per year of toxic materials
emitted into the air by Donohue Paper Industries, Lufkin. These emissions included four hundred eighty eight thousand, four hundred
and ninety eight (488,498)
lbs. of Carcinogenic Chloroform, twenty
three thousand, seven hundred sixty five (23,765) lbs. of Chlorine, and over
twenty-eight thousand (28,000) lbs. of Hydrochloric acid. These are self-reported records. Would any one in your neighborhood identify you as good neighbor if you were
dispersing nearly a million (986,772) pounds of toxic materials, including
488,498 lbs. of a carcinogen, per year into your neighborhood? I think not! With certainty
you would be subject to legal action. Why the difference in responsibility? The answer is money and political influence. The
News Times reported some 5000 workers of the Communication, Energy and Paper
workers Union struck against Abitibi
in June 1998. The strike affected
11 of Abitibis –Consolidated mills
in Eastern Canada. More details are
at www.newstimes.com /archive 98.
Lets
turn to the Science versus Innuendo argument that has been the focus of many newspaper and other advertisements.
The innuendoes that are referred to so frequently, are the result of simple
observations that were made public. Specifically,
major problems in the fish population of Sam Rayburn began shortly after
purchase of the Paper Mill by Donohue. The
problems have included a major fish kill in 1998, a minor fish kill in 1999, a
marked increase in the numbers of fish with extensive sores and lesions, a
decline in Aquatic vegetation, peaks in discharges of Aluminum concurrent with
fish kills, all fish species collected in the 1998 Dioxin Biological
Accumulation Study were contaminated with Dioxin, a concurrent abnormality in
water conductance down stream of the paper mill, and a indisputable decrease in
fishery productivity. Circumstantial evidence, admissible in some litigation,
has been labeled as rumor, innuendo and fiction in this propaganda campaign. If the promoters of the campaign can’t handle these facts and choose to
call them innuendo, rumor and fiction, so be it.
Now
to rumors. The simple truth is that a local guide, who has actively supported the
proposed standards revisions and lobbied for the paper mill, has himself, been a
prominent source of the rumors that he has professed to be concerned about. He has promoted the “Black Helicopter Spraying” and other similar
rumors. He has attributed rumors,
he has himself promoted, to his opposition, and has used a relationship with the
Houston Chronicle Outdoors editor to publicize rumors and heap ridicule on
concerned citizens, who committed the unpardonable sin of urging state agencies
to address their concerns over water quality. It is interesting to note that this guide recently did an about face and
is now expressing concern over the Rayburn fishery. Two months ago anyone who
suggested that problems existed on Rayburn was looked upon with disdain by this
guide.
Now
lets examine half of the Science
versus Rumor propaganda. Their
have been two privately funded site-specific studies submitted to TNRRC
frequently referred to as “seven years
of Scientific study proving that the proper standard for the upper end of Sam
Rayburn is intermediate life”. Hogwash! The scientific study intended to justify an increase in Aluminum
discharge limits was immediately rejected by the first peer scientist who was
relatively free of the states political influence. The US EPA found procedural and quality control errors in the study and
TNRCC and the Paper Mill have been forced to plan and conduct another study. Even though several private citizens had critiqued this so called
scientific study months ago and identified numerous problems with it in writing,
TNRCC could find no fault in their review. Neither could the Paper Mills hired gun whose first order of business is
to always dazzle his audience with an impressive list of credentials and his
vast expertise. The fact is; the experiments that formed the basis for this
“scientific study” were not even repeatable, yet the study offered
conclusions in pretext that the work justified an increase in Aluminum discharge
permit limits. The fact that this
hired gun could not, or did not, identify the faults readily identified by the
EPA and others in the site-specific study intended to justify increased Aluminum
discharge limits is less than awe inspiring – much less! In fact this hired gun extolled the study in his letter to TNRCC
supporting the revised standards. Since
he was not able to discern or identify the study problems so readily apparent to
the EPA and others, it must be concluded that his creditability is limited. Such
activity is not science; it’s pseudo science based on technical prostitution.
The
other half of the “six. . . seven years of scientific study” frequently touted is also a
privately funded site-specific study. The
study professes to prove that the upper portion of Sam Rayburn is not capable of
supporting a High Aquatic Life Standard by examining water chemistry, quantities
and diversity of fish species, and quantities and diversity of invertebrates
downstream of the Paper Mill. Conclusions
are based on a comparison of these parameters with collections from other nearby
stream locations and rely upon statistical analyses of fish and invertebrate
collections. The study report
actually stated that a rich collection of fish collected upstream of the Paper
Mill was thrown out of the analysis because the collection site habitat was
non-representative, thus deliberately introducing a bias to the statistical
analysis. Apparently the habitat
did not become non-representative until after the fish were collected and it was
evident that the collection did not represent an Intermediate Aquatic Life fish
population. Putting it as simply as possible; the data didn’t support their
purpose so they just threw it away. Again, that’s not science and any thinking
person knows it. In fact the Texas
Parks and Wildlife, the US Forest service, a TNRCC field scientist, and the agency that was the fore runner to TNRCC, have
all opposed revisions to an Intermediate Aquatic life Standard, found fault with
the site specific study and were supportive of a High Aquatic Life standard. If
you believe that money and political influence has prevailed over science in
this matter you are not alone. TNRCC has a record of over 4,000 people opposing
the revision. This scientific study is currently being reviewed by the EPA.
What
does 50 % reduction in pollution mean? There
have been frequent references to reductions in pollutant discharges that will be
brought about by the mill expansions and modernization publicized. The only number that has been made public is a 50
% reduction of ??????? What are the specifics? When
pressed for answers mill representatives have said they expect to achieve a 50%
reduction in Oxygen demand in their surface water discharges. They have said that they anticipate an increase in their permit limits
for Aluminum discharges by a factor of eight as result of their privately funded
site-specific study; the same site-specific study that was recently rejected by
the EPA.
Is
an economic disaster necessary if the Designated Use Standards for the upper reaches of the reservoir are not
down graded to Intermediate Aquatic Life? Lets
recognize that the Lufkin Paper Mill is not the only market place for East Texas
timber.
The
paper mill claims that they can not possibly meet the stringent limits of a
permit designed to maintain a High Aquatic Life Designation. Just to put this statement in perspective, let me suggest that they can
meet the more stringent requirement very easily - just limit the quantity of
product.
A
little research discloses some facts that are relevant to this issue. At present
the Mill uses Chlorine as a bleaching agent. As in all paper mills using
Chlorine as a bleaching agent, highly toxic Dioxin is produced and discharged as
an unwanted byproduct. Keep this in mind when coming to conclusions on the
validity of the good neighbor claim.
There
is no doubt that totally Chlorine free bleaching is technically feasible and
commercially viable. Four years ago, in 1996, there were 56 mills in Europe, 7
in Canada and 2 in the United States producing totally Chlorine-free (TCF)
bleached pulp. TCF pulp now meets the markets most stringent standards for
brightness and strength. Sixty percent of all chemical pulp production in
Scandinavia was expected to be TCF by 2000.
Moreover,
TCF is a prerequisite to closed loop operation in which NO SIGNIFCANT DISCHARGES
TO SURFACE WATERS TAKES PLACE. There are currently paper mills operating closed
loop. Think
about this. Paper Mills cannot operate closed loop using either elemental
Chlorine bleach or Chlorine Dioxide as bleach because these materials are too
corrosive. Plumbing and equipment
can't be maintained because of the corrosion problem; yet TNRCC expects nature
to maintain the ecology while absorbing the corrosive, highly toxic, extremely persistent, biologically accumulative, products of pulp wood processing using
Chlorine as bleach.. We ask too much of nature.
Chlorine
Dioxide bleaching is a low cost "drop in" substitute for Chlorine gas. Two independent (from Paper mill owners) research groups have estimated
the cost of TCF versus Chlorine Dioxide pulp paper processes. Results of the research groups - one group estimated TFC would cost $7 more per ton and the other estimated the cost at $6 LESS per ton.
The
following was excerpted from the Presidents
Report of the Pulp Paper and Woodworkers of Canada, 38th Annual
Convention, March 2000, Castlegar, B.C. "We must push for an environment
strategy that includes chlorine-free paper mills, closed loop production, with
more use of recycled fiber while moving up the value added chain." . . . . . "Without
these changes we face more mill shutdowns and more gut wrenching adjustment by
workers and communities." See
www.ppwc.bc.ca/convention.htm for the complete report.
Is
it possible that the U.S., and Texas in particular, has evolved into a third
world status in issues of environmental responsibility? The more you dig the more it seems apparent that we have.
Unless
it can somehow be proven that TCF operation is not feasible a reduction in
Designated Use Standards is not necessary to
the successful operation of the Paper Mill. The real issues here are profit
margin and capital cost- $10 to $50 million dependent upon the size of the plant
and its current technology.[i]
The
$10 million figure is less than 5% of the $230 million that is being spent to
"modernize" the Lufkin paper Mill - a small price to pay for the
recreational and associated economic value of Sam Rayburn reservoir and a
tenable community environment.
Aluminium - Questions - Herbicides - Herbicides II - Dioxins - Rayburn Propoganda - Dioxin Study
|
