Advertisement

May 19, 2013

Paper Mill Air Pollution Standards 25 Years Out of Date, Environmental Groups Sue EPA

Pulp mills can emit hazardous pollutants that have been linked to heart and lung disease

Three advocacy groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency last week over concerns that regulations for paper mills emissions are 25 years out of date.

Greenpeace, the Center for Biological Diversity and Port Townsend AirWatchers filed suit on Dec. 6 under a clause of the Clean Air Act that allows citizens to hold the EPA accountable for carrying out the provisions of the act.

The EPA last reviewed the New Source Performance Standards for kraft pulp mills in 1986. The mills use a chemical process to turn wood chips into pulp to make paper. The standards, by law, are supposed to be reviewed every eight years.

“This is about how much pollution that people living near paper mills have to breathe,” said Helen Kang, the lawyer representing Greenpeace and Port Townsend AirWatchers. “Why does it take a lawsuit from the citizens to do a job that the agency has neglected for 25 years, when the duty is so clear?”

EPA said it is reviewing the lawsuit and could not comment in detail. Asked why it hasn’t reviewed the regulations since 1986, the agency said it has requested and received data from the kraft pulp mill industry to be used in developing rules next year.

Kraft pulp mills emit a host of pollutants, including some that have been linked to heart and lung disease and global warming.

Reviews every eight years are supposed to ensure regulations keep up with new technology for reducing pollution. Allowing 25 years to pass without reviewing regulations means they’re sorely out of date, the groups said.

“When you’re protecting people’s health and protecting the environment, it’s even more important to follow through and do these reviews,” said Gretchen Brewer, director of Port Townsend AirWatchers.

Under the existing New Source Performance Standards, only particulate matter and total reduced sulfur are regulated. Kraft pulp mills also emit pollutants including volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxide and greenhouse gases.

Without an EPA review, it’s difficult to determine which other air pollutants should be regulated, Kang said.

The EPA acknowledges in a public notice that the data used to determine the New Source Performance Standards is dated. The agency said it is aware of “significant changes … in the number of affected facilities, in industry ownership practices and in emission collection and control configurations.”

EPA and the environmental groups have until the end of February to reach an agreement before the case proceeds in court. “We want either EPA to agree to a schedule of when they’re going to complete the rulemaking, or if they’re not willing to agree, we’ll have the court decide that,” Kang said.

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Rachael is a Master’s journalism student at American University. She completed her bachelor’s degree in Political Science at Reed College in 2010. She has been published in the Portland Mercury, an alternative newsweekly, and several local newspapers and magazines in Laguna Beach, Calif. and Portland, Ore.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.