Big Take-Away's from a Sit-Down with the Scientists: IP Discharge Permit a Complicated Process

What is the latest on the state of District 1's Perdido Bay?  Read about it below from a meeting I had with FDEP. 

I have read a lot of opinion pieces in our paper lately about International Paper's discharge that eventually flows into Perdido Bay in District 1.

I must admit I am no expert on any of this stuff, so I reached out to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) so that I could meet with them to learn more about the issue, the process, and whether or not the stories in the news and cartoons were true or gross exaggerations.

As it turns out--the truth is not so easy to discern and lies somewhere in the middle of the competing claims.

So late yesterday afternoon  I sat down with Mr. Shawn Hamilton, the District Director of NW Florida for The Department of Environmental Protection.  Also present were Brandy Smith, External Affairs Manager for the FDEP, and Chips Kirschenfeld, the County's Interim Asst. County Administrator and Director of Natural Resources Management.

They presented me with reams of information and a summary of the last several decades of history between the state and IP as it relates to their permitting for discharging process water.  Although I was drinking from the fire hose as I tried to grasp as much of this technical information being provided as quickly as I could--I did manage to walk away knowing a lot more than I did before I took the meeting.

The big takeaways I bring from the meeting:

1.  International Paper (IP) is NOT currently "Breaking the Law" with their discharges.......but

2.  International Paper is NOT  currently meeting water quality standards.  IP currently operates an "Administratively Continued" Permit. (Permits only last 5 years under Federal Law--and the last IP permit took 15 years to issue)

3.  Perdido Bay as a water body is healthier now than it was in the 1990's--and IP is working to meet the standards of their current permit while also working to obtain a new permit from FDEP.

4.  A huge improvement occurred when IP, beginning in 2010, halted discharging process water directly into 11-Mile Creek and instead diverted this water through wetlands IP purchased to the west


 of 11-Mile Creek, allowing the water to be treated naturally through three stages of  berms in a "polishing" wetland.

5.  IP currently utilizes treated (non-potable) wastewater from ECUA for their industrial processes--instead of utilizing fresh water--which is a good thing.

6.  The four main components of the discharged water that are being looked at are turbidity, pH levels, Specific Conductivity (sodium), and Dissolved Oxygen.  These are measured at multiple stages along the route of the discharge.  If tolerances are exceeded of any one of these components--IP would be considered out of compliance.

7.  Toxicity-testing occurs at the front-end of the discharge process, with testing on water fleas and fathead minnows being utilized as the "canary in the coalmine" to determine the level of toxicity and lethality of the raw, untreated discharge on these two animal species.  The testing looks to determine how these animals react;  do they die right away OR do they live but suffer chronic (e.g. reproductive) abnormalities.  Right now, these tests have not gone well for IP but IP continues to work toward better test results.

8.  April 15, 2020 is a firm deadline for IP to be in full compliance with their current extension of their discharge permit--otherwise they may face sanctions or have other levels of bureaucratic scrutiny applied to their operation.  (This is a big date, huge)

9.  IP has the ability to seek what is known as a Site-Specific Alternative Criteria--which essentially would allow them to exceed standards going forward IF they could prove via testing, examples, and sampling that the tolerances exceeded do not harm the environment or are somehow beneficial to the wetlands.

From what I can tell from reading the materials left with me by FDEP, lots of materials, and  from my discussions with these scientists yesterday evening-- it appears that the bay is becoming healthier but that some challenges still exist (chlorophyll A  spikes, increased nutrients in the water).  Some of the issues in the bay come from the rivers flowing into the bay with fertilizer residue from upstream, some residential septic systems can add to the Bay's issues, and ECUA also discharges into this body of water as well. (Although ECUA is meeting all requirements from what these folks told me).  And of course IP's discharges have the potential to add to the Bayou's issues.

IP faces a challenge that is somewhat unique in that it is one of only a few paper mills that discharges process water into a body of water that is not fluid--but rather very sedentary. (unlike a flowing river that disburses discharges much quicker).  This makes it more difficult for IP to meet the standards.

With all of this said, however, I do feel like this process --- as whacked out as it appears to be with red-tape, committees, and multiple layers of bureaucratic oversight and decision making levels---does achieve the net-effect of scrutinizing the discharges from IP to protect water quality and the public's interest (Perdido Bay)--while balancing that responsibility with being fair to IP and giving this company latitude and multiple means with which they can come into compliance.  While it is cumbersome, it is thoughtful and contemplative.  Another example of how America  and American Government "works."  Not always pretty, and not always streamlined--at least there is a process.

In other parts of the world, this stuff would not even be looked at, and the toxins would simply be dumped into a pit or a lake with no thought of the environment.   We are on the right track here--and Perdido Bay is being watched an monitored!