Georgia-Pacific pipeline issue draws crowd to Newport meeting
By Steve Card Of the News-Times

It was a packed house Monday evening as the Newport City Council held a public hearing to consider a new agreement with Georgia-Pacific for the use of city rights-of-way for G-P's treated effluent pipeline.

For at least the past 50 years, G-P has discharged treated effluent from its Toledo mill via a pipeline running through Newport. The pipeline dumps the effluent into the ocean approximately 4,000 feet offshore from Nye Beach.

Currently, G-P has two pipelines traversing Newport. Both enter Newport alongside Highway 20 and then take separate paths - some through city rights of way and some through private property - until joining at NW 3rd and Brook streets, where they use a common outfall line into the ocean.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issues the permit allowing G-P to discharge its effluent into the ocean. Newport previously granted a franchise agreement to G-P to allow the pipelines to pass through the city, but this agreement lapsed, and for more than a year, city staff and G-P have been discussing a new agreement.

The city council was presented with a draft agreement at its meeting Monday. That proposed agreement states that in exchange for the use of city rights-of-way, G-P would pay the city $10,000 per year (with annual increases), plus $500 per day for every day G-P exceeds DEQ permit standards. The agreement would be for 10 years, with automatic renewals in 10-year increments unless G-P breaches the agreement. Also, G-P would be required to comply with applicable city ordinances, maintain insurance, indemnify the city, coordinate any construction with the city, get city approval before abandoning lines, and move lines upon request by the city.

George Ragsdale, attorney for G-P, was present at Monday's meeting. He said the reason G-P maintains two pipelines is for safety reasons, so if there is a problem with one line, the effluent can be routed through the other. The agreement being discussed, he added, was for just one of those pipelines.

Councilor Larry Henson asked Ragsdale whether G-P is running any effluent through the pipeline other than that generated by the mill. "The last time we accepted any effluent from anyone else was in 2004," replied Ragsdale, saying it was leachate from Marion County. "Our permit does not allow us to discharge any effluent other than our own without DEQ being notified," he said.

Councilor Terry Obteshka said G-P has taken steps to decrease air emissions at the mill, and he wondered if the same consideration is being given to the effluent discharge. "It would be a win-win for everybody if eventually that effluent could be recycled and reused, instead of just discharging it into the ocean," he said.

Ragsdale said, "I think that is the subject of a different discussion. These lines are already there. All we're really asking for is the right to use the line that's already in the ground."

The city council next heard from a number of people who had concerns about the G-P pipeline. The first to speak was Melinda McComb, who told council members they should have an appraisal done to determine what G-P should pay for the right to have pipelines running through the city, saying there is no evidence that $10,000 is appropriate. She also expressed a concern about the future possibility of effluent from other sources flowing through those pipes and what would be done if those pipelines were abandoned in the future. "You're talking about abandoning industrial effluent under people's homes," she said.

Roger Hart voiced concerns about where the effluent goes once discharged into the ocean. Strong rip currents, he said, carry effluent onto the beach. He would like G-P to pay for additional monitoring of the water quality.

Carla Perry asked that the City of Newport make no concessions on the agreement with G-P, saying the company should be held to the highest standards. G-P's parent corporation, Koch Industries, is not overly concerned about the Toledo mill, she added, and so asking for an annual fee of $500,000 to $1 million "would not be out of line, especially if Nye Beach becomes a superfund site." She also said the city should ask for a detailed accounting of what goes through G-P's pipeline.

Charlie Plybon, Oregon field coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation, presented the city council with a number of recommendations involving G-P's ocean outfall site. "The bottom line," he said, "is citizens of Newport have some major concerns about pollution ... whether this permit is appropriate. There have been no studies on public health (and) the dangers." Plybon said he didn't want to find out years from now "that we all got cancer from surfing at Nye Beach. You, as the city councilors, have an opportunity to be leaders right now."

Councilor Neal Henning reminded Plybon that only one of the two G-P pipelines was subject to this new agreement. "There's a line that's already in place, not part of the consideration, that allows the mill to operate," he said. Plybon replied, "I don't think G-P would be interested in a new license agreement if that pipeline would sustain the load. We're not out to get anybody here," he added, "we just want safety for the people of Newport."

Lisa Voelker told the city council, "There is no price for the health of the ocean. Do we continue to consider the ocean as an open cesspool? We must change the way we do business. We must change the way we live."

Others urged the city council to slow the process down and give it careful thought before any approval is given, and to not allow automatic renewals of the license but rather consider it temporary and subject to review before renewing.

Daniel T. McCarthy said after he reviewed the proposed agreement, he found it to be "a very friendly agreement. I think this agreement needs to be revisited in order to make it less friendly, to make it more beneficial to the citizens of Newport."

Marcia Schwartz told council members that for 50 years, the city has been allowing G-P to discharge its effluent into the ocean without knowing the long-term effects. "We have 50 years of running blind," she said. "The city doesn't know, DEQ doesn't know, and G-P doesn't know."

During his rebuttal, Ragsdale said, "What we're here for tonight is an easement to operate a second pipeline, (and) the second pipeline is there for safety reasons." Most of the opponents' comments expressed concerns about what is coming out the end of the pipeline, he said, and "there's a separate process for that. Environmental issues will be regulated by DEQ." He said he hoped the city council would "keep focused on the issue at hand, and that is the easement for the second pipeline."

Mayor Bill Bain told those in attendance at Monday's meeting that the city council did not intend to make a decision that night, but rather wanted time to read over all of the information and consider the testimony. He also encouraged people to submit written materials for council members to review.

Councilor Obteshka asked the mayor to consider forming a task force to study this issue more closely. It would give citizens ownership in the process, he said, and make it more transparent.

Bain, however, favored first having city staff come up with some revised recommendations.

Councilor Henson said he was disappointed with comments from people asking for more and more money from G-P for the right to discharge the effluent. "I can see where they're coming from," he said, "but it's more about health and safety of people."

Councilor Peggy Sabanskas made a motion to have the city manager and city attorney bring back additional information for the council's consideration at its June 16 meeting. That motion passed unanimously.

"We're citizens here, too," Bain said prior to closing the meeting. "And we're concerned about health and safety and all that."

Steve Card is managing editor for the News-Times. He can be reached at 265-8571 ext. 224, or stevecard@newportnewstimes.com.

Email this story

Print this story