CWAC promises lawsuit if Procter & Gamble does not respond Melissa Scanlan (left) of the Midwest Environmental Advocates, and Rebecca Katers of the Clean Water Action Council, announce intent to file suit against Procter & Gamble Inc., Monday (photo by H. Marc Larson). Letter of intent was sent Monday to the paper company By Monique Balas News-Chronicle A local environmental group announced Monday it has sent a letter of intent to sue Procter & Gamble if the company does not make an effort to compensate for pollutant emissions. Rebecca Katers, executive director of Clean Water Action Council, said her organization will file a citizens' lawsuit within 10 days if the company does not respond to the letter. Midwest Environmental Advocates Inc., an environmental law firm, will file the suit on behalf of CWAC. "Within 10 days, we'd like to have an indication if they want to negotiate or settle out of court," Katers said. If they receive no response, "we're prepared to file in 60 days, unless something changes dramatically." Katers said Melissa Scanlan, a lawyer with MEA, brought to her attention that 1995 amendments to the Clean Air Act enable citizens to file suit against corporations who are in violation of the act. Scanlan, who has worked with CWAC on other issues, pointed out through her research that a Procter & Gamble mill had made hundreds of violations against its DNR permit. The CWAC and its lawyers maintain that the company's Fox River Paper Mill on Quincy Street has been operating a pollution control device incorrectly. The machine regulates the amount of paper dust - or particulate matter - that goes into the air. Within that machine is something called a scrubber that cleans the air through intense water and air pressure. Its function is important because it is "like rain cleaning the air, only much more intense," Katers said. She maintains there are potential links between this toxic dust and health concerns, citing state statistics that Brown County has the second-highest respiratory-related hospitalization of children 9 and under in the state. A representative from Procter & Gamble denied most of the allegations in the lawsuit. Scanlan said the suit will initially ask for $27,500 per day, per violation, the maximum amount allowed by law. However, she said negotiations with the company and their willingness to cooperate will determine the final amount she will ask for. "The point of the penalty is to take away the economic benefit of violating the Clean Air Act," she said. "If one company isn't complying with it, it has a competitive advantage over companies that are complying with it." The company monitors the dust control through observations, or data points, and reports the results to the DNR. The DNR said Procter & Gamble has made a total of 314 violations of its air permit between January and June 2002. But Procter & Gamble affairs representative Sibille Brohammer said the paper mill has only made minor violations in its reporting requirements, but that it is otherwise in full compliance with the DNR. "We are confident that our operations are safe for the environment," Brohammer said. "The alleged incidents involve a small fraction of the data we report to the DNR under a new reporting requirement started in 2002. We are cooperating with the DNR to the fullest." Brohammer said there was no discrepancy in 96 percent of the 20,000 data points made last year. But whenever one of the measurements is missing, it is counted as a violation, said Tom Turner, public affairs officer for the DNR, so the remaining 4 percent is a violation. In addition, the types of violations made are considered high-priority, according to Randy Matty, an air management engineer with the DNR. It has not been determined whether the missing data was caused by shutting down the equipment, said Anne Brey, a DNR environmental enforcement specialist. Aside from the missing data, the DNR is investigating other possible problems with Procter & Gamble's pollution control equipment and emission limit violations, officials said. Brey added that all of the above scenarios are DNR violations but further investigation is needed before any action is taken. Turner said the DNR could not speculate as to what penalties, if any, Procter & Gamble might receive. The DNR's Matty and Brey will be meeting with Procter & Gamble represe ntatives later this week to discuss the potential violations. The company has been cooperative with the DNR, they said. But Katers said the DNR has a record of not punishing pollution-emitting companies, and she wants to see some action taken - that's why she is considering a lawsuit. The best-case scenario, Scanlan said, would be for Procter & Gamble to "fix the equipment problem they've been having and pay a penalty for their past violations." Katers said she just wants the company to pay for "some kind of appropriate health initiative to help people with respiratory problems." "That's why we pay taxes, to have the DNR protect us from this pollution," she said. "There are fines for everything else: fishing, boating, littering, traffic violations - we all pay right on the spot when we do something wrong, but these huge polluters pay nothing."