The Ogeechee Riverkeeper is seeking to force the state Environmental Protection Division to shut down the discharge from a textile factory’s fire retardant line, which is operating without a state permit.
Attorneys for the nonprofit filed a seven-page petition for mandamus Tuesday in Superior Court of Screven County outlining the case that such a permit is required under the federal Clean Water Act.
In May 2011, the Ogeechee was the site of the largest fish kill in state history when 38,000 fish died; all were discovered below the discharge pipe for textile processor King America Finishing in Screven County. EPD’s follow-up investigation revealed a fire retardant processing line that had been operating for five years without a pollution permit. The EPD issued a letter that July allowing the company to make its unpermitted discharges.
That letter shouldn’t suffice, said Don Stack, a Savannah environmental attorney representing the riverkeeper.
“It’s like allowing someone to drive knowing they haven’t had a license for six years and have had multiple car wrecks,” Stack said.
EPD issued a permit in August but withdrew it in October in response to a legal challenge. A new permit is in the works that includes previously omitted analysis of whether lowering water quality is necessary to accommodate economic development.
EPD spokesman Kevin Chambers said the division had not received formal notification of the filing. He declined further comment.
Attorney Lee A. DeHihns III of Atlanta-based Alston & Bird represents King America Finishing.
“Any effort to affect King America’s ability to operate is unacceptable,” he wrote in an email response to the Savannah Morning News.
The Riverkeeper is not seeking to shut down King America, Stack said.
“We are seeking to have them stop the illegal discharge,” he said.
The case has been assigned to Judge John R. Turner. He’s the same judge who in July tossed out the consent order that provided for King America Finishing to fund $1 million worth of environmental projects on the river, in part because the public had not had the opportunity to comment before the deal was struck.
In another case that has some similar elements, the Center for a Sustainable Coast challenged the Coastal Resource Division’s use of “letters of permission” to allow construction and other activities within the jurisdiction of the Shore Protection Act. That case was sent back to Superior Court in Glynn County on Tuesday.
Recognizing that “the [Shore Protection] Act does not contain any provision for circumventing the permit process [but that] the CRD often issues letters of permission for certain requests without requiring the applicant to formally seek a permit,” the Court found that the Superior Court’s dismissal of the suit was in error, and remanded the case for consideration.
Both Coastal Resources and Environmental Protection are divisions of the Department of Natural Resources, said Stack, whose firm, Stack & Associates, also represents the Center for a Sustainable Coast. “Both are instances where DNR has violated its own statutory requirements,” he said. “Obviously they’re looking out for business as opposed to the environment. Their priority should be to preserve and protect the natural resources, not preserve and protect business development.”