What, exactly, was the impetus for Clark's closure?

I understand the basics of the situation: EPA was investigating Clark; chemicals used in the production of the blanks harm lung function and have other environmental impact. However, in poking around EPA Region 9’s website I cannot find any news release about the closure of Clark or any order issued by EPA Region 9 requiring that Clark close its doors. I find it odd that if EPA was directly responsible for this closure, then why hasn’t it issued a press release.

I am a prosecutor for a state environmental agency on the east coast. Something here does not make sense, but that could just be for lack of information. I’ve read a bunch of articles and the speculation on this board, but I am still unable to acurately discern who made the decision to close Clark down and why. Did EPA issue an “order” requiring Clark to shut down, or did Clark shut himself down for his own reasons?

If EPA shut Clark down, then is it because Clark was “unwilling” to run an operation that complied with environmental requirements, or because the production of PU blanks itself is inherently harmful in a way that makes it “unable” to comply with environmental requirements via changes in equipment or manufacturing processes?

If Clark did shut himself down, then why:

Did he just get fed up with EPA’s investigations?

Was Clark unwilling to upgrade equipment or procedures to meet EPA requirements?

Could this simply be a posturing move by Clark to use its market share to galvanize the industry to get the EPA off of his back?

Read the Clark Foam is Over pages in the Industry section of the Forums.

http://www.swaylocks.com/forum/gforum.cgi?post=241882;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread

Alot of pages to wade through, and you can synthesize some ideas. Take a look at Clarks fax. I don’t have time to find what page the link is on, but all the information Clark has divulged is there.

It’s called the Law of Diminishing Returns.

There comes a time when operating an enterprise involves way too much hassle vs. not enough satisfaction and profit.

Also…this should be moved to Industry talk…I think.

Hey Wags,

There have been some pretty strong statements from the EPA and Orange County FD that they did not issue any order for Clark to close.

If you’re a lawyer, how bout taking a crack at Clark’s statement (which I paraphrase) that if he sold his equipment, he would still remain liable for how that equipment was used in the future by the new owner. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Me too.

read the letter it is printed in full on surfermag.com

in the news section.Gordon clark is the most giving inteligentleman

ever reflecting the spirit of surfing

kick out before you wipe out.

take off behind me and i’ll kick out

the king abdickated

all the crybabies and whiners and fault finders have to live with their discouraging words.

the next king of surfboard blanks will be vilified and cajolled in a similar manner.good luck.

good time for all the old guys to slack off in their old age and watch the circus chase its tail.

fix your old board there will never be another clark foam

no matter what the next blowhard says.

all the old boards just doubled in price and the new ones may tripple

the gifts that Gordon Clark has given us just keep on giving.

…ambrose…

when there aint no velzy why uckin bother with the kuks

that dont appreciate shea