Thursday, September 30, 2010

Take Back the Port!

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Tom Davis

I showed up for the Port of Shelton committee meeting at 5:30 today, because Port Director John Dobson had announced at the Port’s regular workshop meeting that the public would be welcome to attend, though they would not be allowed to comment.

The topic of discussion was to be the Port’s Comprehensive Plan for 2010.

But I was stopped at the door by Port Director Dobson, who told me that I would not be allowed to enter. When I reminded him of his offer to allow the public to observe the proceedings, he said that he decided to rescind his offer, and that the meeting was now only open to committee members.

So I stood outside with several other members of the public who had also been refused access, and discussed the lack of common courtesy that seems to permeate the Port lately.

On the bright side, it appears that Port officials have finally dropped all pretense of even pretending to be responsive to the public, and now we can all see them for what they have always been, power-hungry, megalomaniacs, with absolutely no regard for their oath of office.

I, for one, welcome the refreshing breeze of open public contempt from Port officials; it’s a lot easier to confront evil without having to pry it out from under a rock into the light of day.

For those who continue to give these offending officials the benefit of the doubt, may I remind you of the early days of public opposition to the Adage biomass incinerator proposal, when Commissioner Jay Hupp persisted he was ‘neutral’ on the subject, even though he had spent years trying to bring just such a hideous enterprise to Mason County.

On November 2nd vote YES on the Port’s Proposition 1 and YES on Initiatives 1 & 2. If these three ballot items pass, the public may actually have a chance of being represented.


P.S. As I was leaving, who do I see sitting at the committee meeting table? Port Commissioner Tom Wallitner. He’s not a member of the committee.

Cartoon for the Day

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Claude

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Where are Details for Nippon ORCAA Application?

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Duff Badgley


The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) is refusing to make public a crucial, 3-month-old Port Angeles biomass incinerator application submitted by Nippon, USA. ORCAA confirmed on September 29 that it had received on July 7, 2010 a Nippon application to build a 25MW incinerator inside city limits of Port Angeles. Even after being told ORCAA was in violation of state public notice law, ORCAA engineer Mark Goodin and ORCAA Executive Director Fran McNair refused my request to post the Nippon application to the ORCAA website now. Goodin referred me to another ORCAA engineer who is away on vacation.

The details of the Nippon incinerator application to ORCAA are critical for the public to know so it can assess the toxic air pollution the incinerator would emit. The City of Port Angeles last week gave final approval to two permits for the Nippon incinerator that could clear the way for construction to start--if ORCAA also approves.

The Nippon incinerator in Port Angeles is one of three large, proposed biomass incinerators ORCAA is currently charged with permitting or denying. The two others are in Mason County for Adage (65MW) and Simpson (31MW). In addition, Simpson has announced it would keep open its current biomass incinerator at its mill on the Shelton waterfront, further adding to air pollution expected from the new Simpson burner and from Adage. Simpson had originally stated it would close its existing incinerator when the new burner was built.

Mark Goodin contact info:; 360-539-7610, ext.108 or 1-800-422-5623, ext.108

Fran McNair contact info:; 360-539-7610, or 1-800-422-5623.

Duff Badgley
No Biomass Burn

9/30 UPDATE:

Today, ORCAA has finally made public the Nippon incinerator application!

Demonstration Oly ORCAA Offices, 10/6, 4-6pm



WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6th, 4:00-6:00pm

2940-B Limited Lane (off Harrison) in West Olympia

A Multi County Event with Olympia Rising Tide
(concerned citizens from Mason, Thurston, & Jefferson Counties will be participating)

The Tide is Turning!!!


Let's Keep the Pressure On!!!

Event Poster PDF

Photo by Christine

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Cartoon for the Day

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Claude

WA Anti-incinerator Legal Campaign

Submitted by Duff Badgley

Article published Sep 26, 2010
Seattle foe targets cogeneration plan in Port Angeles to make test case against biomass energy
By Tom Callis
Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES -- A Seattle activist has picked Nippon paper mill's proposed biomass energy project as the first battle in a fight against the burning of wood waste for electricity that he plans to take across the state, including Port Townsend.

Duff Badgley of No Biomass Burn and the Green Party's 2008 gubernatorial candidate said he intends to appeal the city permits granted last week to the $71 million project.

The Port Angeles Planning Commission approved shoreline management and conditional use permits for the upgrade of Nippon Paper Industries USA's biomass boiler last Wednesday after a lively public hearing that brought out both supporters and foes of using biomass, which uses wood waste from mills and logging sites, to create energy.

Badgley said Friday that he hadn't decided the basis for his appeal. But he said he may contend that the project's environmental impact statement, used by the Planning Commission when considering approval of the permits, should have addressed its impact on the forests. "It was a horrific decision by the Planning Commission," he said.

Sue Roberds, city planning manager, said the purpose of the environmental assessment was solely to assess the project's local impact. "We were dealing with the activity on the shoreline and the industrial zone," she said. "Not the policy of whether biomass is good or bad." The appeal, which must be filed by Oct. 6, would be heard by the City Council, Roberds said.

Badgley said Nippon Paper Industries USA's project is only the start. He intends to file appeals against the Port Townsend Paper Corp.'s proposed biomass boiler project in Port Townsend and others in the state. "We're looking at legal challenge action across the whole state," he said.

Badgley said No Biomass Burn is his creation, and that he works with about five other environmental organizations in the state that also oppose biomass burning. They contend that the practice would strip the forest floor of needed nutrients, and challenge its carbon-neutral designation. Badgley said Nippon's project is being targeted first because its the farthest along in the permitting process.

Harold Norlund, mill manager, said he doesn't think the pending appeal, which he called a "bump in the road," will prevent the project from happening. "That's not going to put us behind [schedule]," he said. "It's disappointing that they are going to do that because we have a very good project that's good for Port Angeles, good for the environment, and a significant investment in Port Angeles," Norlund added.

Nippon also needs air quality permits from the state and waste discharge, storm water and building permits from the city before construction can begin as planned in December. Construction will take about 18 months. The project would produce 20 megawatts of electricity that the company intends to sell as renewable energy. It's one of seven proposed in the state, including one in Port Townsend.

The Port Townsend mill, which currently uses a biomass boiler to produce 15 megawatts of electricity for the facility, would be able to increase that to 25 megawatts. The excess energy would also be sold to utilities facing renewable energy requirements. Nippon also already has a biomass boiler, but it only produces steam for the paper-making process.

The Port Townsend biomass upgrade is awaiting an order from the state Department of Ecology. Company officials expect to begin construction by the end of the year, with the new system to be in operation by mid-2012.

While biomass energy is nothing new in Washington, with 13 electricity-producing boilers already in existence and all but one located at a mill, the state is seeing a surge in proposed projects, said Peter Moulton, State Department of Commerce Bioenergy Coordinator. He said that's because of renewable energy mandates that utilities are facing up and down the West Coast and tax credits offered through the federal stimulus act.

State legislation passed in the last two years also has allowed the state to set up four biomass energy pilot projects -- one of them being Nippon -- and to enter into long-term biomass supply contracts. Rep. Kevin Van De Wege, D-Sequim introduced the bills.

But will it deplete the forests of needed wood debris and nutrients?

No, says Rachael Jamison, state Department of Natural Resources energy and climate specialist.
Jamison said logging companies are required to leave enough fallen logs to return nutrients to the soil. Forest slash, the sole source of biomass from logging sites, is not part of that, she said.

Slash includes branches and other wood debris that is usually seen in large piles after an area has been logged. It's common practice for the piles to be burned, said Aaron Toso, DNR spokesman. But how much slash is available to meet the rising demand is not quite known. DNR is in the process of selecting a contractor to conduct a state wide assessment, which it hopes to complete in a year. Moulton said he has been given no reason to believe that supply will be an issue.

DNR doesn't prohibit the logging of trees to be burned for energy, Toso said, but that's not a concern because it's far more profitable to sell trees for lumber. Moulton said he doesn't see that ever changing.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed removing the carbon-neutral designation for biomass. The proposed rule includes requirements that biomass producers must measure the amount of carbon they release into the atmosphere just as operators of coal and natural gas plants must do.

Toso said biomass energy is considered carbon-neutral because it emits carbon dioxide that's part of the Earth's natural "carbon cycle." Bioenergy opponents say that's flawed thinking because biomass energy burns carbon at a much faster rate than what would occur naturally in the forests.

But since slash piles are typically burned, it doesn't make much of a difference, said Dave Sjoding, a renewable resources specialist with Washington State University. "What do we do with our slash piles? We burn them. And we do that for fire safety," he said. "If you want a big carbon release, a forest fire is as big as it gets." Sjoding also said that it's cleaner to burn slash in a boiler because of emission controls.

Nippon has received $2 million in federal grants and loans for the proposed boiler, and would receive about $20 million in tax credits through the stimulus bill after it's completed, Norlund said.

Nippon's new boiler would burn 160,000 tons of biomass per year, about twice as much as the mill currently uses with its 1950s-era boiler. Pollutants overall would be reduced, according to the environmental assessment. That assessment did not address carbon emissions because the project is considered carbon-neutral.

The Port Townsend paper mill has been awarded a $2 million Renewable State Energy Program grant from the state Department of Commerce, dispersing federal funds, to upgrade its biomass cogeneration boiler and plant.

Reporter Tom Callis can be reached at 360-417-3532
or at

Monday, September 27, 2010

A Triple Threat We'll All Regret!

Submitted to Shelton Blog by John Cox

The more I look at the recent developments with the local biomass incinerators, the crazier it seems. Many people would consider one incinerator an environmental disaster, but Shelton is being considered for not just one, but three! This isn't three incinerators placed in various locations throughout the County...all three would be right in Shelton. How lucky can we get? The Adage incinerator and Simpson's twin towers are being rammed down our throats, or maybe I should say down our lungs.

Some of us foolishly thought that if Simpson built a new incinerator, they would shut down the old polluter, but NOooooo. They want to be able to run both. The reason given at the public information meeting on the 23rd was that the old plant was needed “just in case”. The Simpson spokesperson said they had contracts for the steam, and therefore couldn't allow an interruption in steam production. So what have they been doing all this time with only one steam plant? They can't have a contract that allows for shutdowns?

And where is ORCAA? Are they going to allow this triple threat? When asked if they will consider all three incinerators in the atmospheric model used in the decision making process for the incinerator permits, the answer was somewhat hazy. There was no clear answer, and I have to think this was intentional and I am worried by that.

Simpson admitted that the primary reason for building the new incinerator is to make money by selling the excess power produced. That's it. Profit.

And Adage is only interested in one thing....again, profit.

Simpson and Adage do not care about our health. They do not care about the environment. They do not care about Shelton. They do not care about Mason County. They care only about their bottom line, and as we have been shown over and over again, our national and local politician$ $eem to $hare thi$ ob$e$$ion.

We are the sacrificial lambs being placed on the altar to the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR. Adage and Simpson are sharpening their knives, while their retinue of henchmen hold us down.

ORCAA seems to be resisting the idea that all three incinerators should be considered together. We will have to live and die with the cumulative effects of all three. I don't understand how ORCAA could even consider not including all three incinerators in their divinations.

Well....I don't plan to take this lying down. I will not be a willing sacrificial lamb, and clearly I am not the only one who feels this way. On September 1st, 100+ non-lambs told ORCAA how we felt about biomass incinerators. On September 23rd, 20+ non-lambs and the Grim Reaper gave SIMPSON and the City of Shelton the same message. On Wednesday, October 6th, 4-6pm, we will do it again in Olympia at the ORCAA offices.

BAAAAAAAAH....See you October 6th!

Simpson Demonstration & Meeting Photos 9/23

20+ concerned citizens demonstrated

Long time no see!

Do you like my t-shirt?

Save the air for our children!


Activist mom & sons smiling with Jack Miles

Another family protesting together!

Who's this?

Our air is not for sale!

Grim watches over his flock

The End

Photos by Christine

Simpson Comment Period Extended Until Oct. 7th

Submitted to Shelton Blog by John Cox

There are to be three incinerators operating in Shelton, if Simpson and Adage have their way. ORCAA has stated that they will be making their determination based on both of Simpson's incinerators operating (but not the Adage incinerator, which is another issue). The City of Shelton, however, is assuming that only one or the other Simpson incinerator will be operating at a time. At the September 23rd information meeting, Simpson admitted that both could be running simultaneously.

We have until October 7th to submit our written comments to Jason Dose, ( ) City of Shelton, 525 W. Cota St., Shelton, WA 98584 asking that the city take into consideration this new information, and make its determination based on Simpson operating both the old and the new incinerators, and include the Adage incinerator as well. How can three incinerators operating in Shelton be considered "Not Significant"?

Below is Katherine Price's letter to Jason Dose:

Subject: Simpson/Solomon Application for Second Biomass Burner,

City of Shelton Harbor

From: Katherine Price

Date: Mon, September 27, 2010 2:39 pm


Dear Jason:

I am writing you today to take advantage of the public comment period, which ends on October 7, 2010, in connection with the second biomass incinerator Simpson/Solomon proposes to build and operate at the harbor.

For the record, my name is Katherine Price and I live at 603 South 9th Street, Shelton, Washington. This is up Turner Hill from the harbor.

My family and I are already recipients of the particulate matter which is too small to be captured in the filtering system of the old, existing biomass incinerator in the harbor, which exists to provide steam for purposes of lumber operations in the harbor.

At the time we purchased our home, we were not advised of the health risks of buying a home uphill from the harbor. I am sure no one in our neighborhood understood the ramifications of what was already happening in the harbor, and we are now stuck with the reality of the existing biomass incinerator.

However, we are now being asked to accept a second biomass incinerator, twice the size of the one in the harbor now, and half the size of the one proposed for John's Prairie, which has the same health hazards as the existing incinerator.

Further, this second biomass incinerator is not being built out of necessity. The facility presently operating in the harbor is sufficient for the needs of the companies who receive the benefit of the steam from the existing facility. This second one is being built to take advantage of tax credits and federal, state and local subsidies, as well as to provide a revenue stream through the sale of energy they anticipate generating by the burning of waste.

Adding, quite literally, insult to injury: Simpson has created a new entity (Solomon Renewable Energy), so that Simpson can sell product to Solomon, for purposes of generating energy, thereby receiving tax credits, subsidies, etc., and Solomon can purchase product from Simpson, thereby receiving tax credits, subsidies, etc. This takes double-dipping to a whole new level. While this may not be of relevance to the City of Shelton, it is very relevant to taxpayers.

At a recent public forum, we were advised by a Simpson employee that the newer plant would have greater ability to filter the various dangerous chemical by-products of the incineration process, and would, therefore, be cleaner than the existing plant.

The fact that it is twice the size of the older, dirtier model, makes that statement less than reassuring.

Yes, it can filter better, but it will in fact be processing twice the amount of dangerous by-product (that which we call "micro particulate matter," those things which are too small to be captured by any filtering system proposed to date.)

You have the permit application. You know about the poisons that will in fact not be captured, but will be released into the air. Some of them are measured in tons, so this is no small amount that will be released. Although these will be emitted through a much taller chimney/smokestack and a better filtration system, they will, nevertheless, float down into the surrounding community, the harbor, and my neighborhood.

Of greatest concern are the dioxins, of which there is no safe level; so the speaker at the Thursday, September 23, 2010, meeting who thought he would impress "death" with his "point zerozerozerozero, etc." answer, did not impress the members of the audience who have been trying to absorb all of the science in connection with the more dangerous side-effects of having biomass incinerators in communities.

Theresa Jacobson submitted the letters written by the Mason General Hospital staff at the Thursday meeting. These letters were written to the Port of Shelton Commissioners, and to the Board of County Commissioners.

The possession of these letters alone will subject the City of Shelton to liability for proceeding with the project in the face of the health hazards identified by the medical community. It will be the City of Shelton who faces the citizen ire and responds to the multiple lawsuits, not the LLCs who will put the liability and the burden on our city.

In the letters from the physicians, the reader is directed to a review of the American Heart Association article, Circulation June 2010: Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease.

Because Simpson/Solomon has an existing plant, which already provides the steam necessary for the business in the harbor, the only reason to build this newer, bigger, more dangerous model, is to take advantage of laws that will hopefully be changed before the plant will be operational. There is legislation being written in Olympia right now to remove biomass from the list of approved green, renewable energy, sources.

The EPA is reviewing the science as we argue, and should shortly rule against biomass incinerators, thus removing the incentive for corporations to build these facilities.

The City of Shelton has been put on notice by the medical community that: "...these facilities pose unacceptable health risks."

To permit this plant, inside the city limits, to rain particulate matter down on neighborhoods such as mine, is to open the city to unacceptable liability. Liability we can ill afford during this time of budget crisis, when we are talking about
cutting health benefits to our police officers.

I urge the City of Shelton to take the information provided by the medical community seriously, and to deny Simpson/Solomon a permit to build a second biomass incinerator in the harbor.

Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. I hope they will help the city make a decision which is in the best interest of the City of Shelton, and the citizens of the City of Shelton.

Katherine A. Price

John R. Price
603 South 9th Street
Shelton, WA 98584

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Friday, September 24, 2010

Governor Praises Biomass

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price

During the course of the City of Shelton Simpson informational meeting on Thursday, September 23, Dave McEntee, Vice President, Operational Services for Simpson Lumber Company, LLC, proudly read a portion of a letter from Washington State's Governor to the EPA, dated late August. The portion of the letter he shared with the citizens present praised biomass incineration.

I know that the Governor probably does not personally see 1% of the letters from her constituents, but I was still deeply disappointed that our Governor appears to be among the politicians in this state already bought and paid for by the industry that is proposing to build these burners across our state.

I wrote to the Governor in April, on the 28th, after immersing myself in the science and medicine in connection with biomass incinerators from the 1st of April until that day, and afterwards concluding that, as Theresa Jacobson says: "This is caveman technology."

My April 28 letter begged (literally) for the Governor to look into this matter and asked her to advocate for the citizens of Mason County. I told her we were feeling railroaded, sold out, and discounted completely in the conversation about how our air and water would and could be polluted, especially by local elected officials, some of whom had been working on this "under the radar," as Jay Hupp likes to say, for five or more years.

I wrote the Governor again on August 4, 2010, and forwarded her copies of the Mason County Physicians' letters to the Port of Shelton and the Board of County Commissioners. I again pleaded with her to look further into this issue, after reading the doctors' letters. Shortly after that, the Governor sent her letter to the EPA praising biomass incineration; and this after having been provided with the letters from the local physicians.

Did the Governor's staff member who helped with the letter to the EPA know that some other staff member had opened a letter from me, containing those letters, and begging her not to let these people kill my granddaughter? Maybe not. Did the Governor write the letter to the EPA herself? Probably not. Am I going to vote for this Governor again? Absolutely not!

Even if the Governor has not seen either of my letters, or the doctors' letters, she has a television set; she has a staff; she has heard about the objections citizens are raising about these plants, and she signed a letter to the EPA praising biomass. She signed the death warrant for the vulnerable in our community, the elderly, the young, those who already suffer from breathing ailments, and those healthy ones who just happen to inhale some of those dioxins.

Our community stands the chance of dying as a result of these proposed incinerators. We have already been advised that the houses around the one in Grays Harbor are all empty and for sale or for rent. Nobody wants to live near one of these things, and nobody should; they are dangerous.

I live up the hill from the existing biomass incinerator currently being operated by Simpson, and up the hill from the proposed biomass incinerator to be owned and operated by Solomon Renewable Energy Company. I love my home. My husband and I have spent ten years lovingly upgrading a 50 (now 60) year old house. We are ten years into our twenty year plan, and we had
every intention of living out our lives in this house. We do not want to sell, and we probably could not sell, given the proximity of the existing incinerator. Nor were we advised when we bought the house that there was such a thing as a biomass incinerator in the harbor.

So, selling is not an option for most of us; who is going to buy our houses?

We have businesses and employers who are not poisonous in nature, promising to leave town, if ADAGE goes online. Fungi Perfecti comes to mind, and Paul will take his jobs with him.

It seems that the only option we have is to keep fighting for our community.

In that fight, let's remember that the City of Shelton needs public comment by October 7, 2010. I recommend sending your comments to Jason Dose at the City, via email or snail mail, email Jason at:, and reference "Simpson/Solomon" so there can be no confusion!

Then, make your list of questions about the two biomass incinerators that will be operating in the Port, if we are not successful, and address them to:

Dave McEntee
Vide President Operations Services and External Affairs
917 E 11th Street
Tacoma, WA 98421-3039

Send him letters; call him at 253-779-6405; fax him at 253-280-9048; and email him at:

This man needs to address our questions; if he does not have the answer, then he needs to get it, find it, and give it to us.

I am going to fax him a copy of the physicians' letters...a fat lot of good that will do, in light of how it moved the Governor to write to the EPA and praise the biomass incinerators, but I am going to fax them to him anyway. I may fax them to him everyday. I think I will.

Theresa Jacobson got the doctors' letters into the record of the City of Shelton last night. When you write, call or email Jason Dose at the City of Shelton, reference those letters as well.

The Port, the County, and the City are all opening themselves up to significant liability if they permit these plants, and the doctors who warned them start seeing greater numbers of respiratory disease in our community. Those entities, the Port, County and City, will be on the hook for more money than they do not have for the liability they assumed when they chose to disregard the warnings of the medical community, and go with the promises of riches.

Let's keep the pressure on, day and night. We cannot leave, and we will not be able to breathe if we stay and they win, so losing, for us, is not an option.

Keep it light,

Katherine Price

A Grim Reminder

"I love dioxins!"

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Tom Davis

Amy and I attended the meeting the city of Shelton held in conjunction with representatives of ORCAA and Simpson to explain to us, the public, how the ORCCA process will address Simpson’s application to introduce yet another biomass fueled plant into our community.

Although representatives from the city seemed sincerely intent on encouraging questions about the permitting process, I couldn’t help thinking how we, the public, were intentionally excluded from the process at its most critical stage, before our elected officials committed to expose us to two major sources of pollution.

Just before the meeting began, I was approached by a man who offered me a business card that read Dave McEntee Vice President, Operational Services and External Affairs for Simpson Lumber Company, LLC. He extended his hand and invited me to call him, should I have any questions about the Simpson proposal.

My first impulse was to ask him how he could work for a company capable of jeopardizing the health of an entire city and still manage to keep from hanging himself in his garage. But my wife was sitting beside me, so I simply said, “Thank you, I will do that.”

The meeting itself was civil and predictable in that most of the questions centered around how much or how little the Simpson proposal was going to harm us. There was, however, some ambiguity over whether both of Simpson’s bio-fueled plants would run simultaneously, and for how long. In the end, I was left with the feeling that any confusion was by design.

At this point the air suddenly went out of the room and Amy and I felt a cold chill run up the back of our necks. Apparently many of the other attendees had a similar sensation, and turned their attention to the rear of the room.

The source of our collective discomfort was a large image dressed completely in draping, hooded black robes, holding a scythe. My first impression was that Jay Hupp had taken his tendency toward “Godfather” style garb to it’s obvious conclusion. But Mr. Hupp was still seated in the front row; two fingers of his right hand now pressed firmly against his left wrist, apparently checking for a pulse.

What we were all looking at was The Grim Reaper- Death! I remember thinking, “Wow did you ever come to the right place; there’s a few people in this room Mason County would be better off without.”

It was a grim reminder that, when all the smoke presented by the proponents of biomass settles, many of us will be left with the consequences of decisions made by a few.

Tom Davis

Photo by Christine

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Turn on the Lights!

Let the light shine in!

Submitted to Shelton Blog by John Cox

Due to the spotlight of internet scrutiny, the censure-ship of Jack Miles was dropped from the Port Commissioners' meeting agenda.
The recent series of events has reinforced in our minds, why this blog was started. It began as an attempt to provide information and news to the citizens of Shelton and Mason County that is usually ignored, suppressed, or distorted by the “media” and the community power brokers. If you are wondering who that might be, take at look at who is supporting biomass incineration.
True, this is an old story, but through the incredible power of blogs and email lists, and the unstoppable access to online information, we are now experiencing a redistribution of power.

Knowledge is power. The politicians, corporate media, and the local power brokers are no longer in complete control. Their grip on the reins of power is slipping.

Years ago, I lived in a place that had a terrible cockroach problem. When you went into the kitchen at night and turned on the lights, the roaches that ruled the kitchen in the dark, scurried around madly trying to escape, seeking refuge in any dark corner they could find.

And that's what we are trying to do. Turn on the lights!

“We the people”... that's what it is supposed to be about.

See you at the No Biomass demonstration in front of Shelton City Hall at 5:00 today, before the public info meeting!

How Can a Biomass Incinerator Not Have a Significant Environmental Impact?

This is a letter sent by No BioMass Burn's Duff Badgley to Jason Dose, the City of Shelton's planner for the Simpson Incinerator.

September 20, 2010
Jason Dose, Senior Planner,
City of Shelton,
525 West Cota Street,
Shelton, WA 98584.
Phone: (360) 432-5102; FAX: (360) 426-7746.

Re: Intent to Issue an Incorrect Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) for Simpson Lumber Shelton Biomass Cogeneration Plant (Simpson).

Dear Jason:

The City of Shelton (COS) has so far ignored a host of environmental issues regarding Simpson that would, if properly considered, make mandatory a SEPA recommendation of DS (Determination of Significance) from COS. A dramatic expansion of the scope of your SEPA review of the Simpson application is essential. As a legally sound model to follow, I refer you to a recent summary of the SEPA review Mason County conducted for the Adage/Mason County (Adage) biomass incinerator application. See the attachment.

Some differences between the two applications may exist regarding possible/probable environmental impacts. But the Simpson and Adage applications share so many impacts defined under state and local law that a comparison is essential to understand how COS needs to expand its scope for the Simpson SEPA review—and decide for a Determination of Significance (DS) that would require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under state SEPA law..

Please see the attached September 10, 2010 letter from Barbara Adkins, Department Manager of the Mason County Department of Community Development. The “proposal” in her letter is Adage’s SEPA application. Adkins’ comments will be in bold....
Click here for the complete letter

We Backed Jack!

Neither censured nor censored be

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price

High Drama at the Port:

Well, not exactly...

Dozens of members of the air-breathing community showed up for the Port meeting Sept. 21st to support Jack Miles, and in anticipation of the censure/censor he was promised by Jay Hupp, which was on the agenda. The first clue that we were not going to get to see this drama unfold was that the Port's attorney, Skip Hauser was not in the room.

The first public comment was from our friend and fellow air breather, Conley Watson, who stepped up to the podium, introduced himself and asked to be allowed to deliver a card to Jack, which he then did, telling Jack it was from the 3,200 signers of the petitions to put ADAGE on the ballot; the 20-something doctors at the hospital; and lots of kids! Conley also passed out "We Back Jack" buttons, which were displayed prominently on many shirts and sweaters.

It appearing that Conley had spoken for in excess of 3,200 citizens of Mason County, there was no further comment. How do you follow a thank you from that many folks,and we were still awaiting Jack's 30 whacks to be delivered from the HUPP.

Which was when the HUPP himself informed the Commissioners that two items were going to be removed from the Agenda: The item in connection with the letter to the Lt. Gov. Brad Owen was being removed, because someone had leaked a draft of that document, and it had therefore served it's purpose of apologizing to BO, and thanking him for how well he supported biomass Incineration in Mason County, by spouting ADAGE talking points both in the spoken and written word. Because someone had leaked that letter, with all manner of words to suggest how bad that was, it was not now necessary to discuss, approve and mail the letter. Apparently BO reads this blog too!

The next item to be removed from the Agenda was the censure/censor of Jack Miles. Jack should watch his back, however, because the SKIPPY's absence may mean he was researching, at taxpayers expense, on behalf of the HUPP and the members of his three ring circus, how to punish Jack in a way more painful and lasting, in case Jack was the source of the leaked letter.

Then things got lively real fast.

The HUPP wanted to have the Commissioners approve the minutes of the quarterly county/city combined meeting on September 1st.

The September 1st minutes, according to Commissioner Jack Miles, were merely a repeating of the Agenda. Commissioner Miles stated that the law requires the minutes to reflect a little bit more than that, especially when it is an inter-governmental meeting. Commissioner Tom Wallitner said (paraphrasing here): " Hey, didn't we agree to be
informal and not keep minutes?"

There were several exchanges. The HUPP told Commissioner Miles he was out of order. I think Commissioner Miles told the HUPP, "No, you are out of order", and then the TOM threw in a few cents, and that was the really exciting part of the meeting.

Commissioner Miles challenges the HUPP and the TOM, and they lose their cool. Commissioner Miles keeps his, and the other two look like the clowns we have been already been thinking they really are.

At the final public comment period, I did stand up and thank Commissioner Miles for continuing to treat us as if we, the folks who elect the Commissioners, were who he worked for. Since I am not a comfortable public speaker, I don't recall exactly what I said, but my intent was to express extreme gratitude for Commissioner Miles treating us with respect.

I was pleased at the turnout. It was not the standing room only crowd hoped for, but there were certainly more than enough folks there to make it clear to the HUPP and the TOM that Commissioner Miles has the support of the community. This was hard to ignore, since we were all wearing buttons declaring "We Back Jack."

Keep it light, fellow air breathers,

Katherine Price

40+ concerned citizens in attendance

Photos by Christine

Monday, September 20, 2010


We Do Make a Difference!

(there's no such thing as a good biomass incinerator)

Shelton City Hall
525 West Cota St.




The City of Shelton Planning Staff has scheduled
this public information meeting.

Present at the meeting will be representatives from:
the City of Shelton, Simpson Lumber Company, & ORCAA
to discuss the permitting process & the project proposal.
(ADAGE representatives will undoubtedly be present unofficially.)

This is NOT a public hearing
for the required permits for the proposal.
Public hearings will be scheduled separately,
& after the SEPA process has been completed.

Let's meet at 5:00pm & wave our signs before the meeting!



Photo by Christine


9/20/10 UPDATE RE: Eliminating Commissioner Districts

To all the voters who are eagerly awaiting the upcoming general election:

I need to make a major correction in the posting I made regarding the initiatives on the ballot that will affect the Port of Shelton. I am now changing my position on one initiative and that is Vote YES on eliminating commissioner districts.

Here's why: If 2 commissioner positions are added to the Port of Shelton
AND the commissioner districts are eliminated, an election to vote on the 2 new commissioner positions can be added to the February election. BUT, If that elimination of commissioner districts fails, and adding 2 commissioners to the board passes, the Port of Shelton must spend the next year re-districting, and the election of the 2 added Commissioners to the board would not take place for another year.

I am asking when you receive your ballots, please
VOTE YES to each issue on the ballot regarding the Port of Shelton. The winds of change are coming. So please vote! Thank you all very much....

All my best,
Jack Miles

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Censured or Censored?

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price

Jack Miles Needs Our Help!

I am sure there is no one in our group (opposing biomass incineration) who does not recognize that only one elected official has come out publicly, day in and day out against Adage.

There are elected officials who are on our side, Fred Finn and Kathy Haigh
come to mind, but no one is out there like Jack in saying what we have been starving to hear from an elected official: You are right; you are the citizen; I work for you.

Such simple phrases, but Jack says them often: I work for you.

Now Jack is in trouble. In his desire to represent his constituents he
has, not surprisingly, annoyed his fellow commissioners. Those other "elected" officials who do not work for the citizens but who work for those people many elected officials work for: corporate interests, money, EDIC members, Chamber of Commerce members, people who already have jobs, and most of them already have enough of everything, the people who got them elected. The people who are comfortable selling Mason County to the highest bidder(s). Still wondering what they breathe?

Jack is going to be censured at the commission meeting on Tuesday, next,
at 2:00 p.m., for his blog posting (see supporting Rahn Redman's ballot measures, and calling Brad Owen stupid (I called him an IDIOT!).

Actually, Jack was using an expression I believe may have been coined by
President Clinton: "It's the economy stupid." but you know that Jay Hupp will take that the way he wants.

So, what we need to do, and what I propose we do, is let everyone who
cares about Mason County, about public servants who want to speak out for the public, about clean air, about clean water, about not letting Tim ShelTon and his friends sell us to Adage, if you are an air breather, and you can be there, we need to be at this Port meeting on Tuesday.

This is the most important Port meeting we will attend to date, and they
have all been really important.

Jack Miles is in trouble for caring. Jack Miles is in trouble for backing
the citizens. Jack Miles is in trouble for taking our side against the other Commissioners and their corporate masters. I propose that we show the Port of Shelton who the citizens of Shelton support.

Please join me in attending this most important Port of Shelton meeting ever.

When Jay Hupp tells Jack Miles to grab his ankles, let's let Jay Hupp know
what we think about him censoring Jack Miles.

Please meet me at the Port of Shelton meeting on Tuesday, at 2:00, and let
Jack Miles see the smiling faces of the people he represents while Jay Hupp administers his thirty whacks, or whatever other punishment he has in mind for our friend.

Keep it light, but pretty fierce I think,


It's a Dead Heat in the Race for Stupid!

Jay Hupp and Tom Wallitner's letter to Brad Owen apologizing for Jack Miles, and thanking the Lieutenant Governor for his support of biomass incinerators:

The Honorable Brad Owen

Lieutenant Governor of

The State of Washington

PO Box 40400

Olympia , WA 98504-0400

Dear Lieutenant Governor Owen:

Speaking for the Port of Shelton Commission , we would like to express our deep regret and sincere apology for the totally inappropriate remarks issued by Port of Shelton Commissioner Jack Miles on September 14, 2010 (Miles statement attached). Although we are embarrassed that he would use his title as Port of Shelton Commissioner, and thus imply that he speaks for the Commission, rest assured that he certainly does not.

Beyond that, we sincerely appreciate your support for renewable energy development and the economic enhancement and jobs that may come to Mason County through several related projects.

If there is anything else we can do to rectify this most unfortunate situation please don’t hesitate to let us know.

Most Sincerely,

The Port of Shelton Commission

Jay Hupp

Tom Wallitner

All Your Forests Will Now Belong to Us!

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Duff Badgley

11 INCINERATORS = 275MW = 2,750,000 TONS OF CO2/YR. = 2,750,000 TONS OF FOREST WOOD/YR.

Red circles represent approximately 50 miles around each biomass incineration/burning facility if all currently proposed (as of Sept 2010) around the Olympic Peninsula, in WA , USA are built.

50 miles is the “cost effective” distance within which these facilities quickly use up “waste” wood, then begin foraging for other sources -- outside, standing wood, other materials including construction debris (“urban wood”) or sludge.

Facilities indicated include: PT Holdings (Port Townsend), Nippon (Port Angeles), Quilayeute School (Forks), Sierra Pacific (Aberdeen), Gores Group (Cosmopolis), Grays Harbor (Hoquiam), Evergreen College (Olympia), Simpson (Shelton), Adage (Shelton), City of Tacoma (Tacoma), Simpson (Tacoma) Port Townsend Paper (dark red, upper right) already forages outside of the circle shown to feed its Kraft pulp mill. At least 26 biomass burners are existing or proposed for WA State.


Saturday, September 18, 2010

Christopher Hedges' Latest

Do Not Pity the Democrats

There are no longer any major institutions in American society, including the press, the educational system, the financial sector, labor unions, the arts, religious institutions and our dysfunctional political parties, which can be considered democratic. The intent, design and function of these institutions, controlled by corporate money, are to bolster the hierarchical and anti-democratic power of the corporate state. These institutions, often mouthing liberal values, abet and perpetuate mounting inequality. They operate increasingly in secrecy. They ignore suffering or sacrifice human lives for profit. They control and manipulate all levers of power and mass communication. They have muzzled the voices and concerns of citizens. They use entertainment, celebrity gossip and emotionally laden public-relations lies to seduce us into believing in a Disneyworld fantasy of democracy. more of the article

No Biomass Burn Letter to ORCAA


Subject: ORCAA must consider cumulative pollution from Adage and Simpson incinerators

September 9, 2010

Gordon Lance and Mark Goodin, Engineers
Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA)
2940-B Limited Lane
Olympia, WA, 98502

Re: ORCAA must consider cumulative pollution from Adage and Simpson incinerators

Dear Mr. Lance and Mr. Goodin,

Regarding both the NOC applications received by ORCAA from Adage Mason, LLC on 4-1-10 and from Solomon Renewable Energy Company, LLC on 8-25-20, our group reminds ORCAA it must abide by the "cumulative pollutio" standard stated by Mr. Lance in April, 2010 in front of numerous Mason County residents, me, and Dr. William Sammons, MD at the ORCAA office in Olympia.

In April, 2010, Mr. Lance told the Mason County group, if the ORCAA "Preliminary Decision to Approve/Disapprove" the Adage biomass incinerator proposed for Mason County had not been issued before the anticipated NOC application for a separate biomass incinerator proposed by Simpson (operating as Solomon Renewable Energy Company, LLC ) was received by ORCAA, the cumulative effect of the air pollution from both incinerators must be considered in weighing the merits of each NOC application.

We have numerous witnesses to Mr. Lance's statement. We expect ORCAA to comply with it in both NOC application assessments. Failure to consider the cumulative air pollution of both incinerators on each NOC application would invite certain appeals and/or legal intervention.

Further, we call on ORCAA to hold Public Comments Periods and multiple Public Hearings for each NOC application (Adage and Solomon).

Lastly, we call on ORCAA to issue "Preliminary Recommendations to DISAPPROVE" both NOC referenced applications on the grounds that each proposed incinerator would present a severe public health threat--even without considering the cumulative air pollution from both.

ORCAA is a public agency serving the public welfare. The public has demanded, and a nationally renowned physician has concurred, ORCAA deny permits to both Adage and Simpson/Solomon.


Duff Badgley

No Biomass Burn
Seattle, WA