KATHERINE REVISITS WONDERLAND
Submitted to Shelton Blog by Katherine Price Mason County Progressive
This blog has been reporting for some time that certain state and federal agencies which were created to protect citizen health and rights have been staffed with corporate "yes-men". The result of this staffing is that some of our "environmental" agencies now exist to serve corporate polluters, rather than to protect citizens.
The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, also known as ORCAA, which never met a permit it did not like, and the Department of Ecology, which believes Simpson Timber Company and Solomon Renewable Energy Co. are separate entities, are two examples of agencies citizens expect to protect them from pollution.
Silly citizens; these agencies not only do not protect the citizen, these agencies exist as a support agency and a permitting agency for polluting industry.
To confirm this, agencies responsible for making sure that construction does not occur without permits are ignoring Nippon's full-speed ahead construction in Port Angeles, notwithstanding the pending appeal of the Nippon project by FIVE environmental groups.
In the old days (when government agencies and the judiciary gave a rip about citizen health and citizen rights) one would have expected an injunction to have been granted by the court, pending resolution of the Nippon appeal. Such an injunction would prevent Nippon from proceeding with the project pending the appeal. But these are modern times, fellow citizens, and our right to breathe does not trump the right of industry to make a profit - even if it means making it dangerous for you and me to breathe.
As if to prove my point, the Department of Ecology has finally responded to my multiple inquires (beginning with my letter of April 7, 2011) in connection with their early determination that Simpson Timber Company and Solomon Renewable Energy Co. are separate entities.
It took Ecology something on the order of 10 days to decide these bad boys were "separate entities". It took them until August 8, 2011, to reply that yes, indeed, after investigation, Simpson and Solomon are two separate sources of pollution for purposes of permitting... and you know how they got there? I am not making this up, this is a direct quote from the June 2011 report of one Alan Newman, P.E., of the department of Ecology:
"Mr. Reed resigned his position with Simpson to work exclusively for Solomon."
That's all it took.
In order to stop being Simpson Timber Co. all that was needed was for Mr. Reed to resign from Simpson Timber Co. to "work exclusively for Solomon".
Four months I waited for their explanation. Three and one-half pages it took the Department of Ecology to tell me how they investigated my allegations that Simpson and Solomon WERE the same polluting source.
Three and one-half pages and four months later, ECOLOGY can now confirm that Simpson and Solomon are not the same source for calculating the TONS of pollutants they would pump into the air when operating simultaneously in the Shelton Harbor.
Now I know. How relieved I am to finally know that they are not the same; that they cannot be the same; and that the reason they are not and cannot be the same (according to the Department of Ecology) is because Mr. Reed of Simpson Timber Co. resigned from Simpson to "work exclusively for Solomon".
Case closed.
It's all good.
There's nothing to see here, citizens; return to your houses.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
SHELTON BLOG NOTE:
Link to pdf of DOE letter and document sent to Katherine Price:
http://myweb.hcc.net/pkands/docs/simpson-solomon-separate-letter.pdf
Ok Simpson wins again, now just bend over and try to breathe, while you still can.
ReplyDeleteObviously, the problem does not rest with Simpson or Solomon, as one could argue that the corporate business model has always been one that takes from the commons to benefit the wealthy. The new problem is now that our finite natural resources have been exploited to near exhaustion; air quality also has become a commodity to be traded on the open market. It follows that the question is no longer if pollution is allowed, but how much pollution can be generated under a permit process. Our future is clear- corporations, abetted by the same regulatory agencies created to protect the public have put a price on life itself. And if recent events are any indication, it isn’t a very high price.
ReplyDeleteYou inject such a serious message into my mockery of all things Simpson.
ReplyDeleteIt's a "gotta laugh or I'm gonna cry" moment that perfectly illustrates who does what for whom, and who gets bent over as commented above.
"...but how much pollution can be generated under a permit process." (Tom Davis)
ReplyDeleteThis might be a good question for ORCAA at the upcoming public hearing on Simpson's Air Operating Permit. You put it very well... in a perfect world the amount of pollution would be zero... not here in Mason County. In Mason County pollutants measured in TONS are a-okay with Ecology and the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency, and seemingly the EPA sets the standards at TONS of pollutants.
We ought to think up new names for these agencies that actually represent what they do, and then lobby the legislature to change their names to reflect their real business.. any thoughts for ORCAA?