Thursday, December 18, 2014

Port Townsend Paper, Mineral Technologies Looks Like YOU will be Paying a HUGE Tax for Poisoning US. Paying to POLLUTE.

"I had the opportunity to talk with then Congressman Jay Inslee at length at Netroots Nation 2009 in Pittsburgh. We spent most of that time talking about transitioning to sustainable energy.  He coauthored a book about that very subject and named Apollo's Fire.  I read Inslee's book.  Jay Inslee gets it like few other politicians in this country do.
Today as Governor Inslee proposed a Carbon Charge assessing the state's largest GHG emitters when they exceed set emissions levels to help pay for transportation infrastructure projects, in a time when gas taxes are diminishing due to more efficient vehicles and other factors.
Inslee: Make big polluters pay for transportation projects
By Mike Lindblom
After two years of watching gas-tax increases tank in the Legislature, Gov. Jay Inslee proposed Tuesday to take a new approach: Charge major polluters for the right to emit carbon.
Inslee’s plan, featuring a “cap-and-trade” system, would generate $400 million a year, he said, to cover nearly 40 percent of his $12 billion, 12-year transportation improvement plan. The remainder would come from bond debt, existing gas taxes, tolls and an assortment of vehicle fees.
“We can clean our air and water at the same time we are fixing our air and our roads,” Inslee said in Medina, overlooking the 520 construction site. “It is indeed a twofer.”
Inslee, who is spending the week rolling out his budget wish list, is expected to announce further details about his Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, with his full budget proposal to come Thursday.
What the Democratic governor did make clear Tuesday is that in the face of Republican gains in the Legislature, he is holding fast to his idea that climate-change legislation can pay for much of government’s costs.
The governor said he aims to reach across the so-called Cascade Curtain and connect all of Washington through a “bipartisan spirit” that aims to “reduce the hours we spend on the roads away from our families.”
This program would send energy consumers all the signals to help more toward a more sustainable energy system for the state of Washington.
Taxing carbon is a more in the right direction. Last year Republicans blocked passage of a bill with proposed transportation infrastructure projects."

Source
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/17/1352606/-Washington-Governor-Jay-Inslee-proposes-a-Carbon-Charge-for-big-polluters#

Port Townsend Paper Mill, Mineral Technologies, will most Likely be buying a few Bridges in Washington State along with lots of other projects paid for as they are one of Washington States BIGGEST Polluters and they are Jefferson County Washington's BIGGEST industrial polluter.

 Washington's Governor Calling for Clean Air and Clean Water. WOW



What will the Port Townsend Paper Mill, Minerals Technology (MTX) do?

Well if the TRUTH is told and their POLLUTION in our air, soil and water is not covered up by the City of Port Townsend, Jefferson County, the Port Townsend Leader, the Washington EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology WELL then they will buying a multi-billion dollar floating bridge for the State of Washington.

However, for now they seem to be getting away with the LIE thanks to Jefferson County Commissioners, the Port Townsend Leader, one or more insiders at the EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Port Townsend.



"Inslee to lay out ideas for cap-and-trade, carbon tax"
http://crosscut.com/2014/07/28/washington-governor/121225/inslee-set-lay-out-ideas-climate-change-cap-and-tr/
Linked Cap-and-Trade and Carbon Tax
http://governor.wa.gov/issues/climate/documents/20140729_CERT_MeetingMaterials.pdf


Washington Gov. Proposes Major Carbon Tax To Fund Pressing Transportation Needs

"Inslee hopes to fund the $12 billion plan with bonds, fees and a carbon charge on the state's industrial polluters. The market-based carbon pollution charge will generate $7 billion over 12 years, he said. The fee will generate the equivalent of a 12 cent gas tax without hurting consumers, he said."

"All of this can be done with "a new and bold idea that will breathe new life" into the state - the polluter's fee, he said.

"We can clean our air and water at the same time we are fixing our air and our roads," he said. "It is indeed a two-for."

Source and Full Article
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/17/washington-carbon-tax_n_6337242.html


Enforce the LAW. 

Tax PT Paper Heavily. 

Force them to OBEY the LAW. 

Sue them, file criminal charges where it applies. As Governor Inslee said last night on the News, Clean Air is the LAW. Not just the right thing to do. It is the LAW.

The Port Townsend Paper Mill is Clearly Violating Washington Laws on Carbon aren't they? And they sure seem to be violating the clean air act and Jefferson County seems to be aiding and abetting this. Rumor has it that one of the County Commissioners is paid in an untraceable account to defend them at all county events, law making sessions and basically to aid and abet.

I say file complaints, lawsuits and even criminal complaints against Port Townsend Paper, Dale Stahl, Roger Hagan, AMCOL, and Minerals Technology Inc.

Port Townsend Paper is NOT above the LAW
Expose all people who are aiding and abetting them to 
BREAK THE LAW.

File Charges against ALL acting in conspiracy 
to Obstruct Justice.


WASHINGTON CLEAN AIR ACT


Air Pollution and the Clean Air Act




More information at 

You have a Legal Right to Clean Air

(MTX) According to the Washington's Governor our "right" to Clean Air, is LAW. "the state’s major polluters" YA YOU Port Townsend Paper. You are going to PAY for all the Roads and Bridges in Washington. The EPA and the Washington Department of Ecology, as well as your "Commissioner" and local Paper all covering for you, well those days are soon to end. The TRUTH will SOON replace the LIE. And clean air will replace the Toxic Air you are serving us up.

Our Washington Governor Said it is the LAW that we have Clean Air

"Gov. Inslee Wants To Cap And Tax Emissions From Washington State’s Major Polluters"
"Washington Gov. Jay Inslee has big plans for carbon reductions in his state, as outlined in climate change and transportation proposals announced by the governor’s office this week.

On Tuesday, Inslee announced a proposed tax on the carbon emissions for Washington’s major polluters. The proposal, which is part of Inslee’s transportation plan, would force major polluters in the state’s oil and gas industry to pay for the carbon they emit. The revenue gathered from the carbon tax, according to Inslee’s office, would total about $4.8 billion over the next 12 years — about the same amount as would be raised by a 12-cent increase in the state’s gas tax."

"As part of the plan, the state’s major polluters — the “relatively small number of businesses” that, according to the governor’s office, are responsible for 85 percent of the state’s emissions — would have their emissions capped. Over time, that cap will be lowered, as a way to prod the businesses to transition to cleaner, more efficient energy sources."

"“I believe it’s our destiny to lead in clean energy. Washington may be less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the world’s population, but we’re number one in the world in software, in aerospace, in apples, in online retailing,” Inslee said in a statement Wednesday. “We can choose cleaner air, more efficient cars and a better transportation system. We can choose energy independence. We have a choice in our future, and we’re choosing to take action.”

These proposals aren’t yet a done deal: they’ll be introduced to the state’s legislature in 2015. But if they are approved, they would serve as a step toward Washington’s goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The proposals follow a April 2014 executive order by Gov. Inslee to reduce the state’s carbon emissions and increase its use of renewable energy."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/12/17/3604669/inslee-washington-state-tax-cap-emissions/


A Governor Hell Bent on Clean Air Rights; WOW
BAD News for Mineral Technologies Inc. (MTX)

Executive Orders, Law, Tax; How will Port Townsend Paper and Mineral Technologies stay in business? Well they will lie and the Washington Dept. of Ecology insider(s) will cover for them as well as the Washington EPA and the Port Townsend Commissioners. Oh and the Port Townsend Leader will report on the LIE as if it were the TRUTH and WaLa Magic Happens and you breath poison, get sick and are forced to leave Port Townsend.

Port Townsend Paper, AMCOL, Mineral Technology's paper plant in the state of Washington emits 1.6 times as much CO2 as ALL other sources in Jefferson County Washington. 

Make sure that this is reported often. They will most likely pay for all the roads and bridges in the state as clearly they are a HUGE offender.

"Port Townsend Paper= 611,864 tons per year of CO2e"
Source
http://ptairwatchers.org/2014/10/06/pt-paper-emits-1-6-times-as-much-co2-as-all-other-sources-in-jeffco-wa/

Those who work at the mill now can still work there another 20 years in clean up for good pay. So time to Shut Down the Toxic Air Factory and start the cleanup.

More at
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452

http://rogerhaganporttownsendpaper.blogspot.com/

http://ptairwatchers.org/

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Reta Laford; Greg Wahl; Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment; NEPA and the Olympic National Forest.

"Cari ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Cari Rene [mailto:carirene@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:43 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS
Cc: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Navy Warfare Project

Dear Mr. Millett,

We are writing to join many other concerned local citizens regarding your decision to allow Electronic Warfare testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands. As I'm sure is obvious to you by now, this project has come as a surprise to the residents of Clallam and Jefferson counties. Few members of the public subscribe to your SOPA (or are even aware of such a thing), few residents of these counties read the Gray's Harbor Daily World (which seems to be the only "local" newspaper you use to publish notices in), and there does not appear to have been any "other" effort to inform the general public of a project with the potential to raise substantial concerns. Not good public involvement, and not good public relations.

From reading several newspaper articles over the past couple of weeks, there are many legitimate questions and concerns about the project. Much of this is probably a result of lack of solid information - but where is that information to come from but your agency? (It is your land, not the Navy's.) A few concerns:

* has the Forest Service done any independent analysis, or have you just taken the Navy's analysis on
face value?

* what is really meant by "electromagnetic radiation"? This bald term seems to be scaring a lot of
people. The public needs some clarification.

* your DN/FONSI addresses several localized potential effects pretty well. A concern of many that is not even mentioned is the potential for aircraft overflights and possible increases in noise therefrom. (Oddly, the DN/FONSI doesn't say what happens to the radiation that is emitted from the sites - where does it go?)* what mitigation/safety measures will be used, and how will they make the project acceptable from your perspective?"

Source and More
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1

"Ron ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl to ensure inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: Ron Hansen [mailto:ron.hansen0@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 2:57 PM
To: Millett, Dean R -FS; Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Electronic Warfare Testing by the Navy on Olympic NF lands

Dear District Ranger Dean Milett and Forest Supervisor Rita Laford,
I am writing you a second time because of my concerns regarding the Navy's plan to set up an electronic warfare testing site on Olympic National Forest Lands. I believe there would need to be more public information meetings on the Olympic Peninsula; Port Angeles\Sequim, and Port Townsend areas using local papers,the dates, times, and place of said meeting to answer our concerns. A representative from the Navy as well as the Forest Service could inform and answer questions..

Withdrawing the DN/FONSI and addressing all comments received before going further is the wisest way to go.

So many questions in my mind at this time and very little information; please continue this dialogue.
Sincerely,

Ron Hansen"

Source and More
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1

"Comments: Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

Kelly ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration on the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

From: moclipsdude . [mailto:moclipsdude@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 7:57 AM
To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

To Reta Laford,

I understand you will most likely have the final say regarding the Navy's proposal to establish the Olympic Peninsula as an Electronic Warfare Range with a fixed emitter tower at Pacific Beach.
There were three public meetings regarding this issue; at Forks, Port Angeles and last Wednesday at Pacific Beach. Although invited, no one from the US Forest Service was in attendance; not Greg Wahl or Dean Millett.

This was particularly annoying since many of us in the large crowd had questions intended for the Forest Service. Instead, there were five personnel representing the Navy.

Attached is my email sent to Congressman Derek Kilmer, Greg Wahl and Dean Millett on October 25, 2014 and was printed in it's entirety in the North Coast News on November 20, 2014.

Thank you.
Kelly Calhoun
Moclips, Washington"


Source and More
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1


"Forwarded comment -RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759 Annette ? Thank you for your interest in this project. By copy of this email, your comment is being forwarded to Greg Wahl for inclusion and consideration in the project record. Sincerely, Reta.

-----Original Message-----
From: Annette Huenke [mailto:amh@olympus.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:41 PM

To: Laford, Reta -FS

Subject: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment #42759

Why are the Navy and the Forest Service narrowing their focus to exclude potentially harmful -- perhaps deadly -- effects of these war games, when NEPA clearly states that the entire project and its impacts need to be included?

Exactly how much radiation will be projected from each of the Growler jets in one day's training?
Why is the Forest Service not demanding full transparency and full disclosure as Federal law mandates?

Why is the Forest Service considering issuance of a permit that is in direct violation of the Forest Service's Mission Statement.

Thank you in advance for your answer to these questions.

sincerely,
Annette Huenke"

Source and More
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1


Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is
rlaford@fs.fed.us

Letters
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1


More Information
http://retalaford.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/protectolypen

Forest Service forging ahead on Navy plan; the Olympic National Forest is YOUR FOREST. You pay for them to Violate your RIGHTS.

"By Nicholas Johnson of the Leader

Let the waiting begin.

The public's chance to comment on the U.S. Navy's bid to use roads in the Olympic National Forest to train fighter jet pilots in detecting enemy electronic signals ended on Nov. 28, and U.S. Forest Service officials say it won't be extended.


Some 3,048 comments have been submitted, 80 of which came in after the deadline. They can be reviewed at the Forest Service's online reading room at bit.ly/12sa2Pu.

https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1

Dean Millett, the Forest Service ranger responsible for deciding whether to permit the Navy's use of forest roads, said the Pacific Ranger District office in Forks is now turning its attention to reviewing comments, and he doesn't expect it to go quickly.

His final decision, which he hopes to make by mid-2015, "is not going to happen real soon."
"Well, we've got more than 3,000 comments, so I'm sure there are some issues in there that we're going to have to look at," Millett said, acknowledging that only those deemed substantive will be considered in his review of the Navy's environmental assessment and its finding that the proposed use of those roads would have no significant impact on the natural environment or human communities.
By definition, a substantive comment raises, debates or questions the accuracy or adequacy of specific facts or policies, and attempts to offer some reasonable alternatives to information cited or methods used in the environmental assessment.

"We consider all comments, but substantive ones provide reasoning," Millett said. "Just saying 'I don't like this project' and moving on is not particularly useful."

CALLING IN BACKUP

Millet said he is thinking of calling in the Forest Service's TEAMS Enterprise Unit, a group created in 1994 that now boasts some 150 agency employees who assist with tasks too cumbersome for any regional office's staff resources.

"They're a good source if you have a one-time need for something," he said, such as performing a comprehensive content analysis on public comments. "They specialize in that kind of work, and we don't have the staffing to go through all that in a timely manner. We have other projects we have to be working on."

Of those 80 comments submitted after the deadline, Millet said they would be reviewed in the event something substantive is brought up, but "at some point you have cut things off."

Reviewing comments "may direct us toward doing additional analysis," he said, but he may also decide the original analysis in the Navy's environmental assessment remains sufficient.

Millet will eventually issue a second decision notice on whether to issue a permit, after which those who submitted comments will have 45 days to object to Millett's supervisor, Reta Laford, before a permit is issued. Only those who submitted a comment prior to Nov. 28 will have standing to object at that time.

PUSHING ON

The Forest Service's decision not to extend the public comment period comes after the Jefferson County Democratic Party called on elected officials on Nov. 18 to push for a more robust public process and production of a full environmental impact statement (EIS).

Karen Sullivan of Port Townsend, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife employee, helped pen the party's resolution. She said she's not surprised the Forest Service did not extend its public comment period, yet intends to continue her research into how the Navy's plan got to this point.

"How did we get here with the public so unaware of all this, and how did the Navy allow this to happen?" she asked. "If we understand the process, it could provide some background for a legal challenge down the road. If there have been flaws in the NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] process along the way that are objectionable, we need to know this. It's like an Easter egg hunt, trying to find these nuggets of information and then add them up."

Sullivan, who submitted 11 comments and will have standing to object, is working to create a timeline of the process, but said she has run into roadblocks in getting related environmental review documents from the Navy dating back as far as 1989. It's that history, she thinks, that could lead to legal challenge.

Sullivan has questioned several areas of the Navy's environmental assessment, pointing out what she considers to be deficiencies in the state Department of Fish and Wildlife's biological opinion, for example. But she knows getting up to speed can be tough for many.

"We are at a stage where we still need to do a tremendous amount of public education, because all these issues have been split into separate parts and are difficult to understand," she said, pointing to the Navy's simultaneous bid to add 36 EA-18G Growler jets to Naval Air Station Whidbey Island's current fleet of 82. That proposal is in the scoping phase, which comes prior to compiling a draft environmental impact statement, and the Navy is now taking public comments through Jan. 9, 2015, after extending that deadline from Nov. 24.

BACKGROUND

The Navy wants permission to send utility trucks outfitted with mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation to 15 preselected sites on the Olympic Peninsula's west end, 12 of which are on forest roads.
Growler jet pilots would then fly over in groups of three, with a lead jet trying to pick up on those electronic signals coming from the emitters as training in identifying enemy communications.
The $11.5 million project would be the Navy's first use of mobile emitters of electromagnetic radiation for training that pilots currently simulate with internal aircraft controls.
The Navy proposes to begin this training in September 2015.

Public meetings in Forks on Oct. 14, in Port Angeles on Nov. 6 and in Pacific Beach on Nov. 19 drew hundreds of people, almost all of whom opposed the project. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded, thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials. Comments made during those meetings were not recorded thus won't be considered by Forest Service officials."

Source
http://www.ptleader.com/testing/forest-service-forging-ahead-on-navy-plan/article_f9fa5130-0d27-5cc1-a6fd-12371b3ae346.html


Contact Reta Laford, Olympic National Forest Supervisor and Let her know how you feel. She is a NEPA Expert and is the top of the chain of command on the Olympic National Forest..

Supervisor's Office
1835 Black Lk Blvd SW
Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 956 2402

her eMail is
rlaford@fs.fed.us

Letters
https://cara.ecosystem-management.org/Public/ReadingRoom?List-size=25&Project=42759&SearchResultsPerPage=25&List-page=1


More Information
http://retalaford.blogspot.com/

https://www.facebook.com/protectolypen

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Why is the Port Townsend Paper Mill ALLOWED by the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Washington to put KNOWN Toxins into the Air, Water and Soil?

The Port Townsend Paper Mill is MAKING YOU SICK, Lowering Your Immune System and causing you Serious Health Risks.


Why is Deborah Stinson, Local Commissioner such a seemingly, advocate for the Port Townsend Paper Mill? Whats in it for Deborah Stinson ?

Got a Tip? eMail me at SavvyBroker@Yahoo.com 

Why does the Port Townsend Leader seem to LOVE Roger Hagan?

Why does the Port Townsend Leader seem to flat out LIE about the TOXINS that the Port Townsend Paper Mill puts into YOUR AIR, Your Water, Your Soil?

Who is the County Commissioner that is rumored to be getting a direct payment from the mill to an account that in no way can be connected to them, to keep the Port Townsend Paper mill in business? Which is the business of poisoning the air, soil and water of Port Townsend.

Why does the Port Townsend Leader print false information and SUPPORT Port Townsend Paper over the Civil and Human Rights of the Port Townsend Residents?

The NPDES is under the federal Clean Water Act. Washington has an agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to administer the program; Why is the Washington DEQ and EPA protecting the Port Townsend Mill to POISON YOU?

What subsidies does the City of Port Townsend and Jefferson County Washington get from the National Paper Mill Groups to keep the paper mill here? And who gets that money?



It seems to me that the Port Townsend Paper Mill is violating the Clean Air Act as Well as the Clean Water Act, Time to STOP THEM.


Why DOES the MILL monitor Themselves? Seriously Folks WAKE UP

"Trouble in the air at Port Townsend"
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004189039_mill19m.html


Why Does Jefferson County Public Health NOT protect the HEALTH of Jefferson County?




Research Links; the TOXIN Spewing into the Air and Water FROM the Port Townsend Paper Mill is Blatant, Obvious and a Serious Health Risk to ALL.


PT Paper emits 1.6 times as much CO2 as ALL other sources in Jefferson County Washington
http://ptairwatchers.org/2014/10/06/pt-paper-emits-1-6-times-as-much-co2-as-all-other-sources-in-jeffco-wa/
"Here’s the connection to Jefferson County’s largest polluter, the Port Townsend Paper mill.

CO2e emissions are one of the major drivers of ocean acidification, the changes in chemistry that threaten local natural shellfish stocks, marine life and habitat.

Port Townsend Paper is by far Jefferson County’s largest emitter of CO2e.

Port Townsend Paper= 611,864 tons per year of CO2e

All others sources in Jefferson County WA = 383,748 tons per year CO2e

That includes industrial, commercial, residential, transportation and solid waste.

Here’s your take-away: PTPC’s emissions amount to a whopping 61% of all CO2e emissions in the County!

Stated another way, PTPC emits 1.6 times all other sources in Jefferson County combined!"


"Consider the role of Jefferson County WA’s largest individual greenhouse gas emitter, the Port Townsend Paper Corporation: PTPC emits over 61% of all CO2e emissions in Jefferson County from all sources combined including industrial, commercial, transportation and residential!"

Port Townsend Paper Mill Information, my Facebook Page
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Townsend-Paper-Mill/245153762294452


You are Breathing These Chemicals
http://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=5303100001&redirect=echo


Port Townsend Paper Mill Emissions
http://ptairwatchers.org/port-townsend-paper-mill-emissions/


Background-About Port Townsend Paper Mill
http://ptairwatchers.org/background-about-port-townsend-paper-mill/


"Summary of Air Quality Issues and Identification of Information
 Needed to Address Community Health Concerns
PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION
JEFFERSON COUNTY, WASHINGTON" 
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/pha/PortTownsendPaper/PortTownsendPaperHC12-24-2008.pdf


Port Townsend Paper Mill Category High
http://www.yourmapper.com/details/114/98368PRTTW100PA/port-townsend-paper-corp.htm

"PT Airwatchers came to a Jeff Co. Community Rights Coalition (CCRC) General Assembly meeting on March 23, 2014 to give our group an update the efforts of PT Airwatchers to bring the mill to higher standards of keeping the air, water and soil clean around the mill."
http://communityrightsjeffersoncountywa.org/?p=536


Link to ORCAA article on issues of Ultrafine particle pollution
http://www.orcaa.org/air/ultrafine-study-proposal

PORT TOWNSEND PAPER MILL SPRINGS A LEAK, TEMPORARILY
http://www.pulp-paperworld.com/usa/north-american-news/item/4366-port-townsend-paper-mill-springs-a-leak-temporarily

Paper Mill Watch Blog
http://papermillwatch.blogspot.com/2013/05/port-townsend-paper-mill-blog-by.html

http://dalestahl.blogspot.com/


Video
http://vimeo.com/67953529


Qulicene Watershed Document
http://ejwc.org/pdf/At_Home.pdf





More Research Links

"Even short-term exposure to low levels of pollutants can damage lungs"
http://www.nrdc.org/health/kids/ocar/chap4.asp

"Air pollution effects are many, and they may be truly damaging"
http://www.tropical-rainforest-animals.com/air-pollution-effects.html



Pulp pollution is a serious problem. Pulp and paper mills pollute our water, air, and soil. The pulp and paper industry is one of the largest and most polluting industries in the world; it is the third most polluting industry in North America.
There are about 500 kraft mills (including about 45 in Canada and 100 in the US), and many thousands of other types of pulp and paper mills, in the world. 

"Pulp and paper mills use a variety of chemical substances potentially hazardous to .... and alkaline oxides such as sodium, magnesium, ammonium or calcium."
"Cancer risk associated with pulp and paper mills: a review.."

Children's Health and the Environment

Air Pollution, Sources and Characteristics

List of Regulated Pollutants

Environmental Pollution and its Impact - Paper Mills
Unchecked emissions 1.3 Deaths a year.

"Dale Stahl, Amcol, Port Townsend Paper; Port Townsend NEEDS to STOP Catering to AMCOL and the Mill Stench and SUE the Mill, Washing DEQ, and the EPA."
"Complaints from nearby residents about "burning eyes, irritated throats and headaches" have led the city of Irwindale, Calif., to ask a judge to order the company that makes Sriracha hot sauce to suspend production."


Port Townsend NEEDS to Do this and SHUT Down the Paper Mill. Folks you are Breathing Massive Toxins. "City Council passes environmental bill of rights" http://smdp.com/city-council-passes-environmental-bill-of-rights/119705



For more Research on the Port Townsend Paper Mill 
and the Stench in 
the Air in Port Townsend


"Air emissions of hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, and other volatile sulfur compounds are the cause of the odor characteristic of pulp mills utilizing the kraft process. Other chemicals that are released into the air and water from most paper mills include the following:[23]
carbon monoxide
ammonia
nitrogen oxide
mercury
nitrates
methanol
benzene
volatile organic compounds, chloroform.
Benzene is a natural constituent of crude oil, and is one of the most elementary petrochemicals. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon and the second [n]-annulene ([6]-annulene), a cyclic hydrocarbon with a continuous pi bond. It is sometimes abbreviated Ph–H. Benzene is a colorless and highly flammable liquid with a sweet smell. It is mainly used as a precursor to heavy chemicals, such as ethylbenzene and cumene, which are produced on a billion kilogram scale. Because it has a high octane number, it is an important component of gasoline, comprising a few percent of its mass. Most non-industrial applications have been limited by benzene’s carcinogenicity."

Data sources

PT Paper’s Pollution Permits. See bottom of page about who regulates the mill.
WA Dept of Ecology Industrial Section’s page for Port Townsend Paper Current activity or other Ecy permits for PT Paper under review . See next link to go directly to PTPC’s water and air permits
Air and water discharge Permits – WA Dept of Ecology Industrial Section. At left-hand side click on “Permits” and scroll to Port Townsend Paper. air=Air Operating Permit. water=NPDES/National Pollution Discharge Elimination [sic] System. Issued for 5 years.
On-site Landfill permit – and related documents. Jeffco WA Health Dept. Toxic site was erroneously changed to “inert” status for a few years. Permit expired in 2009. Citizens brought it to review to revert to “limited purpose”, although it arguably could/should be reviewed for “hazardous” designation. June 2014-still under review.
–Data. Email us for summaries that we’ve compiled. –
toxictrends.org Toxic Trends Mapper – enter “Port Townsend Paper” in the search box. Nice interactive site.
For actual numbers re PTPC’s annual toxic pollutant releases to land-air-water, combine data from these three sources. Be aware of different units – pounds, tons, grams:
1. EPA TRI Explorer – Look up PTPC’s releases of toxic pollutants to air-water-soil. Under “geographic location”, select “zip code” in the drop-down list and enter zip code 98368; select the year of interest and click Generate Report.
ORCAA’s annual “emissions inventory” for Jefferson County used to be online. Now you must email and ask for them. Then extract the info for Port Townsend Paper.
3. eGGRT/EPA’s electronic greenhouse gas reporting tool . PTPC emits around 610,000 *tons* of CO2e annually = 1.6x the rest of Jefferson County, all sources combined. In the center box on the page, enter Washington and on the resulting map, zoom to Port Townsend Paper in Jefferson County.
EPA Envirofacts – Find PTPC’s ownership, facility ID,  registered agents, etc. etc. Some of the links work, some don’t.
–Air monitoring –
ORCAA.org  ORCAA operates a single basic station atop Blue Heron School, where it gets as much clean ocean air as mill air. It comprises a “nephelometer” measures and tracks PM 2.5, PM 10.0 and a weather station. The link to the station is easy to find. The historic data, not so much. If you find it before I do, send it and I’ll post it.
 ——-WHO REGULATES THE MILL———
In the 1970′s the Federal Clean Air Act was enacted; EPA delegated implementation to state ecology departments, who in turn delegated enforcement to smaller “regional air authorities.” However, three industries — kraft pulp mills, aluminum smelters, and concrete plants — worked backroom deals to be regulated by the state departments of ecology. Thus, air pollution permitting Nippon Paper in Port Angeles is under ORCAA, while Port Townsend Paper, a kraft pulp mill, is under WA’s Department of Ecology Industrial Section. The different agencies have different cultures and apply different standards.
On-site landfill is regulated by the Jefferson County Health Department
ASB – aerated stabilization basin, 35-acre wastewater treatment “pond”. Ecology does not require a permit for this foetid morass. We are looking into it. Until Jefferson County’s March 2014 SMP/Shoreline Master Plan update, the ASB was included in Port Townsend Bay’s shoreline, so activity within the ASB should have been overseen by the Army Corp of Engineers but we have found no record of such oversight being exercised.
Wood chip storage – we have not learned of any permitting required for what looks to be 35+ acres of mountains of chips, although every 5-10 years they seem to burst into fire.
Remediation funds – aka “Financial assurances”. Industrial sites are legally supposed to post escrow funds to cover eventual costs of cleaning up toxic legacies. WA Dept of Ecology has not required Port Townsend Paper to do so, leaving Jeffco and WA taxpayers liable for $millions in costs.
Other reporting –
Certification of fuels –
Reprocessed fuel oil (about 20% of PTPC’s fuel) – ?
Construction waste (about 30% of PTPC’s fuel?) – ?
Barge deliveries of chips, fuel oil — U.S. Coast Guard
Truck deliveries of chips, fuel oil — WA Dept of Ecology Industrial Section
Spills from barge deliveries — ?
On-site asbestos abatement — ? PTPC’s environmental compliance manager says that PTPC files annual reports about on-site asbestos. ORCAA & Ecology deny their having any oversight duties. Perhaps WISHA (WA equivalent of OSHA)? 

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting out 500 lbs of oil and grease daily? IS this Acceptable levels by law???

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting out 1,000 lbs. ammonia daily? IS this Acceptable levels by law???

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting out 53,337 lbs. sulphates daily ? IS this Acceptable levels by law???

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting out 10,314 lbs magnesium daily ? IS this Acceptable levels by law???

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting an unlawful amount of toxins into the Air?

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting an unlawful amount of toxins into the Soil?

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill putting an unlawful amount of toxins into the Water?

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill in Federal and State Compliance for REAL, or is someone paid off somewhere?

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill reporting accurately on any aquifer testing ?

Is the Port Townsend Paper Mill Environmental Director acting withing the law on all issues?

Was there EVER falsified reports of Toxicity in the history of the Port Townsend Paper Mill ?

I Say SUE all AMCOL Board of Directors for Poisoning you, 
KNOWINGLY, with Actual Malice and Willful, Wanton Intent

"John Hughes | age 69, Chairman of the Board; Chief Executive Officer of AMCOL from 1985 until 2000. While Chief Executive Officer of AMCOL, Mr. Hughes developed a special understanding of the workings of AMCOL. He has used this experience to make contributions while on the Board.
Ryan McKendrick| age 60, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since January 2011. Prior thereto, Chief Operating Officer of AMCOL since January 2010, Senior Vice President of AMCOL and President of CETCO since 1998, and President of Volclay International Corporation since 2002. Mr. McKendrick has made contributions to the Board using his extensive knowledge of AMCOL developed during his service in various positions with the Company.
Arthur Brown| age 71, Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Hecla Mining Company, a producer of precious metals. Also a director of Idaho Independent Bank and Chairman of the Board of Silvermex Resources Ltd., an emerging silver producer. Mr. Brown has extensive mining experience, management and financial experience in various leadership positions as well as board experience, and has contributed his experience to the Board.
Daniel P. Casey | age 69, Private investor since 2002. Retired Chief Financial Officer and Vice Chairman of the Board of Gaylord Container Corporation, a manufacturer and distributor of brown paper and packaging products. Also retired Chairman of the Board of Caraustar Industries, Inc., a recycled packaging company. Mr. Casey has made contributions to the Board based on his board and financial management experience.
Frederick J. Palensky, Ph.D | age 62, Executive Vice President, Research and Development and Chief Technology Officer of 3M Company, a diversified technology company, since 2006. Prior thereto, Dr. Palensky served in a variety of management positions during his 35 year career at 3M. From 2004 through 2011, Dr. Palensky served as a director of Shigematsu Works Co. LTD, a manufacturer of particulate and chemical cartridge respirators in Japan. Dr. Palensky’s extensive management experience and technical expertise has enabled him to make contributions to the Board.
Jay D. Proops | age 70, Private investor since 1995. Prior thereto, Vice Chairman and co-founder of The Vigoro Corporation, a manufacturer and distributor of fertilizers and related products. Mr. Proops’ financial and public company experience has resulted in continued contributions to the Board.
Clarence O. Redman | age 69, Retired. Previously, of counsel to Locke Lord LLP from 1997 to 2007, the law firm that serves as corporate counsel to AMCOL. Secretary of AMCOL from 1982 to 2007. Mr. Redman’s experience as managing partner of a law firm, as well as his insight into AMCOL developed as outside counsel and Secretary, have led to contributions to the Board.
Dale E. Stahl | age 64, Executive Chairman of Port Townsend Holdings Company, Inc., a manufacturer of containerboard and corrugated packaging, since January 2011. Mr. Stahl served as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer from 2000 through 2003 of Inland Paperboard and Packaging, Inc., a manufacturer of containerboard and corrugated boxes. Prior thereto, Mr. Stahl served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Gaylord Container Corporation. Mr. Stahl has executive and operational experience developed in leadership positions at various companies which he has used to contribute to his service on the Board.
Audrey L. Weaver | age 57, Private investor for at least the last 5 years. Ms. Weaver continues to use her knowledge of AMCOL and Board experience to contribute to the Board.
Paul C. Weaver | age 49, Private investor since 2006. Prior thereto, Vice President of Information Resources, Inc. from 2002 to 2006 and Managing Partner of Consumer Aptitudes, Inc. from 1997 to 2002 (both companies engage in marketing research). Mr. Weaver has extensive experience in marketing, as well as consumer and retailer research. He has made continued contributions to the operations of the Board.

Donald J. Gallagher | age 60, Mr. Gallagher, has served in a variety of management positions during his 31 year career at Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. and currently serves as Executive Vice President and President, Global Commercial. Mr. Gallagher served as Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer from 2003 through 2006. Cliffs Natural Resources is an international mining and natural resources company. Mr. Gallagher also serves on the Board of Directors of Fifth Third Bank’s NE Ohio affiliate.
William H. Schumann, III | age 61, Mr. Schumann, is scheduled to retire from FMC Technologies, Inc. on August 31 after serving in a variety of financial and management positions during his 31 year career at FMC Corporation and FMC Technologies. Mr. Schumann currently serves as an Executive Vice President and served as Chief Financial Officer from 2001 to 2011 at FMC Technologies. FMC Technologies is a leading global provider of technology solutions for the energy industry. Mr. Schumann also serves on the Board of Directors of Avnet, Inc., a distributor of electronic components, enterprise computer and storage products and embedded subsystems.



Other Possible Defendants

Dale E. Stahl , Roger Hagan

Amcol International Corp.

PT Holdings Company, Inc.

USDA, Forest Service
(Quilcene River Obligations and Liability)
Jefferson County Health Department

WA Dept. of Ecology

State of Washington Water Pollution Control

Washington State Department of Ecology

EPA

PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION


Also you can file Criminal Charges against these same folks, and you don't need an attorney to file these lawsuits. You have RIGHTS.


Start a Blog, Upload a Video, Make a STAND Port Townsend. You have LEGAL Rights. THESE folks don't live here, for the most part. They simply make money from POISONING YOU.