Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012- August
File Copy • Jefferson County Board of.1 fealth .agenda .tel inutes • August 16, 2012 • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH • August 16, 2012 Masonic Hall 1338 Jefferson St. Port Townsend,WA 2:30—4:30 PM DRAFT AGENDA I. Approval of Agenda II. Approval of Minutes of July 19,2012 Board of Health Meeting III. Old Business and Informational Items 1. Nurse Family Partnership Regional Approach 2. Pertussis Update and Vaccine Report 3. West End Natural Resources News 4. Rabies in WA State, Testing of Bats 5. Department of Ecology Cleanup of Irondale Smelter 6. Shellfish Closure Updates • 7. Response to Questions from BOH 7-19-2012 IV. New Business 1. School Exception Rates 2. Drug and Alcohol Community Prevention Planning Process-2012 3. Student Based Health Centers Annual Report 4. Big Quilcene Fishing Season— Septage and Solid Waste 5. Budget V. Activity Update VI. Public Comments VII. Agenda Planning Calendar: Environmental Health Fee planning VIII. Next Scheduled Meeting: September 20, 2012 2:30—4:30 pm Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan St. Port Townsend, WA 98368 • P JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MINUTES • Thursday, July 20, 2012 2:30 PM—4:30 PM Masonic Hall, Port Townsend, WA 98368 Board Members Staff Members Phil Johnson, Chair, County Commissioner District#1 Thomas Locke,MD,MPH Health Officer David Sullivan, County Commissioner,District#2 Jean Baldwin,Public Health Services Director John Austin, County Commissioner,District#3 Julia Danskin,Nursing Services Director Roberta Frissell,citizen at large(County) Jared Keefer,Environmental Health Services Director Catharine Robinson,Port Townsend City Council Sheila Westerman, Citizen at large(City) Jill Buhler, Vice Chair,Hospital Commissioner,District#2 Chair Johnson called the meeting of the Jefferson County Board of Health to order at 2:35 PM. A quorum was present. Members Present: Phil Johnson, David Sullivan, John Austin, Jill Buhler, Catharine Robinson, Roberta Frissell, Sheila Westerman Staff Present: Dr. Thomas Locke, Veronica Shaw, Julia Danskin, Jared Keefer, Cathy Avery APPROVAL OF AGENDA . Member Austin moved to approve the agenda for the July 20,2012 BOH meeting; Member Buhler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Member Sullivan requested on page 3 under Public Comment Peter Lauritze be changed to Peter Lauritzen. Member Robinson requested that all JCPH staff present at the BOH meeting be listed under Staff Present. She also requested on page 2 under Northwest Public Health Journal "Dean of Public Health,Dr. Howard Frumkin" be changed to "Dean of University of Washington School of Public Health and Community Medicine,Dr. Howard Frumkin". Member Frissell moved to approve the minutes of the June 21,2012 BOH meeting as amended; Member Robinson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS and INFORMATIONAL ITEMS JC-WQ Award Puget Sound Champion Jared Keefer announced the JCPH water quality department received an award from the Puget Sound Partnership for their efforts and coordination in partnering with Kitsap County, the tribes and Mason County on the Hood Canal Regional Pollution Identification and Control Program. • Whooping cough vaccine and rates Dr. Locke updated the Board on the current status of the Washington State Whooping Cough • epidemic. There are currently more than 3,000 confirmed cases of Whooping Cough statewide, which Dr. Locke pointed out likely under represents the true number of cases. Not people with positive pertussis tests meet the strict criteria to be counted as a confirmed case and many adults with pertussis have mild symptoms and are not tested. Dr. Locke stated the number of infants affected is monitored very closely. There have been 173 confirmed cases in infants, 38 of whom were hospitalized. Dr. Locke also discussed new research that suggests immunity induced by the childhood version of the acellular pertussis vaccine does not last as long as previously thought. He stated this makes it all the more important for children to receive all of their booster doses and for adolescents and adults to receive the TdaP (Tetanus, diphtheria, acellular Petussis) vaccine. } Local Health Boards Alliance Dr. Locke reviewed the draft charter of the newly formed Local Health Boards Alliance. The purpose of the Alliance is to exchange information among Washington State Local Boards of Health and coordinate policies and programs activities. The Alliance members also intend to work with Washington State Association of Counties and the Washington State Association of Public Health Official to work collectively to maintain and improve the public health system in Washington State. JCPH web page FAQ's to answer public questions f _ Jared Keefer reviewed a press release, which was included in the agenda packet, that states JCPH has posted a new link on their website to key documents regarding the history of the Port Townsend Paper Company's inert waste landfill, a link to Frequently Asked Questions, and relevant public documents. The site will be updated periodically by JCPH. County Budget Schedule Veronica Shaw stated the County Budget Schedule was included for the Boards information and she hopes to have budget projections available by the August 2012 BOH meeting. Letters from Citizens Jared Keefer stated the correspondence received by JCPH has been included in the agenda packet in order to keep the Board informed of what is being received. THRIVE Grant Award to Bridge Partnership for NFP Veronica Shaw informed the Board that JCPH has been awarded the THRIVE by FIVE Grant, which will support a partnership with Kitsap and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe and will also help fund a replacement of the former nurse position, which was held by Quen Zorrah. • 4. • NEW BUSINESS Electronic Health Records—JCPH Moves Forward Veronica Shaw announced a staff team has reviewed several Electronic Health Records Systems and have chosen a bid from the e-MDs system. Funding for this system is being provided through a federal grant under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Sampling County Lakes,Health Risks See Press Release Greg Thomason, Environmental Health Specialist, gave a presentation on the lake toxin monitoring program which began in 2006 after 2 dogs died at Anderson Lake from Anatoxin poisoning. Mr. Thomason explained the 2 different toxins being tested are Anatoxin-A and Mycrocystin and the effects the 2 toxins have on people and animals. Mr. Thomason also explained the life cycle of the algae blooms that cause of toxins to be released in the lakes. Since 2007 the program has been running on about 75% grant money from DOE and 25% from county funds. Mr. Thomason described the process of monitoring each lake, the time frame of receiving the testing results, who is notified, recommendations that are made from the testing results, and the cost of sampling the lakes. Mr. Thomason also discussed methods of cleaning up the toxins from the lakes. Local Shellfish Closures—Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning Alison Petty, Environmental Health Specialist, gave a presentation on shellfish safety and the • marine biotoxins that affect the safety of shellfish in Jefferson County. She explained the newest biotoxin to be found in Washington State is Okadaic Acid which causes Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning (DSP). She described the symptoms of DSP and the process for testing for DSP. Beginning in 2010, the Department of Health,started testing water and mussel samples for the presence of the toxins. In 2011 they found trace amounts of toxin. When people began to get sick from DSP, DSP testing was added to Department of Health's regular testing. Alison explained how the State uses the Sentinel Mussel Program to test for rising toxin levels. She also described Environmental Health's role in collecting specimens, notifying the public of closures when toxins are detected, and responding to the public's concerns about shellfish safety. Affordability Care Act—State Impacts Dr. Locke informed the Board that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to the Supreme Court's decision, several state agencies prepared reports on the impacts that repeal of the ACA would have on Washington State. Copies of these reports are included in the agenda packet. Dr. Locke outlined the positive outcomes of the bill such as expanding the Medicaid system, making private sector insurance more affordable, giving small businesses tax incentives for purchasing insurance and restricting insurance company's ability to disqualify people for insurance. Dr. Locke pointed out the summary prepared by the Washington State Insurance Commissioner details the projected impacts of the Affordable Care Act on each county. Dr. Locke described that in Jefferson County by the end of.2013 about 4500 residents • will be uninsured and about 71% of those residents will be eligible for subsidized insurance under the ACA. Dr. Locke next reviewed the Prevention and Public Health Fund. This fund is authorized by the Affordable Care Act and appropriated 15 billion dollars over 10 years for • funding a wide range of programs such as substance abuse,public health capacity building, and expansion of visiting nurse programs. These funds have become a target of members of Congress who wanted to spend this money on non-public health related issues. As a result, how much funding will be available over the next 8-9 years is uncertain. Potential positive impacts of Prevention and Public Health fund authorized programs in Jefferson County include improve public health capacity, environmental Health tracking capabilities, increased funding for the visiting nurse program. He also explained how the health insurance reform has public health benefits such as guaranteed preventative health services and annual wellness visits. He concluded by stating that making sure everyone has access to effective basic health services an important part of achieving the goal of improving community health. ACTIVITY UPDATE None • PUBLIC COMMENT Gene Brandon asked if within the 1St year assessment there will be an independent firm to give accurate data. Dave McWethy thanked JCPH for responding to the public and putting access to the public records on line. He also addressed the issue of pH in the mill landfill. • • Monica Fletcher read a letter from the North Olympic Sierra Club which addressed the permitting of the landfill at the mill, pH levels of the landfill and recommended issuing a limited purpose permit for the landfill. Kevin Clark questioned the authority of issuing the permit for the mill landfill being held by one individual and asked for the current and historical waste to be analyzed to determine the designation of the landfill. Gretchen Brewer thanked the Board for continuing to consider the issue of the mill landfill and expressed concern over the toxins being leached into the land from the landfill and the non-inert waste that is dumped in to the mill and urged the decision to be based on the historic and present waste that has been deposited in to the dump. Lyle expressed concern over the ground water testing and drilling not being in appropriate places and urged the board to change their principles to be precautionary principles when evaluating waste. He also addressed the electronic public health records and housing first. Mike Phimister asked the Board what considerations they have given in regard to potential tourism,business development, and property values. • 4S Valerie Phimister supports the decision to move toward a limited purpose permit for the mill's • landfill and expressed her concern over the mill using a bait and switch tactic. Kees Kolff thanked the Board for the time they have taken on concerns of the burning of biomass at the mill and urged Dr. Locke to make the decision to issue a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit. Helen Kolff urged Dr. Locke and the Board to look at the quality of what is being put in to the landfill and the environmental and financial implications and to issue a Limited Purpose Permit. Steven Schumacher is concerned about the monitoring of the effects of the biomass project and that monitoring data is not accurate. O'Neill Louchard expressed concern over toxins being leached to the shellfish and spoke in favor of issuing a Limited Purpose Permit for the mill landfill. Pam McWethy expressed concern over the financial implications of proper clean up of the toxic ash pile at the mill and who would be responsible for'the'cleanup. Ted Shoulberg asked why if the regulationsaand RCW's allow for 2 classifications, then what statutory or discretionary authority does Driiocke grant waivers from those 2 classifications. Dr. Locke responded to the public comment He expressed his appreciation for the e-mails, letters,technical data and documents that have been receivedf from the public. Dr. Locke • addressed the issue of the notion of the power of the decision for the mill permit resting solely with the health officer. He stated that the solid waste code assigns the responsibility to the local health officer to make the initial decision to approve or deny a landfill permit. That decision is subject to appeal to the local board of health with can affirm or reverse the health officer's decision. Further appeals can be filed with the Superior Court, Appellate Court and State Supreme Court. Dr. Locke summarized his official actions to date. In October he reviewed the mill's permit and determined that it failed to addresses significant public health concerns. He notified the mill that their landfill was inappropriately classified and an inert waste landfill and needed to be reclassified as a limited purpose landfill designation. Port Townsend Paper Corporation challenged this decision and felt they could effectively address the identified public health(i.e. groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and waste stream characterization) within the existing inert permit structure. Port Townsend Paper Corporation is responsible for submitting an application for renewal of their permit. Jefferson County has the responsibility to review this application and,with concurrence from the Department of Ecology, either approve or deny this permit application. No application has yet been received and no decisions regarding approval or denial have been made. AGENDA PLANNING CALENDAR Adjourned at 4:54 pm s. ADJOURNMENT Chair Johnson adjourned the BOH meeting at 4:30 PM • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH Phil Johnson, Chair Jill Buhler, Vice Chair Roberta Frissell, Member David Sullivan, Member Catharine Robinson, Member John Austin, Member Sheila Westerman, Member • Respectfully Submitted: Stacie Reid Board of aCealth OCd Business & InformationaCltems .Agenda Item #1"II., 1 � Nurse Family Partnership RegionalApproach .August 16, 2012 We Are Public Health—Northwest Center for Public Health Practice Page 1 of 2 We Are Public Health • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul 2011 Postcards We ari/eib tic health. g s We improve health • for at-risk children. Children born to low-income, r first-time mothers are at �► higher risk for poor health ` outcomes.The Nurse-Family Partnership(NFP)connects these mothers to public health nurses who offer education and C � ,, support so children can have a t_ 4.0 healthy start in life.Jefferson County Public Health in northwestern Washington _ State has offered NFP since 1999. - o c° North -st cense �0 Public • Photo courtesy of Nur se-FamityPartnership ' PFp•:a•,w-arrpubiic-h®k4i We are public health. We improve health outcomes for at-risk children. Children born to low-income,first-time mothers are at higher risk for poor health outcomes. In response, many health departments across the United States offer programs to support at-risk families. One such program is the Nurse-Family Partnership(NFP). NFP is an evidence-based program that is based on over 3o years of research from randomized, controlled trials. This research shows that NFP consistently improves pregnancy outcomes and child health. At the heart of NFP is a powerful collaboration between a public health nurse and a first-time expectant mother. By making regular home visits,the nurse provides information and support so that the mother has the tools she needs for a healthy pregnancy. Home visits continue after birth until the child turns two years old. NFP currently serves over 22,000 clients across 41 states. Currently, there are 11 agencies that offer NFP in Washington State. NFP first began in Washington in 1999 when a group of four county health districts formed a consortium to implement the program. Quen Zorrah, PHN, currently serving as NFP State Nurse Consultant for Washington State,was working for Jefferson County Public Health at the time. "In 1999,we saw we had a higher-than-state average of child abuse and neglect in Jefferson County.We chose NFP because we wanted to have some confidence that there would be both long-and short-term changes." http://www.nwcphp.org/publications/we-are-public-health 8/9/2012 We Are Public Health—Northwest Center for Public Health Practice Page=2 of 2 Three years ago, Zorrah and others in Jefferson County wanted to enhance their existing NFP with a short questionnaire that was created from exciting new research. This research was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with Kaiser Permanente's Health Appraisal Clinic in San Diego, California. Called the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study,this research suggested a strong correlation between specific adverse childhood experiences and health outcomes. • The short questionnaire from the ACE Study that Jefferson County Public Health is using quickly accesses the number of adverse childhood events a person has experienced. The higher the score,the more likely the individual will suffer from chronic disease and a number of other health challenges. Because NFP is designed to help families reduce or prevent adverse childhood events,use of this questionnaire was a natural fit with the Jefferson County Public Health's NFP. Zorrah says, "We thought that this information would help motivate our clients to make changes in their health behavior. Because parents have such potential to reduce lifetime chronic disease for their children,we felt we had a responsibility to share this information." Another NFP enhancement Jefferson County Public Health is using takes a completely different approach. Jean Baldwin,MSN,ARNP,Jefferson County Public Health Director,is working to make Jefferson County Public Health a"hub"for NFP programs in northwestern Washington. To this end, Jefferson County Public Health currently supervises NFP nurses who are working in the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. Plans to supervise visiting nurses in neighboring Kitsap County are underway.This leveraging of resources across counties and tribal health districts allows the spread of services in resource-constrained times. Baldwin says, "How do you keep expertise if you are a small department? You share it.When we take a regional approach,it allows us to share funding and expertise.While we do face challenges with this,we also know we are on the right track." View NFP outcomes data from Washington State. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy has listed NFP as a good public investment. Learn more. • i http://www.nwcphp.org/publications/we-are-public-health 8/9/2012 • Board of 3Cealtfi OCd Business & informational Items .agenda item # ill, 2 • Pertussis llpdate and- 'Vaccine Report August i6, 2 01 ,t a 7 0 *Hent alth Weekly pertussis update for Washington State 2012 year to date (YTD) confirmed and probable cases reported through 8/4/2012 (week 31) 4, This update summarizes reports of pertussis in persons with 2012 onsets received by local health jurisdictions (LHJs) during weeks 1-31, made visible to Washington State Department of Health (DOH) - Communicable Disease Epidemiology, and containing sufficient information for a DOH case classification to have been assigned. • There have been a total of 3,400 cases reported statewide through week 31, compared to 287 reported cases in 2011 during the same time period. Dates for the 2011/2012 comparison were based on LHJ notification date. Number of Pertussis Cases Reported in WA State by Notification Week 2011 vs.2012 YTD (8/4112) 260 Additional cases may have occurred, 12240 especially in the most recent three weeks, I that are not yet available to nOH 42 220 0 `0.200 - 0 180 ---- -0 E 160 c 140 0 ..120 w cy X100 ea U 80 0 60 o 40 — — — 120 .1111 1U � - - __77 r 1 ,-+ 1 hp1 1 + 1 1('/)11 1t�1(tpp1 1��pp1pp��1pp1 1 1 411/ e-N(n Vu�( '"")0.-NchVN(ON"C9;71 NNNNNNNMMMMgM TC:1-82.9OOQ4Q 1.4-44 ISI) Notification week %Ave.Sur Deponent 0 0 Health •2012 2011 WA State Pertussis Cases Reported by Month and Year with Projected Baseline and Epidemic Thresholds 2005-2011 and 2012 YTD(through May) 850 800 . 750 2 700 CI' 650 O 600 .i 550 E 500 C 450 o 400 w 350 y 300 V 250 `0 200 Bas line* Epidemic Threshold E 1 -_;;;L rC '-_ -- 3 _ ro n ° 0 A ,moo ,moo '`' , 0 'gyp' 'p`' jc�P� ,P , A ,��A P ,�4 5�' , 1Y `"je qac II ....s.,....„„,,„.,4 Onset Month and Year 'The highest 5960 monthly data values Healthwere excluded when projecting the baseline. Page 1 of 4 *- • Four counties have reported no pertussis activity in 2012. • Among the thirty-five counties with pertussis activity, the number of pertussis cases reported in a given county so far this year ranges from 1 to 544, and the year to date rate of disease in a given county ranges from 2.3 to 452.6 per 100,000 persons (see Table 1). a The median and mean county rates in counties reporting pertussis activity are 38.2 and 53.4 per 0 100,000 persons year to date, respectively. • The overall incidence year to date is 50.5 pertussis cases per 100,000 Washington residents with a rate in infants under one year of age of 241.7 per 100,000 (see Table 2). Two hundred and fourteen infants under one year of age were reported as having whooping cough and forty-three of them were hospitalized. Of those hospitalized, thirty-five (81%) were very young (three months of age or younger). Adolescents aged 10-13 years old also have a high incidence rate, 238.2 per 100,000, and comprise 24% of the total cases. Table 1. WA State pertussis cases by county, Table 2. WA State pertussis cases by age group, 2012 YTD 2012 YTD 2010 OFM Number Rate per Age Number Rate per % cases County Population of 100,000 Group 2010 OFM of 100,000 by age cases persons (years) Population Cases persons group Adams 18,300 2 10.9 <1 88,544 214 241.7 6.3 Benton 172,900 52 30.1 1-4 355,275 384 108.1 11.3 Chelan 73,300 30 40.9 5-9 432,656 659 152.3 19.4 Clallam 70,100 22 31.4 10-13 346,396 825 238.2 24.3 • Clark 435,600 224 51.4 14-18 454,703 618 135.9 18.2 Columbia 4,150 2 48.2 19-24 577,706 106 18.3 3.1 Cowlitz 100,000 65 65.0 25-44 1,830,703 335 18.3 9.9 Douglas 38,500 7 18.2 45-64 1,823,910 202 11.1 5.9 Ferry 7,850 3 38.2 65+ 823,357 57 6.9 1.7 Franklin 75,500 32 42.4 410 Grant 87 700 22 25 1 All ages 6,733,250 3,400 50.5 Grays Harbor 71,600 16 22.3 Island 81,100 41 50.6 Jefferson 29,300 23 78.5 King 1,933,400 544 28.1 Kitsap 248,300 71 28.6 Kittitas 40,500 25 61.7 Klickitat 20,500 5 24.4 (------- ---__----_,--_-- _-- Lewis 75,600 62 82.0 WA State Pertussis Rates by Age Group Lincoln 10,500 2 19.0 2005-2011 Mason 57,100 12 21.0 >`' 225 Okanogan 40,900 12 29.3 0 200 Pacific 22,100 1 4.5 0 175 Pend Oreille 13,100 2 15.3 0 150 Pierce 814,600 517 63.5 0 125 f San Juan 16,500 11 66.7 Q- 100 Skagit 119,300 540 452.6 c 75 Snohomish 711,100 417 58.6 14; 50 !.a 25 Spokane 470,300 78 16.6 Stevens - = - 44,300 18 40.6 0 Thurston 252,400 25 9.9 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Walla Walla 59,600 40 67.1 -..-<t year -1-4 years 5-18 years -19-64 years 65,years Whatcom 195,500 251 128.4 Whitman 43,600 1 2.3 Affeariii Yakima 239,100 225 94.1 Note.Counties with no reported cases classified as confirmed or probable,2012:Asotin,Garfield,Skamania,and Wahkiakum. • Page 2 of 4 Recent Pertussis Incidence by County (March - May 2012 Onsets) • , it � yin Incidence per 100,000 population 10.0 I 10.1-9.9 MI 10.0-19.9 > =20.0 • • Page 3 of 4 DOH 348-254 August 2012 Table 3. Cumulative number of confirmed and Table 4. Summary of reported pertussis cases* probable pertussis cases reported in WA State included in the previous 2012 weekly updates by 2012 LHJ notification week(through 8/4) posted online Notification Cumulative Number Number of Notification Date of Number of • Week of 2012 Cases New Cases Week Data Retrieval Cases 1 1 1 3 1/23 10 2 8 7 4 1/30 36 3 30 22 5 2/6 68 4 68 38 6 2/13 107 5 118 50 7 2/20 175 6 183 65 8 2/27 240 7 261 78 9 3/5 313 8 322 61 10 3/12 375 9 397 75 11 3/19 463 10 493 96 12 3/26 549 11 595 102 13 4/2 640 12 693 98 14 4/9 776 13 794 101 15 4/16 897 14 901 107 16 4/23 1,008 15 1,014 113 17 4/30 1,132 16 1,187 173 18 5/7 1,284 17 1,378 191 19 5/14 1,484 18 1,578 200 20 5/21 1,738 19 1,788 210 21 5/29 1,947 20 2,042 254 22 6/4 2,092 21 2,236 194 23 6/11 2,325 22 2,401 165 24 6/18 2,520 23 2,579 178 25 6/25 2,647 24 2,717 138 26 7/2 2,786 25 2,853 136 27 7/9 2,883 26 2,987 134 28 7/16 3,014 4. 27 3,079 92 29 7/23 3,180 28 3,186 107 30 7/30 3,285 29 3,277 91 "Note: These case counts do not correspond to the actual 30 3#373 96 cumulative number of cases by LHJ notification week,but rather the cumulative number of cases that had been available 3"I 3,400 27 to DOH at the time each week's update was created. Note: Additional cases may have occurred,especially in the most recent three weeks,that are not yet made available to DOH. If you have a disability and need this document in a different format,please call 1-800-525-0127(TDD/TTY 1-800-833-6388). • Page 4 of 4 DOH 348-254 August 2012 • Board of.9Cealt( 0 C Business & Informational Items .Agenda Item # 17I, 3 West End Natural � Resources News .august 16, 2012 Board of feaCth 0 C Business & Informational-Items ,agenda Item #III., 4 • Rabies in Ay„A State, westing of Bats .august 16, 2012 rage 1 u� L 12-092-RabiesifWABats :: Washington Mate wept. of rreaiin 4( f 405 ea 1 • News Release For immediate release: July 17, 2012 (12-092) Contacts: Julie Graham, Communications Office 360-236-4022 Rabies found in WA bats; recent incidents highlight the risk for rabies Anyone having contact with a bat should be evaluated for risk of rabies OLYMPIA - Bats in Washington often test positive for rabies, and this year already, three people had to be treated for exposure to rabid bats. The Department of Health tests bats that have been caught after coming in contact with people. Every year, people in the state require medical treatment following contact with bats that test positive for rabies. Rabid bats have been found in almost every county in Washington. Rabies virus is spread in the saliva of an infected animal, most commonly through a bite. There's a chance a person can catch the virus if infected saliva gets in the eyes, nose, or mouth, or gets in a scratch or wound in the skin. Rabies is a fatal disease, but it can be prevented with prompt medical care following a bite or other exposure to rabies virus. Treatment is a series of shots given on a specific schedule over a 14-day period. • If you are bitten by a bat, or another animal, clean the wound with soap and water and get medical attention. Any direct contact with a bat should be carefully evaluated. Likewise, when a bat is found indoors the situation should be evaluated. This is particularly important if a person wakes up and finds a bat in a room where they or another person were sleeping. Bat teeth are very small and sharp and a wound from a bat bite may not be visible; a bat bite might not even be felt by a sleeping person. Call your local health agency for help evaluating people or pets that may have been exposed to bats in the home. They can help arrange to test the bat for rabies, if needed. When an animal tests positive for rabies, people who were exposed to the animal must be vaccinated to protect them from the disease. Never touch a wild bat or any other wild animal. Healthy bats usually don't come near enough to be touched. A bat that is slow, lying on the ground, or that lands on a person could be showing signs of illness. If you can touch the animal, chances are it's sick. Important bat safety tips: Teach children that if they find a bat they should not touch it, or any wild animals, and that they should always immediately go tell an adult. "Bat proof" your home by making sure open windows have screens and that other small entry points—such as cracks, crevices, or holes—are sealed. • http://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/2012NewsReleases/12092RabiesinWABats.aspx 8/9/2012 12-092-Rabiesin W A13ats :: Washington Mate 1Jept. or Heaitn rage z 01 If a bat is in your home or cabin, wait until the bat lands on the floor or a wall. Wear leather or other thick gloves to capture the bat in a can or box without touching it. Close the container and call your local health agency. Pets are a potential source of rabies exposure. Make sure pets are vaccinated against rabies, as required by state law. Although it's rare for a pet to contract rabies, it can happen. • The virus can be transmitted from bats to pets as well as other wild animals. If you're traveling to a country where rabies is common, talk to your health care provider about receiving rabies prevention treatment before you go. The Department of Health website (doh.wa.gov) is your source for a healthy dose of information. Also, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. ### Print Version PDF • • http://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/2012NewsReleases/12092RabiesinWABats.aspx 8/9/2012 • Board of Cealth 0 C Business & Informational items .agenda item # Hi., 5 • Department of Ecology Cleanup of IrondaCe Smelter .august i6, 2 01 Margie Boyd From: Partridge, Sandra (ECY) [shug461@ECY.WA.GOV] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 9:23 AM To: ECOLOGY-NEWS@LISTSERV.WA.GOV Subject: Ecology News Release: Ecology ready to start cleanup work at old Irondale smelter site Washington Department of Ecology news FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Aug. 9, 2012 12-261 Ecology ready to start cleanup work at old Irondale smelter site OLYMPIA - Cleanup work is scheduled to start this month at the former Irondale Iron and Steel smelter site in Jefferson County. The smelter operated from 1881 to 1919 at 526 Moore St. in Irondale. The site is contaminated with metals and total petroleum hydrocarbons from the smelter' s operations. Jefferson County bought the site in 2001 and developed it into the Irondale Beach Park. In 2005, a park visitor reported an oil residue on the beach to the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) . Since then, Ecology has led cleanup investigation efforts. "I'm pleased that this important project is set to begin. It' s going to improve and protect the local environment, plus further our efforts to restore Puget Sound, " said Rebecca Lawson, who manages the cleanup program in Ecology's Southwest region. Pre-construction work is expected to start during the week of Aug. 13, 2012. Actual construction is scheduled to begin the following week. The work is planned to take place when it will least affect fish. Ecology plans to: Remove contaminated soils and sediment. 4, * Install a fabric and soil cap to prevent public exposure to the contaminated soil that will remain on site. * Remove slag, a byproduct of the smelting process, from the beach and restore the beach. * Restore the shoreline between the old plant and the state Department of Fish and Wildlife' s Chimacum Creek restoration site. This will provide long-term benefits for salmon and other fish and birds that use the habitat provided by Irondale Beach Park. The former Irondale smelter site is part of the Puget Sound Initiative. That's an effort by local, tribal, state, and federal governments; business, agricultural and environmental communities; scientists and the public to restore and protect the health of the Sound. See the Irondale Iron and Steel site webpage for more information about the planned cleanup work and Ecology staff contacts: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx? csid=4484. ### Media Contact: Seth Preston, Ecology communications manager, 360-407-6848; 360-584-5744 cell; seth.preston@ecy.wa.gov Irondale Iron and Steel site webpage: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/gsp/Sitepage.aspx?csid= 4484. Read more about Puget Sound Initiative cleanup work: •ttp://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/sites_brochure/psi/overview/psibaywide.html. 1 Board of.3Cealth Old Business & Informational Items .Agenda Item # IIL, 7 Response to Questions from 7/19/2012 .August 16, 2 01 J��soN^�°�a JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH 49,7,r50= 615 Sheridan Street 0 Port Townsend o Washington o 98368 www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org August 8, 2012 To: Jefferson County Board of Health .From: Tom Locke,MD,MPH, Jefferson County Health Officer L Re: Question Regarding Landfill Permitting Raised at July 19, 2012 Board of Health Meeting Thank you for the opportunity to address the following questions posed by Board of Health member Sheila Westerman. 1)Who decides whether a landfill groundwater monitoring plan is adequate and how are samples collected,analyzed,and interpreted? Detailed requirements for groundwater monitoring are included in all landfill permits that require such monitoring. Groundwater monitoring plans must be individually developed for each landfill site and meet the standards set forth in WAC 173-350-500 (attached). These standards comprehensively address site characterization, groundwater monitoring system design, sample and analysis plan and data analysis,notification, and reporting. WAC 173-350-500(4)establishes criteria that must be addressed in each plan(e.g. sample collection and handling or chain-of-custody control). Each plan must address these criteria in sufficient detail to meet approval standards of the local health jurisdiction with concurrence from the Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE). Considerable hydrogeological and engineering expertise is required to determine the adequacy of a site specific groundwater monitoring plan. DOE has expertise in these areas and will play a central role in determining the adequacy of any groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation's (PTPC)landfill. 2) How are the provisions in a landfill permit enforced? Where are the"teeth"? State and local solid waste codes contain detailed enforcement mechanisms ranging from civil infractions to criminal penalties. For permit holders,the most important enforcement authority is the ability to suspend or revoke a permit for non-compliance with its terms. Suspension of a landfill permit requires that the permit holder cease all disposal of regulated waste materials at that site, a significant penalty for an industrial operation. Enforcement of landfill permit requirements is best accomplished by detailed permit language clearly describing all required activities. A permit is,in effect, an agreement of the permit holder CDDE EIL PMENTALD DISABILITIES UNITY HELTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL ATER QUALITY 4110 MAIN: (360)385-9400 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX: (360)385 9401 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 to abide by the conditions of that permit. Failure to carry out required activities subjects the permit holder to suspension or revocation of the permit in addition to potential civil and criminal penalties. 3) Is it possible to do core samples of a landfill to determine what type of waste is currently in the landfill? Borehole studies are routinely performed on landfills to develop groundwater monitoring plans as detailed in WAC 173-350-500(2)(b). I am not aware of any legal authority provided by WAC 173-350 to conduct core sampling of an existing,permitted landfill to determine what wastes have been disposed of in the past. To require something that lies outside the specific authority granted by RCW or WAC,a local health jurisdiction must have a compelling and legally defensible reason. One conceivable reason would be the detection of a contaminant in down gradient groundwater sample that was inconsistent with waste materials known to be present in the landfill. Core sample testing might be a way of determining if that waste product was illegally disposed of in the landfill. Lacking a compelling reason to require such testing, I do not think the local health jurisdiction has the authority to require it. Testing of waste(known as"waste stream characterization") is generally performed on a regular basis on waste as it is brought to the landfill. This waste is sampled according to procedures set forth in the permit. In general, an environmental health specialist should be present at the time of sample collection to assure that samples accurately represent the waste stream being characterized. This requires that an adequate number of randomly distributed samples be taken to assure that the tested samples accurately represent what is going into the landfill. Local health jurisdictions can require "split samples"to be taken,i.e. samples are divided for testing at • different facilities. Who performs specific analytical tests is addressed in the permit. In all cases, it must be done by a certified lab that meets state criteria for quality control for the type of testing being performed. Financial responsibility for all analytical tests performed under a landfill permit(groundwater testing,waste testing)rests with the permit holder. COMMUNITY HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES WATER QUALITY ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360)385-9400 MAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX:(360)385-9401 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 • . WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 1 of WAC 173-350-500 Groundwater monitoring. (1) Groundwater monitoring-Professional qualifications.All reports, plans, procedures,and design specifications required by this section shall be prepared by a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW. (2) Groundwater monitoring-Site characterization.A site proposed for solid waste activities shall be characterized for its • geologic and hydrogeologic properties and suitability for constructing,operating,and monitoring a solid waste facility in accordance with all applicable requirements of this chapter.The site characterization report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall include at a minimum the following: (a)A summary of local and regional geology and hydrology,including: (i) Faults; (ii)Zones of joint concentrations; (iii) Unstable slopes and subsidence areas on-site; (iv)Areas of groundwater recharge and discharge; (v)Stratigraphy;and (vi) Erosional and depositional environments and facies interpretation(s); (b)A site-specific borehole program including description of lithology, soil/bedrock types and properties, preferential groundwater flow paths or zones of higher hydraulic conductivity,the presence of confining unit(s)and geologic features such as fault zones, cross-cutting structures, etc.,and the target hydrostratigraphic unit(s)to be monitored. Requirements of the borehole program include: (i) Each boring will be of sufficient depth below the proposed grade of the bottom liner to identify soil, bedrock,and hydrostratigraphic unit(s); (ii) Boring samples shall be collected from five-foot intervals at a minimum and at changes in lithology. Representative samples shall be described using the unified soil classification system following ASTM D2487-85 and tested for the following if appropriate: (A) Particle size distribution by sieve and hydrometer analyses in accordance with approved ASTM methods(D422 and • D1120);and (B)Atterburg limits following approved ASTM method D4318; (iii) Each lithologic unit on-site will be analyzed for: (A) Moisture content sufficient to characterize the unit using ASTM method D2216; and (B) Hydraulic conductivity by an in situ field method or laboratory method.All samples collected for the determination of permeability shall be collected by standard ASTM procedures; (iv)All boring logs shall be submitted with the following information: (A)Soil and rock descriptions and classifications; (B) Method of sampling; (C)Sample depth, interval and recovery; (D) Date of boring; (E)Water level measurements; (F) Standard penetration number following approved ASTM method D1586-67; (G) Boring location;and (H) Soil test data; (v)All borings not converted to monitoring wells or piezometers shall be carefully backfilled, plugged, and recorded in 40 accordance with WAC 173-160-420; (vi) During the borehole drilling program, any on-site drilling and lithologic unit identification shall be performed under the direction of a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW who is trained to sample and identify soils and bedrock lithology; httn•//anus.lea.wa.2ov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 2 of 3 (vii)An on-site horizontal and vertical reference datum shall be established during the site characterization.The standards for land boundary surveys and geodetic control surveys and guidelines for the preparation of land descriptions shall be used to establish borehole and monitoring well coordinates and casing elevations from the reference datum; (viii)Other methods, including geophysical techniques, may be used to supplement the borehole program to ensure that a sufficient hydrogeologic site characterization is accomplished; (c)A site-specific flow path analysis that includes: (i)The depths to groundwater and hydrostratigraphic unit(s)including transmissive and confining units; and (ii) Potentiometric surface elevations and contour maps, direction and rate of horizontal and vertical groundwater flow; (d) Identification of the quantity, location, and construction (where available)of private and public wells within a two thousand -foot radius, measured from the site boundaries; (e)Tabulation of all water rights for groundwater and surface water within a two thousand-foot(610 m) radius, measured from site boundaries; (f) Identification and description of all surface waters within a one-mile(1.6 km)radius, measured from site boundaries; (g)A summary of all previously collected site groundwater and surface water analytical data,and for expanded facilities, identification of impacts of the existing facility upon ground and surface waters from landfill leachate discharges to date; (h)Calculation of a site water balance; (i) Conceptual design of groundwater and surface water monitoring systems,and where applicable a vadose zone monitoring system, including proposed construction and installation methods for these systems; 0) Description of land use in the area, including nearby residences; (k)A topographic map of the site and drainage patterns,including an outline of the waste management area, property boundary,the proposed location of groundwater monitoring wells,and township and range designations; and (I) Geologic cross sections. (3) Groundwater monitoring-System design. (a)The groundwater monitoring system design and report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall meet the • following criteria: (i)A sufficient number of monitoring wells shall be installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield representative groundwater samples from those hydrostratigraphic units which have been identified in the site characterization as the earliest potential contaminant flowpaths; (ii) Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance,and include at a minimum: (A)A groundwater flow path analysis which supports why the chosen hydrostratigraphic unit is capable of providing an early warning detection of any groundwater contamination. (B) Documentation and calculations of all of the following information: (I) Hydrostratigraphic unit thickness including confining units and transmissive units; (II)Vertical and horizontal groundwater flow directions including seasonal, man-made,or other short-term fluctuations in groundwater flow; (III)Stratigraphy and lithology; (IV) Hydraulic conductivity; and (V) Porosity and effective porosity. (b) Upgradient monitoring wells(background wells)shall meet the following performance criteria: (i)Shall be installed in groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from a landfill unit; or (ii) If hydrogeologic conditions do not allow for the determination of an upgradient monitoring well,then sampling at other monitoring wells which provide representative background groundwater quality may be allowed. • (c) Downgradient monitoring wells(compliance wells)shall meet the following performance criteria: (i) Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance; ht+„•//annc leg.wa.eov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 +WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page .3 of (ii) Be installed as close as practical to the point of compliance; (iii)When physical obstacles preclude installation of groundwater monitoring wells at the relevant point of compliance at the landfill unit or solid waste facility,the downgradient monitoring system may be installed at the closest practical distance hydraulically downgradient from the relevant point of compliance that ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the chosen hydrostratigraphic unit. • (d)All monitoring wells shall be constructed in accordance with chapter 173-160 WAC, Minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells, and chapter 173-162 WAC, Regulation and licensing of well contractors and operators. (e)The owner or operator shall notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of any proposed changes to the design, installation, development, and decommission of any monitoring wells, piezometers,and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices. Proposed changes shall not be implemented prior to the jurisdictional health department's written approval. Upon completing changes,all documentation, including date of change,new monitoring well location maps, boring logs, and monitoring well diagrams, shall be submitted to the jurisdictional health department and shall be placed in the operating record. (f)All monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement, sampling,and analytical devices shall be operated and maintained so that they perform to design specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program. (4) Groundwater monitoring-Sampling and analysis plan. (a)The groundwater monitoring program shall include consistent sampling and analysis procedures that are designed to provide monitoring results that are representative of groundwater quality at the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells. In addition to monitoring wells,facilities with hydraulic gradient control and/or leak detection systems will provide representative groundwater samples from those systems.The owner or operator shall submit a compliance sampling and analysis plan as part of the permit application.The plan shall include procedures and techniques for: (i) Sample collection and handling; (ii) Sample preservation and shipment; (iii)Analytical procedures; (iv)Chain-of-custody control; (v)Quality assurance and quality control; • (vi) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment; (vii) Procedures to ensure employee health and safety during well installation and monitoring; and (viii)Well operation and maintenance procedures. (b) Facilities collecting leachate shall include leachate sampling and analysis as part of compliance monitoring. (c)The groundwater monitoring program shall include sampling and analytical methods that are appropriate for groundwater samples.The sampling and analytical methods shall provide sufficient sensitivity, precision, selectivity and limited bias such that changes in groundwater quality can be detected and quantified.All samples shall be sent to an accredited laboratory for analyses in accordance with chapter 173-50 WAC,Accreditation of environmental laboratories. (d) Groundwater elevations shall be measured in each monitoring well immediately prior to purging, each time groundwater is sampled.The owner or operator shall determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow each time groundwater is sampled.All groundwater elevations shall be determined by a method that ensures measurement to the one hundredth of a foot (3 mm) relative to the top of the well casing. (e)Groundwater elevations in wells that monitor the same landfill unit shall be measured within a period of time short enough to avoid any groundwater fluctuations which could preclude the accurate determination of groundwater flow rate and direction. (f)The owner or operator shall establish background groundwater quality in each upgradient and downgradient monitoring well.Background groundwater quality shall be based upon a minimum of eight independent samples. Samples shall be collected for each monitoring well and shall be analyzed for parameters required in the permit for the first year of groundwater monitoring. Each independent sampling event shall be no less than one month after the previous sampling event. (g)Groundwater quality shall be determined at each monitoring well at least quarterly during the active life of the solid waste facility,including closure and the post-closure period. More frequent monitoring may be required to protect downgradient water supply wells. Groundwater monitoring shall begin after background groundwater quality has been established.The owner or • operator may propose an alternate groundwater monitoring frequency. Groundwater monitoring frequency must be no less than semiannually.The owner or operator must apply for a permit modification or must apply during the renewal process for changes in groundwater monitoring frequency making a demonstration based on the following information: (i)A characterization of the hydrostratigraphic unit(s) including the unsaturated zone,transmissive and confining units and 1,+,--,-,-Hrn c lea wa_gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 4 of 5 include the following: (A) Hydraulic conductivity; and (B)Groundwater flow rates; (ii) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the solid waste handling unit and downgradient monitoring wells • (minimum distance of travel); and (iii) Contaminant fate and transport characteristics. (h)All facilities shall test for the following parameters: (i) Field parameters: (A) pH; (B)Specific conductance; (C)Temperature; (D) Static water level; (ii)Geochemical indicator parameters: (A)Alkalinity(as Ca CO3); (B) Bicarbonate(HCO3); (C) Calcium (Ca); (D) Chloride(CI); (E) Iron (Fe); (F) Magnesium (Mg); (G) Manganese(Mn); . (H) Nitrate(NO3); (I) Sodium (Na); (J)Sulfate(SO4); (iii) Leachate indicators: (A)Ammonia(NH3-N); (B)Total organic carbon(TOC); (C)Total dissolved solids(TDS). (i) Based upon the site specific waste profile and also the leachate characteristics for lined facilities,the owner or operator shall propose additional constituents to include in the monitoring program.The jurisdictional health department shall specify the additional constituents in the solid waste permit. (j)Testing shall be performed in accordance with"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," U.S. EPA Publication SW-846, or other testing methods approved by the jurisdictional health department. (k) Maximum contaminant levels(MCL)for groundwater are those specified in chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington. (5) Groundwater monitoring-Data analysis, notification and reporting. (a)The results of monitoring well sample analyses as required by subsection (4)(h) and(i)of this section shall be evaluated using an appropriate statistical procedure(s), as approved by the jurisdictional health department during the permitting process, to determine if a significant increase over background has occurred.The statistical procedure(s)used shall be proposed in the • sampling and analysis plan and be designed specifically for the intended site, or prescriptive statistical procedures from appropriate state and federal guidance may be used. (b) If statistical analyses determine a significant increase over background: taa wa unv/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. rage of (i)The owner or operator shall: (A) Notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of this finding within thirty days of receipt of the sampling data.The notification shall indicate what parameters or constituents have shown statistically significant increases; (B) Immediately resample the groundwater for the parameter(s)showing statistically significant increase in the monitoring well(s)where the statistically significant increase has occurred; • (C) Establish a groundwater protection standard using the groundwater quality criteria of chapter 173-200 WAC, Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington.Constituents for which the background concentration level is higher than the protection standard,the owner or operator shall use background concentration for constituents established in the facility's monitoring record. (ii)The owner or operator may demonstrate that a source other than a landfill unit or solid waste facility caused the contamination, or the statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analyses, statistical evaluation,or natural variation in groundwater quality. If such a demonstration cannot be made and the concentrations or levels of the constituents: (A) Meet the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Assess and evaluate sources of contamination;and (II) Implement remedial measures in consultation with the jurisdictional health department and the department. (B) Exceed the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Characterize the chemical composition of the release and the contaminant fate and transport characteristics by installing additional monitoring wells; (II)Assess and, if necessary, implement appropriate intermediate measures to remedy the release.The measures shall be approved by the jurisdictional health department and the department; and (III) Evaluate,select,and implement remedial measures as required by chapter 173-340 WAC,the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation,where applicable.The roles of the jurisdictional health department and the department in remedial action are further defined by WAC 173-350-900. (c)The owner or operator shall submit a copy of an annual report to the jurisdictional health department and the department • by April 1st of each year.The jurisdictional health department may require more frequent reporting based on the results of groundwater monitoring.The annual report shall summarize and interpret the following information: (i)All groundwater monitoring data, including laboratory and field data for the sampling periods; (ii)Statistical results and/or any statistical trends including any findings of any statistical increases for the year and time/concentration series plots; (iii)A summary of concentrations above the maximum contaminant levels of chapter 173-200 WAC; (iv)Static water level readings for each monitoring well for each sampling event; (v)Potentiometric surface elevation maps depicting groundwater flow rate and direction for each sampling event, noting any trends or changes during the year; (vi)Geochemical evaluation including cation-anion balancing and trilinear and/or stiff diagraming for each sampling event noting any changes or trends in water chemistry for each well during the year; and (vii) Leachate analyses where appropriate for each sampling event. [Statutory Authority:Chapter 70.95 RCW.03-03-043(Order 99-24),§173-350-500,filed 1/10/03,effective 2/10/03.1 11111 httrr!/a„nc 1ea.wa_gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 Board of Health Wow Business .agenda Item # IV., 1 School Exception Rates August 16, 2012 accineExemptionDecrease :: Washington State Dept. of Health Page 1 of 1 ifr 16 ea t 1 Ides Release :or immediate release: May 17, 2012 (12-061) contacts: Michele Roberts, Immunization Program 360-236-3720 Donn Moyer, Communications Office 360-236-4076 Vaccine exemption rates for school entry drop due to new state requirements Kindergartners more protected from disease that vaccines can prevent OLYMPIA - Washington's rate of exemption from vaccines required for school has dropped significantly in the first year since passage of a law that changed the parental opt-out process. Kindergarten exemption rates for required immunizations dropped to 4.5 percent for the 2011-2012 school year compared to 6.0 percent in 2010-2011 and 6.2 percent in 2009-2010. "I'm pleased that this rate is headed in the right direction because more kids are protected from diseases that vaccines can prevent," said Secretary of Health Mary Selecky. "Disease can spread quickly in schools and the whooping cough epidemic is a reminder about how serious these diseases can be." Under the new law, parents seeking an exemption must get information from a health care provider about the benefits and risks of vaccine before the provider signs an exemption form. A Certificate of Exemption form is required for most types of exemptions. Information about the law is available online. KOvith exemptions tend to cluster geographically, often living in the same areas, going to the same schools. Many parts of our state have high exemption levels that create pockets of under-vaccinated kids at risk of outbreaks. Studies have shown that schools with higher exemption rates have higher rates of diseases like measles and whooping cough. All recommended vaccines for Washington children under age 19 are provided at no-cost through the state's Childhood Vaccine Program. Health care providers may charge an office visit fee and a fee to give the vaccine, called an administration fee. People who cannot afford the administration fee can ask their regular health care provider to waive the cost. For help finding a health care provider or an immunization clinic, call your local health agency, visit the ParentHelp123 resource finder or call the Family Health Hotline at 1-800-322-2588. The Department of Health website is your source for a healthy dose of information. Also, find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. ### Print Version PDF • http://www.doh.wa.gov/Newsroom/2012NewsReleases/12061 VaccineExemptionDecrease.aspx 8/8/2012 ui co 00000gz atoatoo0 000000 000000 15 - CD U) O M V 1- + + + + M W (T CD CO + + s U) c 't N CD CD + + + U) O U) M c O O) x + * + M Ci U) O O Co ` O U) tD CO CO CD r U) r '0 CO O U) r O fV U) O CD N CD CO OD 1. 61 CO 1- r CO OD CO CO r CO CO 0) + r r K) CD r CD C1,31 o 0 0'a 0 0 0 0 ( c' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 r r CO U) r CD 4D M n N M O 0 N O �- M �O O U) M O O r N O 40 CO N r n- CO U) CO O N a 6 U) CD(O V M 4 M M N 4 V V Cg N Ch O) g C) O O C() O O U) 1- o) W M r O O N O O CD DD r C) OC 0 CO 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O (A O O O a'O CO O O 6 0 co c0 0 CO co co co 0 co o CO CO r co r r r r • y m 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C d c0 M ?Cr CO t0 (O sr 0 O (D r- .*- CO 10 I� O O O O CO CO N O N I- N CO O LO CO (O OD CO i- O CO N 1 m• m �• Uj N O N N U) V co M (O U) O O O N O O M O O O OD M O W a = ao O 'O O O O 0) Orn O co 6) 0 0 CD 0 0 CD co co O) O O 0) 0) 0) O CO CO OD 0 CD ;>U) CO 0) O r r- N r Oo CD >� a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o o o p -•e. CO Sr CO U) r O O O O CO O CD M N O N r N CO O CO M CO CO CO O r CO N N N E O co CO co.M CO c- v N O 0 N CO c M M CO U) 0) C] O N c C) CO O O C) C- C7 O O O ao C') O 6 'C 0, rn rn 4.... a, rn rn O co O -O a) O co co CO CO co O) CO O O a 0) O OD CO CO O O CO 0 0 CO r N N r CO CO o E E d 00000M000 0 0 0 000 000000 000 000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 y (p O O N CO V, d` - O 'M CO N U) r CO O O 0 O O r M CD U) N r ? co co O co U) co N O r O N N R N M l{ OD O CO CD CD CO CO O r- CO O O) 0 C) C 4 r C+) CD U) O C) 6 Ih O (D C+) U) CC O O O O a a a O co a Co co O co co OD CO a 0) CO r CO 0) 0 CO CO CO CO 0) 0) Co CO O) CO r N r CO CO CD a 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N N CO CO CO M M N t0 O CO O O CO co CO m a0 co O O O U) CO N I- o C O N CO N M N c CO r <- r O O O) OD C) r CD O O 7 CD CO CO CO U) CO O O CV M OD d' O U) CD m CD O 0) CO 0> CD 0) 0) N 0) w CO 0) CO CO CD CD CO CD 0) CO CD Co CD CO CO CD 03CD O 0) CO CO CO CO r CO r r Co CO L � a Obi O Co O O O 0) CL a) 'CS a. 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U) r O + + ♦ U) CO 0 CO r t0 # + • • r 0 N CO CO c + k t CD O M N CO 0 x w + r N d O + fV (D v O) ro OD CD C0 Of O M O D r a� C N �' Cco O O a) CD OO co €' co Cb CO CO CD O O O Co OD O CD 1- CO r r CO co C t O a O co N N d O a o 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C N dI r CC) UD N CO .- M iO r 0 o CO O CO N Co O c- O C0 0 M o .- CO r O 0) c c CO U) CO y. CD 0 0D r 7.Y 1.. 0 O V CO M O N O ti O D) O O CV CD 4 CD co 'y4 u) 00 t` r r V' CD O O M Ui C() (O co. CD CD O a0 E (d f• CO O co O CC co co co co) O "C Co O CO CO O CO CO CO CO CO Co CO CO Oo Co CO CO CO O O r:CO CO CO CO 1- CD t- h CO CO C. O>�� C o o e 0 0 0 ,o '\ 0 0 0 0 0 0 e o o e c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R0 L. CO q O O O N N CO N '- d' N M U) O M M O CO O C0 r COW U) CD M N U) c- CO OO Co 00 O E ;0 ~ 1�• sr co V OO co 01• ,_ Sc M CD to CO CD `- lD C) V O O V' CO I- h CD CO ,_ 0 1N- I- O) '- N Or N gg m COg 0 O.4 E s0 3 U y o 1.4 0 O lay C) r CO N N O m N N O N N M CO N c ao M V O h ao O N O V al w_' 0 I O sr' CN CO N N O N O e r r M V O N r W SJ N V' U) (D U) O CO CO .- N CO U) CO CD c CO CD • �� 0=C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 q co V' CD N Co co O CO U) OD N CD M N O co O N N Zr 6 O V CO N c O O c- c EO Q ~ 4 Nj m 0 0 0 0 0 CD U) O C) O N r 1- C) N N N CV .- O C') 'U' M .' M O O ,- U) O .. N O .- Co O �& E E N = „ k l' _ O N to N CD N 00 M it.' CD U) coO V M O co CO O CO U) r M U) O M e< 0 0 0 O #1 C - Mo M N N O .r- r- O Co V c co N c N O Cr N N n- N r N N .' N 0t.} X00 0000000 000 0000000 00 00000 00000 e 0 0 0 1. 0 o a O O N O O U) co. N O c O N l- M 7 ' '7 O O M O r 0 7 7 U) c O r- O co O ,O , ' r O r r N O O U) O O T ,_ CO CD ,_ O) CS E (, w M Nj , M U) M 4 M M N N c c 4 c c CD c c N co 7 O co 7 O 00 N • d 0 W ,_ co O N (O c O co r- N7 M CO (o O U) r V N O O CO V co M O co O Co O N co O Co Co r CD 1- r V 4#1 N N N V U) c Co co Co CV N M d' M CO M U) N M N O CO CD r 0 O U) U) r- V 0 N N s- .' N N M N N .- C W 00000000 Oto 0 00000 000 0 40 00000 000e00000000 00 CDN N (O O CO r CO CO (D O (0 Co O U) O c M Co U) Ne- O O N O O c- CD CO x.- (o (o U) c N Co ,- U) U) y o I 0 CDM O 0 U) O UCYr M N m CD N c) ODc U) O O O c O r O 1- r O N c r O O M M r f- 00 r f- U) [O c U) O c C" CO O CO CO CO CO CO CO COCCO CO r r 1- r CO 0 r CO CO r co r r r- r Co a E . s o N CD r Co O CD r. O c V Co CO 0 O 0 O CD +°M M O N O r CO 01' O CO :CO U) Sr M CO U) N 0 U1 M O CO O N O 'a O N M O f- CO O N O O O V CA N M O O M CO CO �y V r CO T O CO O 00 O O Y-0 0 W ` O ._ C '; to O r O Co to to V O O U) O U) U) U) V 4 R U) U) ).r,- s- c- .- .- i L 1,3 O OCOr r CD s ' OdLO 0 a) M d' UN CO r- CO r- O O V r- O N c N CO r N CO r O N r- N aD c O O Or O Orc 0 U) O U) U) O N U) c co V r r- CD r- r- O W O C co N M ,- O N O N r- r- O r- CO r OD U) CO O z r- CO CD (D O CO U) U) CO O n- N N Oc- N NT W O LL 0 ,r U) O r co O O N • MV' U) CD I- CO O O v- N • M c U) CD r- co 0) O N CO V U) CO r 00 O O ,- C.' p ,. 0000000 ,0 000000 ,T0 000000 .- - 0 000000 c- 0 OCV C`1 V' CD CD r co D) O ,- CV M v CD CD N- 6 0) O .- N C°) d' CD CO r- CD D) O .- NI 0 0 U) ca r Co 0) O `�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ;;$;0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Y 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl) N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N )N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N h Ce rg. •O Z N ~ } Z S Qt,a. J LL e=` W u A eeeee � ee � eee e ee eo � eee N O N-V' n V" M N O O a0 £* } O C O co, 0* i n 0 ✓ + I + t a) O tri N ,' « + + N N co m a) + + uj { . + V: m r W m co m m m m O O m m m CO CD 6m1 0) N W W W > m� 0 0 0 o o o o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0) M n �"' m u) M M O (O O m CO CO O N O n m O O O co CO N m V' n CO u) W a) • d 10 d• t0 O N N V' (� N O 6) O N 0 0)• O h ' N M• = ,.n m n n v) n (o O LL') ui W W co co O co co O O> Q) co W CO 0) CO O co O O) O Q) CO CO O CO m.0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 CO 5M • ..4_, 0 ..47:. ..4...). .4.... o 0 0 .....2.. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • C N M O O M u) M O to r COO u) n LO N CO (o CON con 0 t0 o o o 0 o 0 o o 0 L 0 .� f co N m n u) N co to CO LC) �{ tri «> uiM oo � � rn '� � � � � � � ooio o ui mn cd a; uj adm � n (otriaav � � rn CO 0> COCA m rn rnrnrnmmmmmrn CO CO 0) 0) 0) Oa10) 0) > y3 a .▪ e e e e e e e e e n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e e e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m E N CO 0 0 O) CO 40 CO O t0 r CO Q LO n CO CO CO CO CO N O n O 4O 10CV m n u) N m n CO v er Nt tO o MO i u) cc; m (o u) n n m O) O O u) m n 2 OD O) ' m Co m n n C m a)) a) O co O O 0) m m m O a) o) 0) a) m m m m O co n a) m n m n O 0) O) O) 0) m O 0) O 0> W O O W O 7 EE d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e. yw o s o 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e s e o o e o 0 0 ., y r n N o) CO M N M O LO O V' V' m r m V' m n a) N r n 0 u) i co co I 1 m m (3 N et CO n r u) et ✓+- l0 (.4 ad N u) 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 of m u) n M O) O O Pj ad n m n ' (O d a) m o) a, 0 CO01 O COCO 'CO0) 0) O) COCOCOa) m 0) 0) l0 O COn COCON o N o N m 0) n 0) V- m m rn rn rn rn CD d Or a 0 0 0 o s o 0 0 o e *,;o 0 0 0 0 Zr':,' o e o e \ 0 0 0 0 0 �'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-4'- 47: - ' W 1� M M O r M h 0 d,,V' m n co n CO N CO 0 0 . 0) n 0 10 1 O N } I LO CO CO N O O CO CO O LO C C N V' et O Ih O n 0) CO 3 V' a of a0 N O) ai ai O .. ad r-- co a) u) ti n n (o n tri of uj 4 0 0. eel' a 0) O O O O m O m m m .O 0) O O) O m CO CO O O) r, n CO m n CO n CO O) Of O O CO a) O) O O H s e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e U 3 t t t t et M O co N N �`u+ + + t r CO O n 0) CO t t t m 1 O N ` '�' + + t n t0 m e- of m C N t o) ad o ad o) rn ) N r� a) m ad o r; ed of + o G a moDrnmmm rnmmmmw + n co CO0)0) 0) vv rn rn rn rn rn rn 47, r N'OG O 17 ►' e e o o e e e o o e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 � e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = N r 0 r r e{ M a) m N N �'M V; n m m n M u) o m e- O et O h S O N i �+'CO CO N r 0 L R N 4M Na) adoadO) ai CO 44N nnadado uri tci rntorvn fa H O O 0) O m m a) m m m m a) O a) a) m m m m a) a) n W m �,ri n cd n tri m m tO et V- Y G roti rn rn w co rn rn rn rn rn rn w a 0,o m s aq e 0 0 0 e e e e e e 0 0 0 0 0 e e O e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e V L V M r O M M O M N V r O m n V N m u) CO CO N 0) anO O u) I PO .. V• m O m M N et r m co,. V4„ ; r et N N t0 m N n V' m V' r N co m 0 O) n m u) t ofcsi u7 Ne- N N M O O O r O r r N N O O t E t x O o or 0 L COCV O O m cv O a) a ".O N o COo W O On) V' a�0 6.N V' N CO o .I To Y O 0kl n co .� M a' N m er d• V CO M N n i u) m , i V V' r t0 u) N s- o M I.`"- NC O C N o o e e e e e e e e ' 0 0 0 0 0 e e 0 0 e , e ' o o e e o 0 0 O O A y 0) r n r N v m r O m N 0) e. M t0 n CO CO 0) u) 0) to Q O I O i , N u) CO. 0) et 0) et N O e d 0 0 M e- N e- (7 r O tr) M V' r r (V r r M N O r a:Vc`i u) u) O r M u) r M E E N Y v N r r N 4' co G V ru) V' u) a) CO N n e- u) �o n O `- V- co o V' n N v N M N O V' V- 0) n CO (D N CO V- O Q. co O VI N r M N N O n co m r r V m u) N r N N N ej u) r er • E O e0000 eee e e 0000 ,. eee ,z e eee ee C L }, c O N (o r co co r? N O n u) u) el r N CO O NOf o r m 0 u) ) O u) 0) e{ N• tD a0 io6'2- i0 M V N G_ t(i V V' (d n n n V' O tO (p n N a0 co o M N n t0 N C e- r fV N to M et M V M (n E r (l.l a) V' n n V' N O m m n v O I M N N V' V' (o co u) M V' n V' m CO (D O V' O N LO C O r r r M , M '7 M m fD n 01 t0 M O N N N N CO M (0 V' 4 co t 1 ; N r N• (M et d• u) M O 7 N CC eeee.eeee e o eeeeeoe � o eeeee e 0000 eeeeee d of O n N u) 0) M n O O M r e{ m r u) N t0 M r N O r 0 0 O u) CO m CO � u) r M CO CO V- O O O CO N O t0 O O V m V u) O V' n O O O O 4 or " O O to er N y 0> 0) 0)) rnmmmnmm CO rnrnmCOoonmmm rn r- co (Dm CO rnrnrnrnrnrna) rna) n O n N 0) M N CO M uJ V CO m O N 0) n N t0 n CO CO M O n u) CO C u) O M N t0 LO CO #t u) O O 0) u) V' O n M �„.N CO O M (D r CO O N n r` M r u) m O u) OV'• MV' mN_ a0V• mu) V' tO V' 7 V' V V M 7 k^V 4 u) 7 V' V' M V' V' V' M N M r N r r i 1-N. W r e- r .-e- a) ,_ r O To y 0 u) 0) C) CD 0 tO O n O 0 xd ... U r m U.) LOO VV 0) to 4 N CO 03 o V ""O co u) co u) O u) o i•-9_' -0 N O O u) V' aN) e' O M V' M 0 O 0 C m et u) V' o to u) to 4 u) r V M M c•,,,° V' N N t t <N o r V' N M ,..,,m- O M Na r c W to ui u) v u) ui u) u5 to to ,r ,- rrr rrr W tO co V LO O n CO CO O r N "M et u) O n CO CO O N M .0 u) M n CO 0) O r N '3 ,1 O O O O O O O r r O O O O O O O r r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r r M 4 o (o m COO O r N O ( N pV o f0 t` CO D1 O N M t() D ND 0 O . 00 0r0 000000 rr N M et o CO prL } 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 > N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0() 0 0oo o00 00 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 NLn N NNNNNNNNN N0NN0N0NNN NNNNNNNN NN NNNNNNNNN 0 it kj ri I 0Ciii QQ J • O 0 0 .. 8 0 0000 ::. 0MI 11 c 0 0 0 0 0 N e 0 6 O + + + rrnrNMW + * ::* [D ::::::::d O M W I� N tO + + �' + ao N0) VWO) 0) OCDVhM CD C7L + ` W CO W Co 0 03 co W W W 00 CO W O1 W CO CD (O aD WA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 _O W r O W r CO CD COW COaD CO N V CO )o 1: N. W CD 0 M Co 0 W 0 Cr p O M M CO CO 1: CO Lo Co co M N M co Co d• M CO W 1• c0 O d co N N NW 6 W M W W W CO W W CO W W m W W W W W W CO W CO Co = W W W • C CI' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'a 0 0 0 o e o 0 r O CO N LO 1: 1: W N O CO co 6 co 0 O I-, 7- 4D M 6 p M W N O N O C. r p co O r• e-• T U) CO N U) V' tV N CV a, 00 CO Co co r D) CO to b CO r r CO U7 O 6 O O) Ci C W WS 0 O) O6) W 05 CONC1f W W W W W W W W CO CO W W W W W W CO r co co O W W W W CO W 0) 0) W CO 7 a 0000000000 0000000< 00 0000000000 N o 0 0 0 ` 6, 0 0 0 o co Co CO CO N O N O 0. C CO O co O r 0 r M O OO N M M uO O N O M W M W LO O r �O N O M C) tD C) N N pi CD C) O tf1 O) U) 1' W C6 N u7 O)r r CD Co O 0) O W •c co rn cob0 In CD OD CD 0) CD W W W W CO W CO W W W W W W W W CO r CO Co CO W W W W CO W W W W OO £ d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 et. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1...9.-r-: 0 0 N O CO W N M C0 to O N M N W 1; r W t0 tO O N W N O N O 15 R M 6 uD N O O W A- M .-N M Co O N SiSiU) M CV N CO Co O Co r CD U) 00 tD r (O N N O r C7 6) Cp CO W IAO W W co W co co W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W co W co r W co co co W W W CO CO W CO CO O 7 c) 0 Q e o 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 �C 0 0 e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pl W coI� O i- CO r d, O N r M CO e- W N N N W O O N r 0 0 CO OD CO N O O o r co co h 0 O 4'. O r 00 ' C7 CG C1 CO m d d T U) corm coWci m Oa) co O) O) W MW co ON) ON) T OO) a) C) co O) cocn ON) corW W W CO W W W W W W CO It 2°) e 1p a Ot N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o\ 0 0 0 0 o e S N e U C. • CO 5• + + + + + + + + N d• N N W CO ,+ + + + u, O N O N 0 O r- N CO Co O nj 1N O W 05 CN C + + + + ` O ao m op C) N N N g N OD U) U � W W Co Co W U co w W W W W W to r cto a O t6N • RC1, L T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NG10 0000000 \ ;00 000 0e 000 0 0 e 000000 \ F'I C o ;1: ,. N r d; N d' M CO N M W N sr Co N W CO O m CO Co O N O N U) c C N D. O 0 r M O CO W 0 N r U) u1 M e4 N N U) n U) Cn CO CO W Cn r r n U) O a N V) O co E YV d W W co OO O co 001 W W co W W W W W W CO W W CO W W W co co r co OD OD W W 00 W W W CO W W OO ` D 0 co co co lO W co co co 0' w— O d O d O 000 \ 00 000000 00 0000 00000 \ X0000000000 C o 0 0 0 •t-- Cn O I• W W o. l% CO M V ,- M Cy O CO M V L V Cd q p CD. C. N N LO N N r t O 00 O O OD M V Up tO W W WO CO 3'.M O M `7 V' N 1� CO '7 Yi G1 Cod e`I W r N r- N N M . r CO CD CO M O N N M W N ' '' W W r' r ' r tt- OOH O `o zU 3 v W co r co N O 0 C O O N co co M W t0 M CO 'd' COO )MD r N 0 f0 u) CMO f r M -- M co 0 R ro Ir` N r N OD W () 0 .- CO r W CU O.0 7 V1 W M co 1:r CO N V n';. CO (O W • x To r e- N N e- N- M N N N 4 , wNM O ,0000 0o e 000 0000000 \ X00000000 0•2 0 0 e 0 0 o r e %co * W Ci) CO co co CO O M r W V b co co CO M M r N b W M O Q M d E' C �' d' V ` N 1- N 1- O ,- ,- N C) 1'0 0 .- .- 0 '- O O �§r.0) N , �- N .- O N O M co N E E N R ` 9c W O r n o W c> O a0 M N O W D O V r 'yt rya Co CO M r M N r Q ( OcoO coMCn (O M t N 1 M CO r W N CO ) CCDONM1• McnMM • CI o E o \ 0 e o 0 0 ° 0 0 0 e o 0 0 0 0 ? ' o \ ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 Co\O o o ee O q o o e 0 0 0 \ \ W N 1' U) O CO O O r r CO M Co CO N` a CO ).Zr r co CO uo O N r, E s r ry N CO 4666666 -4- , 05466 ° 00 O r 00 1n �a f7 01 (`7 N U) V N tO •CO V• •C[) •C7 •M r •C/) W V R V r N r 44O) C X N CD CO '� r r W Co r r r N W CO W N M M CT 4 W r N r CD O N M C) CO W N O (DU" p b O r W W N ,- T- x V coM M 1' N c- v- •- ,- ,- co a- . �+ #1 aMD W 1-0 0 Cp CA v- e- s- N N N.3— 3- r C fi A. Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V. 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iO s{ i� iA O i0 Q) 1� O Co U) M O O W CD M K W 4 CO 1' co CD N N up V O , N O r N N O r O Zr M 3 , N C7 N O O CO U) 0) N V CO N 1 N M r r CO M r , pi W co W co) CSO ' W W d ~ N U) M M 1' 1 W W W W CO co r CO CO CD W W W W CD N CD r r r '$$ N CO aD TO QD CO CD r aD (D a0gs�., c) O N O co N WM N N N V CO O M V W W CO O N O W Co r 0 0 d'.CO M y r a0 W N O O co (O r v (O M M CO CO .O M V7 ` co W r r r t co N 40 O W W COCO r- (� #1 CD 0 CD r r 1O W Co M N M N N O O? ne V M M N N N N �- N N (-4 CD ` Cfl p A-3-` ! CO CO N N N N N N N N .- N x N. N r W CO M N CO co M 3 V O J co COW W W CO0 colo) 6 CV CD cO ON CO • O OW rD D r M CO M O Co Cr) c CO r 0 Co co 7 V O r' r D CO CD r 6 co V M CO CO V W r 0 CD M V N M V O n O N O ONc A O)O O W O O O •rNNNNNNNNNNi{ M M A- uD M M CO M M N N N N N N c- r' N N F- c N N N N N N N W LL to CO r OD W 0 N • M V CD Co r CD W 0 N M R CO CD r CD W 0 3- C`) O O O MO O O O 0 A— N co R r. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • —O 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 N Cn (O r 00 W O N M V Cn co r co (7) 0 N t7 V U) (D r co 0) 0 O W I N ,4 0 6 6 r 6 6 p _ :N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s4e)D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C.) 1' N N N N 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N F Na U ',.t 1.-- P- Y • C 2 1�aFy" ii~ kaJ U Y Board-of.9CeaCth Netiv Business .Agenda Item #117., 2 Drug and Arc ohol Community • Prevention Planning Process 2012 .august i6, 2012 • Jefferson County Prevention Redesign Initiative • , TM a t I1 1 11 f 1 - art �.�..�,,r • i�. rsa „asiW ,..- l , washirrgtor, State: K Photo by Tyler Johnson Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery --- - ,� PORT TOWNSEND, WASHIIIGTON r Prevention Redesign Initiative Port Townsend was selected as one of the first communities statewide to receive support for a small community to focus on keeping youth, young adults and others free of alcohol and other drug misuse, while creating healthier Port Townsend Coalition of communities. The program is called Prevention Redesign Initiative (PRI). It is a the Jefferson County collaboration between Olympic Educational Service District 114, Port Townsend Community Network School District, Jefferson County Public Health and the Port Townsend Coalition (PTC). It is funded by the state Department of Social and Health Services' Division "Working together to help of Behavioral Health and Recovery(DBHR). children,youth and families succeed.” The Port Townsend Coalition (PTC)is a prevention advocacy organization that 615 Sheridan Street brings parents, schools, agencies, and community groups together to work on Port Townsend,WA 98368 preventing youth substance abuse and child abuse/neglect in Port Townsend. www.jeffcocommunitvnetwork.org The Port Townsend Coalition works in collaboration with the Jefferson County • Prevention Redesign Community Network(JCCN). The JCCN is Jefferson County's policy board for the Community Coordinator Washington State Community Mobilization program and also works with DSHS and the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) on building community capacity to address employment skill-building and opportunities for DVR clients. `t, The JCCN is governed by a policy board consisting of citizen volunteers and tf.- representatives from local agencies. Communities That Care Comes to Port Townsend! Kelly Matlock Jefferson County Port Townsend was chosen to receive training by Communities That Care Public Health (CTC), a University of Washington evidence-based prevention-planning system PortTownsend,15 WA 98368 Sheridan Street rt Pothat tackles the adolescent problems of substance abuse, delinquency, (360)379-4476 pregnancy, violence, and school dropout. The 9-month training has been assist- kmatlock(a�co.iefferson.wa.us ing the community and the Port Townsend Coalition in identifying the highest www.jeffersoncountvpublichealth.org prevention needs in Port Townsend, creating a strategic work plan and going forward, will be implementing evidence-based strategies. The process will also Kelly has worked in substance abuse focus on leveraging local resources and evaluating the impact of the plan created. treatment for 21 years,and for the last six years has worked in substance abuse prevention. Her skills include community mobilization,coalition We work to promote healthy children, building,capacity building and direct healthy families and a healthy community. i service delivery. ! Page 1 Version:2012-08-07 Brief Overview of The Communities That Care System The philosophy of Communities That Care(CTC)is that it is wise for communities th The Premise of to invest in the prevention of human problems. CTC is implemented in a - Prevention Science... community with a five-phase process implemented over a 1-2 year period. The CTC activities are planned and carried out by a community board and the members To prevent a problem participate on various workgroups. before it happens, the factors that predict the The CTC System: problem • Provides a process and tools community coalitions can use to apply the ad- MUST be changed... vancement of prevention science to guide their youth development and prevention work. • Measures community levels of protection and risk by asking young people themselves. • • Matches the community's profile of risk and protection with tested, effective actions. • Relies on local control and choice to build ownership, enhance collaboration and create sustainable community-level change. • Focuses on outcomes to insure accountability. Other PRI Contacts Jefferson County The Communities That Care Phases Community Network Program Manager Get Started - ,,,fns�;,� 11114 Implement andCreating EvaluateClik Communities Get Organized • %,Anne Dean That Care 10) (360) 379-4495 adeane,jeffcocom m un itvnetwork.orq Create a Plan to Develop a Profile County Contact& JCCN Board Member Phase 1: Get Started—assessing community readiness to undertake collaborative Fri prevention efforts; Phase 2: Get Organized—getting a commitment to the CTC process from community leaders and forming a diverse and representative prevention coalition; Julia Danskin Phase 3: Develop a Profile—using epidemiologic data to assess prevention needs; Jefferson County Public Health Phase 4: Create a Plan—choosing tested and effective prevention policies, 615 Sheridan Street practices, and programs based on assessment data; and Port Townsend,WA 98368 (360) 379-4476 jdanskin(a.co.iefferson.wa.us Phase 5: Implement and Evaluate—implementing the new strategies with fidelity , in a manner congruent with the programs' theory, content and methods of delivery, and evaluating progress over time. Page 2 Version:2012-08-07 CTC in PT! • 6 r ownsen• The Port Townsend Coalition began the Communities That Care process in January, Coalition's .A,`, 2012. So far, over 60 diverse community leaders have participated in the process of ommunities taking a deeper look into the needs of our community members and families and That Care evaluating which programs, practices and policies would be most beneficial to Port Townsend. ision Statement? While the primary emphasis of this work is prevention of youth substance abuse, the PT Coalition has taken a more universal approach of looking at the community, families and "Our community i-t youth. With the issue of substance abuse, you cannot solely look at youth. If the diverse, i community wants to reduce substance abuse (and other collateral damage), the inclusive, safe an•. Coalition strongly is advocating for larger-scale policy, program and practice changes. compassionate; d The Coalition deeply values the following: nourishing health„4 • Universal prevention for all youth, not just those that are indicated or selected innovation, . Services, supports and policies that cover the entire lifespan (in-utero to later life) creativity . Creating easy access/reducing barriers to programs and services and engagement • Reaching out to the most vulnerable and often under-served segments of the for all ages." community(who are often the hardest to reach) • Building community capacity through collaboration, partnership and cooperation, especially in a time of limited resources • Widening and deepening the relationships with public schools, private schools and home-schooling families 410 Over the past 7 months, the PT Coalition has been actively working on the first three phases of the Communities That Care system. What is the TRUE COST of SUBSTANCE ABUSE? Phase 1: After many years of wanting to bring Communities That Care to the In 2010 the Jefferson County community, the Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery worked with prevention Substance Abuse Advisory Board professionals in Jefferson County, through the Prevention Redesign Initiative process, to did a comprehensive review and choose a community(Port Townsend), and begin the process of readying the report of public funding spent on the community for a very thorough and detailed strategic prevention planning process. direct and indirect costs associated with substance abuse in Jefferson Phase 2: The Port Townsend Coalition has hosted multiple trainings and one-on-one County for 2007. The report was meetings, including the KeyLeader Orientation and CommunityBoard Orientation, to modeled on a study completed by g Columbia University's cast a wide net over the Port Townsend community and bring a diverse, engaged and Center of Alcohol and representative group to the table to work on the next phases of strategic planning. Substance Abuse(CASA). Phase 3: This is the data collection phase, including a comprehensive community The host was estimated at over assessment of adolescent behaviors and current prevention services. Members of the $17 million. Risk and Protective Factor Assessment Work Group participated in the Community Assessment Training, in which they learned about key data sources for risk and This means that in Jefferson protective factors and how to analyze the data. This training was tailored to help the County the cost of substance work group interpret survey results and identify elevated risk factors, depressed abuse to everyman, woman , protective factors, and problem behaviors prevalent among youth in the community. child was approximately P" 2007). The following pages are the summaries, findings and highlights of the work • To learn more go to: accomplished by the PT Coalition to date. www.ieffcocomm unitynetwork.orq/truecost Page 3 Version:2012-08-07 Community Profile for Port Townsend, WA Members of the Risk and Protective Factor Assessment Work Group participated in • General Statistics: the Community Assessment Training, in which they learned about key data sources Community: Port Townsend for risk and protective factors and how to analyze the data. This training was tailored Population: 9055 to help the work group interpret survey results and identify elevated risk factors, Zoning: Rural depressed protective factors, and problem behaviors prevalent among youth in the Ethnic Diversity: community. The Port Townsend Coalition (PTC) primarily utilized data from the 2002- White 96.8% 2010 Healthy Youth Survey(HYS)data from the Port Townsend School District, in African American 0.3% comparison to Washington State HYS data. American Indian and Alaska Native 0.5% Risk Factors Asian 0.8% One or more race 1.7% The Port Townsend Coalition/Communities That Care planning process utilized a Median Household Income: public health approach to planning in which risk and protective factors for substance $40,224 abuse by youth are identified and addressed. Risk Factors are characteristics in the Coalition Founded: 1994 community, family school and individual's environments that are known to increase the likelihood that a young person will engage in one or more problem behaviors. The following list depicts the ranking of major risk factors in Port Townsend compared to the state average, as determined by the 2010 Healthy Youth Survey. Note:Higher risk is unfavorable. The goal is to implement strategies that reduce the risk factors. Items in BOLD are prioritized risk factors. Risk Factors from 2010 Healthy Youth Survey Students At-Risk Difference • Category on 2010 HYS (from State)* Grade Domain Port Friends' Use of Drugs State 29% 20% 10 Peer-Indiv Townsend PT 49% 18% Risk Intentions to Use Drugs State 45% 10 Peer-Indiv Factors PT 63% 16% Higher Perceived Risks of Use State 39% 10 Peer-Indiv (worse)Than PT 55% _- 15% the State I State 34% 10 Community Average PT 49% Low Neighborhood 9% Attachment State 42% 10 Community PT 51% Laws & Norms Favorable 9% to Drug Use State 28% 8 Community PT 37% _- *Percent(MORE)of Students At-Risk Page 4 Version:2012-08-07 Protective Factors Protective Factors are conditions that buffer children and youth from exposure to risks 411 by either reducing the impact of the risks or changing the way that young people respond to risks. They can decrease the likelihood that a young person will engage in problem behaviors. The following list depicts the ranking of major protective factors in Port Townsend as determined by the 2010 Healthy Youth Survey. Note: Higher protection is favorable. The goal is to implement strategies that enhance protective factors. Items in BOLD are prioritized protective factors. Protective Factors from 2010 Healthy Youth Survey Students Not Difference PROT on 2010 Category HYS (from State)* Grade Domain Opportunities for Prosocial 249 Port Involvement State 37% 8 School Townsend PT 61% Opportunities for Prosocial 12% Protective f Involvement State 38% 10 School Factors PT 50% Opportunities for Prosocial 9% Higher Involvement State 36% 8 Family 411 (worse)Than PT 45% Rewards for Prosocial 9% the State Involvement State 42% 10 School Average PT 51% Interaction with Prosocial Peers State 43% 8% 10 Peer-Indiv PT 51% Rewards for Prosocial 7% Involvement State 38% 8 Family PT 45% *Percent(MORE)of Students NOT Protected **Please Note: This is only a brief summary of community data. Additional data is available by contacting Anne Dean at adean(c�ieffcocommunitvnetwork.orq or 360-379-4495. Funding for the PT Coalition's Communities That Care PRI & CTC also sponsored by work provided by: Jefferson County's Our Kids: Our Business"Campaign Department r Our "No one person can do everything, but everyone can do something, 41ftDepartment of SocialKIdS: yg' y&Health Services and together we can change for the better." Our Business ` I DBHR Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery Page 5 Version:2012-08-07 Evidence-Based Programs Being Researched Current Prevention The PT Coalition is analyzing current prevention programs and researching additional Programs in Port evidence-based prevention programs that may be a good fit for the community. 410 Townsend School District Based on the community data analysis, workgroups are investigating the following programs: (Evidence-Based) • Guiding Good Choices Elementary School • The Incredible Years Protecting You/Protecting Me • Life Skills Training • Middle School • Project Towards No Drug Abuse Protecting You/Protecting Me • Strengthening Families Project Alert (funding tentative) Port Townsend High School Port Townsend Coalition's Goals & Outcomes Project Success Based on the thorough look at community risk and protective factors, and a desire to Many thanks to the following see significant changes in the perceptions around substance use and actual community leaders and organizations substance use, the Port Townsend Coalition seeks to accomplish the following: for their hard work on the CTC work groups, and dedication to the health Problem Behavior Outcome— and well-being of the children and • Decrease Alcohol Use within the Last 30 Days: families in Port Townsend and -Reduce the percentage of 10thgrade students reporting alcohol Jefferson County! p g 25%p g ***** ******* ********* consumption in the last 30 days from 35%to by 2020 Sally Aerts,Community Volunteer Jean Baldwin,Jefferson County Public Health Prioritized Risk Factors— Julie Bartlett,Division Of Behavioral Health& • Friends' Use of Drugs: Recovery Kris Becker,Jumping Mouse Children's -Reduce the percentage of 10th grade students at risk from 49%to 25% • Center by 2020 • Rick Cady,Communities That Care Consultant Julia Cochrane,PT Schools&Boiler Room • Perceived Risk of Drug Use(is Low): John Colden,Community Volunteer -Reduce the percentage of 10th grade students at risk from 55%to 40% Carrie Ehrhardt*,Port Townsend High School by 2020 Michael Evans*,City of Port Townsend Barbara Hansen,Community Volunteer Sue Hay,4-H • Intentions to Use: Fran Joswick,Substance Abuse Advisory -Reduce the percentage of 10th grade students at risk from 63%to 45% Board by2020 Patrick Kane,Port Townsend High School Cynthia Koan*,Community Volunteer Sam Markow,Jefferson Mental Health Prioritized Protective Factors— Services Bruce Marston*,Boiler Room • Opportunities for Prosocial Involvement(School and Family): Anna McEnery,Jefferson County Public -Increase the percentage of students protected from 37%to 50% by Health 2020 Carla Montgomery*,Children's Administration Kelli Parcher,Jefferson County Juvenile Services Greg Peterson,Port Townsend Schools Please see www.'effcocommunit network.or'1.ri for Pamela Roberts,Washington State University Catharine Robinson*,Cityof Port ,updates & additional information!. Townsend/Jumping Mouse Children's Center Anji Scar,City of Port Townsend Laura Showers*,Jefferson Healthcare If you are interested in participating in or learning more about the Port Townsend Coalition,the Jean-Marie Tarascio,Port Townsend Library Jefferson County Community Network or the Port Townsend Communities That Care program, Garin Williams,Port Townsend Police Department please contact: Kelly Matlock at 360-379-4476 or kmatlock(aco.iefferson.wa.us or *PT Coalition/Jefferson County Community Network Anne Dean at 360-379-4495 or adeanta7.ieffcocommunitynetwork.orq. Board Member Page 6 Version:2012-08-07 • Board of aCealth Netiv Business .agenda Item #117., 3 Student BasedWealth Centers • Annual2Zeport .august 16, 2 01 • Chimacum School-Based Health Center Logic Model 2011-2012 School Year . C � � ''. ,. } F S o Based nt r • . „ , ,. stax r }' rtia� "7 kT ': .1 3 hf ..4 Fh • wt U C C U c C co Q C N L O O N ^ CD a) CD CO v 0) Q 0 O Ci @ coo o a v 0 N � • >O U L a) O >, CO C O O S CO I a) U O a) O U O I Q ► a) @ a) a 0 (C6 3) ..T @ coc > = > C a) O c (�6 O -c N 0 a) - c O Y N Q) cori; @ .o a) Ea) a) u°)) cD com aa)iOE O0 �� �� U io L D =a -a n. D U D -o = L N WI t_ C c0 7 a) A L c0 C O � 0 c v =- 5 U O a) C O C a N a) 2 o N.• C O N ► > ► L = N c a) > N 4) N U O 0 O O L a Q i N • O d a) a) v N W S a N N f0 N O -c C C i 3 N co a3 cu U N a) N N Q a3 Q a Q N O C U = o Cii u) U N c6 7 U O co_ 7 O l'','*"--" w T c0 92 U °c°) -c UDI N _ o a a m +. _c a)m D 0 Q O u) ._ SiU C V) co C C U) U (a C O N al C L a) C CD 7 'V To a C N "J -0 u) 0 N w O O 7 -0 U a U c u) ai> o L U C � 0C -'i ► .ca) 4--- N ( 4 E co D .o = `) .oma -a) _ @ c ) c cn o) u) m 0 o � a'O � � 3 c° a) > ,, ma) t � N a) a) c o -0 o 0 - 0 a) Q3 .c Q 0 O 4-:-- °- U o -o L a) a) N p o cvo N (n o)Y Q s cn CC Q 1— 3 -o o E o a) • 0 O N • N NI d o) c O o 'C 0 o o c O Y o m o oco a) I T 2 c a) o N _ s o m 0 ca a > c d . (0 o a°)i c� oct 0N c 7, > u)cocoMcoi .-LU_, a) 0_ -) c o n c c c c a) • o m N u) y c N c r 3 o mc 73 m N m o o N O _ o m m > N a a 3' m m S n.-o w u) J O 4 o n E o o'' ° c n o_ c c v) U a) m c 3 = m U c E o N'N O W a) a) o N N@= a) a) U) N N > O U N 'O .u) _ C a) u1 V O y a) a) O) V co co a' M N Na) N c O) • D r- co I.-- a >, V M V co -a c ,r .e CC > ——) V a c6 Cl) co O E C. A A ? • 3 0 C E GU .L O ^N. 702 os To ✓ U U O a) N w . O C �C U 0 _UZn u! U t c o yE s > N S Li) a)v C C N O O N u) D - ww 0 E � cuiiaoca u ao) o)o) E Lc 0.2 -0o w U (0 O w o o 7 t 13 u c co 2 o v N c x - oo' o o ° c U Q d O ° 0''E 7 O a)aa)) 0 o u) 0` • -=O = a) O` N I co Y o_ s 0_ _ c ca ct N o'o co d N c 0_ v) U o � 0 U a) W U W CD o F- O U co T 0 0 T al 0_ L C Q _ L N N T o �; Z a) n U ° s O m a z-a ID Wi O ) hi hUh Q I/I1— U a o ..._, ,_% Eo co ._ To ____M L. (n a) ��- _ — Q > i w < ,(.2 w F- < -.F/) xi �c' • Port Townsend School-Based Health Center Logic Modedl 2011-2012 School Year R 6 " gay. }qr chord-8s*ti • dealt} enter c my�, w`wfeSah - 4 si : " dS Y % • M ,a 7,11,/,‘I''fr'.55*:‘, 0 _ C -C3 c 0) C > O NI C O .c _ N vatv _C L O U (a o f U D) Q OCD Otti 3 > U 0 o T - a 5 Q c N C)- o a) U o u) o c co I s 7 c>) u) a) ui c c u) a) U o - o a) .0 ► a 5 U N L U E N (a O N L a) a) O c (9 p a) o Y ' c 1 ~�� � � oar � a DUt° 0 a . Q. 0 es.,,i7.-0,,,, I-U 65fas4 r!,.-,,.-.1 \ C O/ Fa 1 c tl v) a' a) a) — o CO a) a) 700 - a) ► u) v) Ym � ai> o :, c'Z U V W L p c N a) I a)C) 0 a) O C C a) ( L N Y lc: a3 -C'S CI) > � N O a) 65 tj W � �" ci : '- p_ ca a) c aaaa 0 c V A ♦ 0 Q o N c a) a) > U aci u°)) a o cf - 0c (6 D S 'D V) c 7 wn U N N C O c uoim � 7 � o cn .� 0 o oc Paai � 5 cCU oa) uN) c 0 -c E. _ ca)> o 7 L U ' - � OLE D) 4 v) c 4 E m -D .o Y a) o u) a) in o c c w a _ a (0 c (n 0)u) _ o N a) L o g) °) -a a o c m a o �. (I) p) E C a) 3 -a a) a U ua p `�- C c o Q LDO N o a U o _ co o)Y u) w Q H 3 -oo a)=a o a) i c CO w a> / 1\ • N (a N O N C -0 c.) • +- N 2 o s o U -0 r'' m a S m a a) `c= m co (n N CC .— N o' N a) u) c a)m L o a) 'O C °O o 7 -6 E L a) p >� C U > N.V) V () a) a, N w O F- C N Cµ'— - O '> C m C N C > c co > a) O T V) a) a) p0 .N 'm T U a) C N-O N p C .L.. = C . RS V) J C 0 a) -N 0 U U C N p,.N-� 'O = C C O NEs p C- _ U C O C -O 'RS N 7 O C 'U E On > O S O U a) O p N V) (a -D "-' CD 0 ca 4 0 co a) E o o m > a r > U 7 u) 4C C V ,U M (n c co o a) u�x r N 'c U co 5 o c a) c N in > '^ u) (O r N— U M '- a7 N N CO CO d> r C d' '7 n1 N Q a a) • O = �l 'I I 2 EQ' C a) 0 0 E o v) o a) v) i) _ O O U O U - U To. -O (6 p C O U � v vi v°)) u) C w c 5 .5 O S a) O C C O p '- ..-, 7 (a u) ~ c < (m/) o a) ° off � Uo 'Cl.) TOac a) 0.0c t -o 7 a) O M E N N.CO U N aa) a) C c E L p c.O U -a O O C0 '~ a) a) R) (a 'N C ya) a) N O ' tn n3 a) o 7 O U a (a U O U -o L C U C O p L (9 8 C X 'O .., a) o '� .L-+ a) D E '> ._ a) 'u) 7 - '> +- c C a a) > U `- > > -D 4) 0 O f6 D T E ` _o O (a p 7 co 'D 0 7 0 0_ 7 = N Y ¢ 0- N c 7 L E 7 C c U O D C 0_ Q) a N a_ S co � L CoCl._ 0 CO � L �. 0 -D (a m � — ? t U o � 7 n L c U (1) V) 0 O Q) N 40d -p_ �" O ( O co ,_ `' - C U CU oO .�- CO a OU o -o cu Nr. c'') (L) U O c a) (73 0 9 C o 3 7 a) E = 6vi O < L c L Za) E N p a) = -0 � o c) mUQ • iU 0 co ft w >, TIli o Q a) - ca c CO 1-- -10 c C o 6 m c > ma = m L. '= ani r�i � 7 7 a E u, - 7u) � � a) a. u) (3 O - 0 co 2 -0 U O L cO T -) N (a o r o.O '- > _I w Q @ W F- < 5—0 X = � 0 y O QIII O C OOr o m Go o m sm D - 3 (a C. ks 4 N n J ( CT a v Q Q c C ' • y_a 0O h O CP N✓ ° ` 9N ZN JN N n a•n CD N p N • • O ' p° ° oc 70 '° • � H Ns o W sc ' D 0 c J m -a n N6 c O �p Q v' 2 1 c) n3 _— , m O O °r a A CA 4,4QOO. O -a o!)) 1 '8 ( APO 3D S „, a 0 i m o xtiO p j oW 3 N) _ ° 0 a OCm — QO Oov 3 R.0(T V O N 3 Z �' V Cd O a N) m va n II' Q 0. m = Cr. A W N O O ■ w j a a rn v Z 7 s C y . ,› �•M N y o o .1). N m o 3 •I ID0 0 m6 a 6 --' n (D Q = 0 U) N '7p� „33 N NIV A O '' Q itD 10 Q dl $ V 3 �` Q O N 3 N 9i / Li b9 Q Qci)_ Q o N `D°ins✓4°m i a) w — c Q N „ - N 7. O O L o /?° - co rVi Oo = N j- 0 V s n W 6 N b> n �2 • D O 7 O 3 g- ili W A O D oAW N I 3 O OND CT N > N Q'O O 7 NO C <c n CD 3Q O • 3Q :(1' 3 W Qs P". al Q5 - (n V A N Q Ir, x0 S � A W N J CS — a < - 2 CD �Y N ta N ✓�‹a° o w o U1 (D< A CN C y N Q o' o Z Q d° �° 5'ca N C w CO (D N lD �► 1., ...,.9 Oq n No Z. N O a m o ��O - O-0 w _, Q Q O 64 N 77 • -:-:p � a N � y i0 7 (D 0 V S o p O V • a 0 a,°f N 0 'n N O n • Q O N p A o — — •o S 'a , O o 0 0 0 °f i' 0_ o N W 3 * O C ° 0 0 o N t a (...) ,...) 3 _, < < a Va Q o �°o = (D O (D v Q V ., Cn Q o Oe° N a y p Q o 0 E^ o b A vd' 3 Q oN C' m S 3 m o a 3 oN m Z 5• c474 3 3 a^ (� 7 OD (n (T — N W u) N _ — y = N j O N �: Cn A W N — O %fir < 7 '.. 5. N 0 �dy O O (Q N N 9/776'4)0 �j Q W O Ca Ca 0. p O v ',-1• Q N A w V O.P N< D p Q Q Q 0 3 4o co D C < 0 u, o _, Q fl o a, 1373 0 CD o <Toa o �Ni oo O73 CO o 0 0 0 C cr, -I 0 f i 0 g 9 ,. -I p. 0 ,.._ Cfl0) = v L:0 N�N N OQ fl O g 0 m CC Z rm L • C 7 C_ 'OD N 1 N N COU, 01 H SO NN 0 ? < O' 0 (Q 3 �. . g 9 iiiiii O d < O , N vO Cl) a O p W C 0 Q �. '0 CD O N a)0 1 N N Q)0 So /0 M N N o p N N C C p 00 00 Q vs Of O i fAD 'o d > 3 N� — N' p C. . C 3. `- a = °� m N 0. a N '� d7 to 5 N d ■ •■ ■ fT Os J CO p o N C , Q 0 Tr: cr 0) D 0 0) S m S S S S S S S = § = 73 0 4.21 iv CO , _3 N8 ! _ O O O O O O V) _ < -� N N W W o OtTO NO (TO o = a c g M 0 C 3 a D CD :4-- E D v C1 H � ■ C W N ; N 7 A m O 00 g 3 O 0. 0 0 3 H 1111 I c• 0 m N N IL L ■ L N o 0 N N DJ O _ 7. `G .. m 0)0 = D O)N 010 00 O) 0 3 Q • ni R3 a O ■ O o N'O H C QO ' i m N f Er 5 44 39 5. c NN ;: m °1 3 m x S 5 5- 3- Q -` 3 = N No o N� 5 c 8 5 N o NNWW 0 0 0a 0 o N A p to o to O T O w C 0 0 0 0 C r fn m c m v z m � c CD W N •■ z N N N m N 7 N y� g' m k m a g 0 ' • j o m o CD 0 ■ m m m s_ O N N O c c N rn o N 7 N - O7 m W O 'p ig Opp O �0 CC' o N N T 7 m 0. 2 O)so N p)0 S 0 0 0 0 0)0 ▪GIN 3 R5,-,-) D.3 0 0 r �Q Q N -? ® ■ Nt 3 3 a `z' a m 0 • mop -. `m_ c ■ ■ ■ T woe - muse N N -p1 N N .,v O) 3 O) S N W A(T Q,v OD t0 8 C o 0 C 00 N S N 3 R a S S S S S S 5 5 S F N▪t to 8 N' '< N m 5 C.' � 3 c F, • Board of.7CeaCth Netiv Business .agenda Item # IV., 4 � Big 2uilcene JishIng Season - Septage and SoCienNaste .august 16, 2012 s tr,. JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH 615 Sheridan Street o Port Townsend o Washington ff„_� ash ngton o 98368 www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org • Big Quilcene Fishing Season Sanitation Planning Location Summary (see map for further illustration) Riverside Park is the easiest public access point on the Big Quilcene River. There is a sign on Linger Longer Road directing the public to the park and another sign identifying the park. There is a parking area at the former Rodgers Street bridge (now removed) and a picnic table but no other facilities.The second most popular access point is at the end of Fremont Ave south of Linger Longer Road. This area can hold perhaps a dozen parked cars and a trail leads about one-quarter mile to the river, also on county property.Jefferson County also owns property on the opposite side of the river from Riverside Park accessible from Rodgers Street. These areas see more distributed use, but it is clear that a large amount of recreational use occurs on County lands. The nearest public facilities are the Quilcene Community Center and Quilcene Campground on Highway 101 (approximately 0.5 miles away) and the Fish and Wildlife Quilcene Tidelands vault toilet at Indian George Creek on Linger Longer Road (0.75 miles away). 2011 In September, Public Health received a complaint from a resident along the river who was concerned about trash and human defecation at the Riverside Park area, a county park. Water Quality staff investigated and found trash overflowing some containers put out by a citizen, other trash along the river and toilet paper on the river bank. About 50 people were fishing that day in the Riverside Park area. Although water samples for E. coli from the river that day were fairly low, the State Department of Health decided that the potential health risks were high enough to warrant an emergency closure of a • portion of the Quilcene Bay commercial shellfish growing area. Public Health subsequently received calls from upset commercial growers. Water Quality contacted a number of agencies to try to find a solution to the problem including Jefferson County Parks and Recreation, State Fish and Wildlife, the Federal Fish Hatchery, Ecology, DOH and members of the East Jefferson Watershed Council including tribal representatives. No resolution was able to be found. 2012 Just as in 2011, large numbers of recreational and commercial tribal fisherman are anticipated to congregate on the Big Quilcene River for salmon season August 16 through October 31. Eric Anderson of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife anticipates the peak of the run approximately late August and early September. He estimates that at the peak of the run several hundred people per day may use the area between Highway 101 and the mouth of the river. Proactive efforts by the Water Quality division to contact and engage agencies prior to the start of the season have yielded no results. As the number of people congregating in the area is anticipated to be high and site conditions are unchanged, the Water Quality division is expecting activities similar to what occurred last year. If that takes place, we could see human septage and solid waste on the grounds surrounding the river and a COMMUNITY HEALTHPUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENT AL DISABILITIES WATER QUALITY Al• MN: (360)385-9400 ALWAYS'WORKING?5 FOR A .ML:t IlMAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX: (360)385 9401 HEALTHIERUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 possible costly cleanup effort. Additionally,the state DOH could again close the Quilcene Bay commercial shellfish growing area. In a preventative effort, we would like to seek the Boards support to partner with Jefferson County Parks and Recreation Department to place two portable toilets and a solid waste dumpster at Riverside Park during the expected season peak(August 16th through September 30th). Based upon rates obtained by the Parks and Recreation department the total estimated cost of supplying these facilities would be $620.00. In addition, the Water Quality Division will use existing allocated funds to monitor water quality downstream and post signs about location of nearest facilities in order to encourage fisherman to use the supplied facilities instead of the ground or stream. • COMMUNITY HEALTHPUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES WATER QUALITY ALWAYMAIN: (360)385-9400 'WORKING MAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX:(360)385-9401 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 • d 4 - 5;,' : ,a s III � ,k x e s °k zG; a � r ' v ` ? kc . t z t` '' ;,1i�.,11!,,',,,),„,, .' w a 4.1`':'''''',f,,4 i'A'''''.1.,8''i,tiget.„1.i,17,4*. N'11:\e'''.=,:-.,*:!-'-''''Yar.10,7irii.Viff,4*.liir,,i,ifik•,•;,,,,‘,...,41,..."',;.,7.01,,,,,4'i,,,WV,44,0•41,0*11,,,),,e4,41k$,V„41."'Nf•ftagg.',`,.z1-t?.4141ko'47ratAIL*4:iglAt.,X,''''''At'-'?„,,,- i ks 3 .,, ,a, . fir. 1' w=, , a. f11)w IN*1:001.4NVA.Pri- i J 171 te 'A"` t" e\ 4°' , 1s1 ( ry �^ s h „ n 4 x `x\ v 9• ,4,, T're-" s-\ C ^N. .-<— -t yk ri 1r. y • ti i \,v� ,y >, .Ak. ..\\:,..\\,..,"‘,\,,,,,,s. I 4, ,,,.. ,.._ ,\., , , ,., , , ,,,.„,„, 4...,,,,„.., \ ,,,,„:, ..„, , , ,.....„,„<,, ,, ,,,,, ...\‘‘.......,.....\.\\ „ • .. . . ,,,,,, ,,,, ,,.,„\\ ,.. \ ,\ :. „\_., 1.----- ,..\\‘‘‘,------, , , „ ,, \ `‘, \ �, \3 !, \ \s i, '\"--- I 0 . i 11 � �- p�{Ja6uo�Ja6uil I { E J 1 n . tv - N f. _ i v t i G - j; \.7.\\,, E —i ter-_ I vv !' �1 Ca LL 1 � : :x•s ? 1S sJa6pob }S s�a6pob 1 NI u CDCO i z a L ,c 3 C� O O ,i 0- 4 _-... --_... .-._... — O T w` '. (J 4 _ J U j H O • (l) 0 u i N Z ,‹;v to F,`3 { iii 0 (n y`5K' - • Board of CeaCth Correspondence • .august 16, 2012 Page 1 of 2 Cathy Avery From: G Brewer PTAW[ptawdirector@mailhaven.com] Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:10 PM • To: boh@jeffersoncountypublichealth.org Cc: Tom Locke Subject: Fwd: Ash Dump--What they burn at Port Townsend Paper Attachments: PTPC Hog Fuel Acceptance Criteria Example.doc; ATT109270.htm; PTPC 2009 Reported Emissions- TRI and ORCAA.pdf; ATT109271.htm; SOP PB10#31 Urban Wood Acceptance Program Rev 1.pdf; ATT109272.htm (Re-sending to Jefferson County Board of Health with corrected email address, and Dr. Locke with PTPC 2009 emissions attachment) From: G Brewer PTAW <ptawdirector(a�mailhaven.com> Date: July 17, 2012 11 :47:11 PM PDT To: Tom Locke <tlocke(cco.iefferson.wa.us> Cc: boh@co.jefferson.wa.us, "Ted (ECY) Sturdevant" <TSTU461(a.ECY.WA.GOV>, mclerran.dennis@epa.gov, Patty Murray <Senator(c�murray.senate.gov>, maria cantwell(p�cantwell.senate.gov Subject: What they burn at Port Townsend Paper To Dr. Tom Locke, Health Officer for Jefferson County WA cc: Jefferson County WA Board of Health, Governor Christine Gregoire (via online form), Ted Sturdevant(Director, WA Dept of Ecology), Dennis McLerran (Director, EPA Region 10), Senator Patty Murray, Senator Maria Cantwell • Dear Dr. Locke: In 2004, the Jefferson County WA Board of Health erroneously changed the designation of Port Townsend Paper Corporation's on-site ash dump from limited purpose to inert, rendering it the only similar ash dump in WA state to be so designated, exempting it from financial assurances for closure proceedings and exempting it from most regulatory oversight requirements such as ground water testing and deep core sampling. The erroneous designation of Port Townsend Paper Corporation's on-site ash landfill as "inert" must be corrected immediately and raised to either "limited purpose", "toxic" or other as based on real testing and all of the facts, including those described here. Inert with conditions is not satisfactory because it allows the precedent for this incorrect designation to stand. Because the landfill designation is based on current and past landfill materials, the correction should be made now, and not delayed for a pending project that will only change the fuels in their proportions and will not change past deposits. This is especially so since the permits are for 1 year at a time. The first of the attached three files -- a typical Port Townsend Paper Corp Hog Fuel Acceptance Agreement (as provided to us through legal discovery in our appeal of PTPC's biomass project) - - shows that under the rubric of"hog fuel" PTPC presently burns tree wood and construction waste. They specify no limit on the amount or ratio of construction waste that can be burned. Although it specifies certain contaminants that cannot be accepted (notably treated wood and lead painted material), such things can be burned as latex painted material; engineered woods such as plywood, OSB/oriented strand board, etc. that have glues; and wallcoverings. Additionally, we see no way that a screener can cost-efficiently determine that a piece of wood 7/23/2012 1 Page 2 of 2 that has been painted many times over does not have lead paint as an early coat. These considerations alone make it that PTPC's ash is not inert. Additionally: over half(360,000 tons) of PTPC's fuel for the total facility is "black liquor solids", concentrated residues from the pulping operations. PTPC burns over 14 million gallons of reprocessed fuel oil (variously LSFO/low sulfur fuel oil and RFO/reprocessed fuel oil). They burn "sludge" "primary clarifier sludge" and/or "waste treatment sludge" --who knows what that contains? As you can see from the second file attached,PTPC reported emissions for 2009 -- a single year just randomly selected-- PTPC deposited over 3,000 pounds of lead to the landfill. Surely lead is not considered inert? For at least several years, PTPC burned tires. Ash from tires commonly results in dioxins, which will still be in the landfill. There is no reason or justification to wait to revoke the inert status that was erroneously granted to PTPC in 2004 and issue a correct designation based on PTPC's present AND historic dumping, both. The fact that none of the other mill ash dumps in WA have inert status is a huge red flag that this incorrect designation is a flawed decision not based on accurate facts. Further,there is no reason or justification to wait to characterize the materials that will be in the landfill. First,the permit is annual. Second, as illustrated above, it is not inert. Third, as Laurie Davies of Ecology said during the July 2010 public hearing about PTPC's biomass power generating proposal, PTPC "will burn what they are burning now", except that they will burn "more than twice as much" woody biomass -- the materials listed in the Hog Fuel Acceptance Agreement and described above. The third file, SOP PB 10 #31 Urban Wood Acceptance Program, also obtained through legal discovery,bears this out. Port Townsend should be held to the standards defined by law and not "permitted by exemption". • Thank you for your attention, -Gretchen Brewer Gretchen Brewer, Director PT AirWatchers PO Box 1653, Port Townsend WA 98368 360-774-2115 ptawdirector(aimailhaven.com • ptairwatchers.org S 7/23/2012 1' File PTPC0000384.pdf - Agreement 5486 11 . HOG FUEL SPECIFICATION AND ACCEPTANCE POLICIES: Hog fuel delivered by Seller hereunder shall be suitable for the production of steam in the Buyer's mill. 461 Suppliers must be certified and approved by PTPC prior to acceptance as a hog fuel 116 urce. Biomass hog fuel shall consist of unadulterated wood (as defined below) and pre consumer wood products (trees, tree stumps, tree limbs, bark, lumber, sawdust, sander dust, chips, scraps, slabs, millings, and shavings, vegetative agricultural and silvicultural materials such as logging residues (slash) and orchard prunings). Unadulterated wood means wood or wood products that have not been painted, pigment- stained, or pressure treated with compounds such as chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol and creosote. Plywood, particle board, oriented strand board, and other types of wood products bound by glues and resins are included are considered to be unadulterated wood. Urban Wood hog fuel means wood recovered from post consumer sources such as pallets, packing crates, manufacturing, wood- based material recovered from post consumer sources, waste and building material that result from the construction or demolition operations on houses and commercial and industrial buildings and any wood that has been painted, or pigment-stained. All urban wood hog fuel must be free of contaminants containing lead, chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, creosote, mercury and/or asbestos. The supplier must certify that the material is free of these compounds and the supplier must be certified and approved by Port Townsend Paper Corporation prior to acceptance as a hog fuel source. ‘115 ainted Wood: Source streams need to be selectively screened to avoid lead based paint. Supplier must be able to demonstrate that testing is consistently done non controlled sources, such as recycling sources accessible to the general public. Controlled source material, such as manufacturers and construction operations should certify their material to be in compliance with this specification is acceptable. Treated Wood: Treated wood means any wood that has been pressure treated or coated with chemical wood preservatives. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any hog fuel containing treated wood. Salty hog fuel means any wood that has been in contact with salt water. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any salty hog fuel. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any salty hog fuel. • Agreement 5088 11 . HOG FUEL SPECIFICATION: Hogfuel delivered by Seller hereunder shall be suitable for the production of steam in the Buyer's mill. Biomass hog fuel shall consist of unadulterated wood (as defined below) and wood products • (trees, tree stumps, tree limbs, bark, lumber, sawdust, chips, scraps, slabs, millings, and shavings, vegetative agricultural and silvicultural materials such as logging residues (slash). Unadulterated wood means wood or wood products that have not been painted, pigment- stained, or pressure treated with compounds such as chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol and creosote. Plywood, particle board, oriented strand board, and other types of wood products bound by glues and resins are included are considered to be unadulterated wood. Construction/demolition debris hog fuel means waste building material that result from the construction or demolition operations on houses and commercial and industrial buildings and any wood that has been painted, pigment-stained or pressure treated with chemicals. All construction/demolition debris hog fuel must be free of compounds such as lead, chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, creosote and asbestos. The supplier must certify that the material is free of these compounds and the supplier must be certified and approved by Port Townsend Paper Corporation prior to acceptance as a hog fuel source. Salty hog fuel means any wood that has been in contact with salt water. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any salty hog fuel. Particle size shall be 3" minus (76 mm). • Hog fuel shall be free from large chunks, slivers, dirt, rocks, metal, and other foreign or objectionable material that would disrupt the mill's handling system or preclude its use with existing pollution control equipment and permits. 4200 11 . HOG FUEL SPECIFICATION: Hogfuel delivered by Seller hereunder shall be suitable for the production of steam in the Buyer's mill. Hog fuel shall consist of bark, sawdust, shavings, trim ends, edgings, and other wood waste that has been processed and mixed. Particle size shall be 3"minus (76 mm). Hog fuel shall be free from large chunks, slivers, dirt, rocks, metal, and other foreign or objectionable material that would disrupt the mill's handling system or preclude its use with existing pollution control equipment and permits. • a J i 00 N 0 0 0 d• Cf) 0 ,z1- if) N 0 CO N 0 N CO.d- 0 0 10 CO co 0 c r r 0 C) 0 0 N d- 0 0 M d' CO CO 'Cr N- CO CO d co CO V 0 CO f,: CO Cn M CO N 6) CCCO co J CO LO d- J Co CO E T T CO 0 d- "-.- 0/ � � a N °) a 0 < U 0 T _ O ' '! O CO0 0 0 00071- m0000 0 ` 1 CO .' 00 W ) a)> COJ __I N- 00 -7' U > J J w CO L1.1 0 IL u- E Q (/) cas c u o z zcn n Z 0 Q co 0 _I - U __I J 0 O CO 00d- 000d- 0000000W ' .� LO di- O '� p) T Co d' d' d' CA 0 W Q' c O Q to cc W T N Lo U) CC ax) , o -o w W Z w -t Q 4 > , , o Cl- o p 0 a 0) O < 2 O a_ CO r 0 0 O O 0 0 0 r co 0 CO N O ' ,- 1-1 0 W CT CO 0 0 OM O d' 0 T 0 0 0 0 V 0 CC � �, C N r CO CO L` 1 a) Q d O T co CO 0 CO CT) J O O O co N. r. T d 1..... J Q.3 U A co CO:`t V CO cC N CC co 30 o rn ro i ° � r a o > � � � cn r �,� o Q Q co• o W a O` 0 N J a9 N 0 cn i W 0U z a> tti co + C J W :0 Li j_w 13- o.vi 0 -, ! II pC 1 O' p > i_i"" 5 C D MU) CLi 0 X cn O a) .� a < ›- o w z S Q CJ co W CO CC - 1J (n Y — U O m F 0 w ca 0 C W z F- t Q Z U n Q Q ,N N �''a, >0 � O z w a�ai —10w X w 0 z 0 I— °� W Z W W p p E U w Q Q W Q o II1 , uni QQco Q i O= Q = QQUpw1J222Za. a_ a Cr LL °C ° c� wo' z IOD U ° UO WD F° • Y. L. • „ _ _ „ „.. _ _ ,,_ ,. ‘_ 0 0 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0, ccc = cc , ccca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in Co r 0 0) L CO CO LC) CO 0 CO CO C � N'0 N 0 .- , : N 'T' N (3) s 0 U) g j 1 N I f ' 3 } a i...._ 1 - 1 t 1 r I Ci g d yMS = C ! 1 ` [ 1 ; ¢ l L Ti I 0 ' L L :L Y_ .L L Y.. . L N N U) CD Cn U) U) ) U) Cn _0 Q _0 _ _ JD _0 _0 Q .0 i J 'JJJ<JJ.JJJJ _I C O -CO 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 01 CO 000 ,000 ,00 >, 0 N O 0 '0 0 0 0 0'0 0 " 0 OCON000ONNOCO ,- r N. CO 0 Cr) 0)' CO N- CO N O ' CO 0) d-COd' r ; C • O V''^ W Y -0 O tCD L Q 0 ^W i 0 0 0cc E 0 — o > _ � o — 0 U'O "0' (Y cc CC .E C) S W C• ZJ E 0 O N O Q W cn . v v c U O • p O o m .0 W Z Z "••••• Z U U a 0 N 0as W 4„, 0 w o o � o ° ) 0 U) d p w c0 7 - :t •X -0O Z O •• X c .- � ELp = m O 0 z pJQ Q c on- _ ccoo I— < ° Zo - � • � .� i — � � Q OI- � � z- o � cn0C6a cc 0 o cc � NcnUX ~ TNo0 O u c < cc 2 00222000 W 0 D Ub< 0Zo Q 0v) > > • PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION POWER/RECOVERY DEPARTMENT FIBER SUPPLY STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE PB10 #31, Rev 1 TO: POWER/RECOVERY OPERATORS POWER/RECOVERY 2ND ASSTS. FIBER SUPPLY OPERATORS PULP MILL FOREMEN FIBER SUPPLY MANAGER GATEHOUSE FROM: Ted Friedrich SUBJECT: PTPC URBAN WOOD ACCEPTANCE PROGRAM DATE: JANUARY 28, 2011 Purpose of procedure: Following this procedure should insure the quality of the accepted urban fuel supply and prevent undue environmental contamination. Background: Ecology issued on October 22, 2010 the Notice of Construction Order No. 7850. This permit covers the PT Cogeneration project that includes an upgrade to Power Boiler (PB10) and would allow the use of more wood as fuel. Condition 9 of the NOC order states: Operating and maintenance(O&M) manuals for all equipment added or modified by this project, that has the potential to affect emissions to the atmosphere, shall be developed and followed. Copies of the manuals shall be available to the Department. Emissions that result from a failure to follow the requirements of the manuals may be considered proof that the equipment was not properly operated and maintained. All urban wood purchased by PTPC must meet an acceptance program included as part of the PB10 O&M manual. The acceptance program must include acceptance criteria which at a minimum prohibits wood treated with creosote, pentachlorophenols, or copper-chrome-arsenic; municipal waste, hazardous material contaminants (asbestos, lead, mercury), lead-painted items, and plastic coatings. The acceptance program must be incorporated into O&M manual within 90- days of this order being signed. Also a copy of the acceptance program must be submitted to Ecology within 90-days of receipt of this Order. Any changes to the acceptance program must be submitted to Ecology prior to instituting the changes. Page 1 of SOP PB10#31: PTPC's Urban Wood Acceptance Program Rev 1 , January 28, 2011 Acceptance Procedures: • I. Supplier Selection PTPC's quality assurance program begins with the selection of professional suppliers that run quality operations. These operations include sourcing, segregation, sorting, and rejection features that provide loads of fuel that meet or exceed PTPC's contract specifications. The supplier must understand and commit to PTPC's contract specifications. • Fiber Supply Manager will review with any potential supplier: o PTPC contract specifications to supply quality urban wood; o Supplier Quality Assurance program (both written and at supplier facility). A copy of the supplier QA program will be kept on file with the Fiber Supply Manager; o Actual samples of the typical urban wood produced by the supplier. • Once the supplier has been qualified, a supply contract will be signed & the supplier will be held to the terms of the contract. Failure to meet the specifications can result in non—acceptance of material on the mill site. II. Contract specifications Urban Wood hog fuel means wood recovered from post consumer sources such as pallets, packing crates, manufacturing, wood- based material recovered from post consumer sources, waste and building material that result from the construction or demolition operations on houses and commercial and industrial buildings and any wood that has been painted, or pigment-stained. All urban wood hog fuel must be free of contaminates containing lead, chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, creosote, mercury and/or asbestos. Suppliers of urban wood will have a written quality assurance program outlining preventive measures to keep contaminants out of the product. The supplier will be interviewed, the operation inspected and a copy of the quality assurance program submitted for review in order to be accepted by Port Townsend Paper Corporation as a hog fuel source. Salty Hog Fuel means any wood that has been in contact with salt water. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any salty hog fuel. Treated Wood means any wood that has been pressure treated or coated with chemical wood preservatives. Port Townsend Paper Corporation will not accept any hog fuel containing treated wood. Page 2 of 3 • SOP PB10#31: PTPC's Urban Wood Acceptance Program Rev 1 , January 28, 2011 11111 Other Contaminants: Hog fuel shall be free from large chunks, silvers, dirt rocks, metal and other foreign or objectionable material like plastic or rubber that would disrupt the mill's handling system or preclude its use with existing pollution control equipment and permits. Buyer may reject as unmerchantable any delivered hog fuel not conforming to the foregoing specifications. In such case of rejection, the Buyer shall have the option to either: 1. Take corrective action so that the fuel can meet requirements. The handling and disposal charge incurred for correction will be subtracted from the price of the load; or 2. When Buyer determines that the problem cannot be corrected, reject the load unconditionally. The price of the load will be reduced to $0, with transportation and disposal costs to be borne by Seller. Buyer shall be allowed to conduct quality control inspections at Sellers facilities at reasonable times. III. Confirmation of Quality • The supplier must certify that the material is free of contaminates S containing lead, chromate, copper arsenate, pentachlorophenol, creosote, mercury and/or asbestos. • Samples of the incoming loads are taken to measure the moisture of the load. The initial incoming samples will be inspected to insure that the supplier's quality assurance program meets or exceeds the terms of the supply contract. If any concerns arise, the Fiber Supply Manager will be contacted and then will work with the supplier to correct any problems. • Loader operators will visually inspect loads at the truck dumps. If any load causes concerns, the shift foreman will be contacted. The load will be segregated until released by the foreman. Upon verification of a problem, the foreman will contact the Fiber Supply Manager. Arrangements will be made with the supplier for the correction of the problem or removal of the load from the mill site. Other loads from that supplier will be put on hold until the extent of the problem is determined & isolated. • If a supplier is unable to meet the specifications of the contract, the supply will be dropped. • Page 3 of 3 114 Page 1 of 4 Cathy Avery From: scshumaker@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 11:55 PM To: Phil Johnson; David Sullivan; John Austin; Cathy Avery • Cc: aarthur@ptleader.com; Pinky Feria-Mingo; whar461@ecy.wa.gov; Jared Keefer; David Alvarez Subject: Two-Page Letter dated July 19, 2012 under Dr. Thomas Locke's signature Dear County Commissioners and Members of the Board of Health of Jefferson County: Please read the last paragraph on the first page of Dr. Locke's letter, which appears below my comments. It is almost laughable. Can you SEE that? Dr. Locke talks about why he SHOULD require a Limited Purpose Landfill permit for the PTPC, and then he tells the world that he is not going to do what he says SHOULD be done! Dr. Locke listens to the needs of the PTPC and not the needs of the Public, when he agrees to delay a Limited Purpose permit for at least a year. WHY THE DELAY? Is the delay in the interest of the Public Health? No, it is not. It perfectly fits the needs of the PTPC, who could close down our local Mill, while an Inert Landfill Permit is still in place. Yes, that could happen. Anyone thinking about this but the PTPC? I will tell you how Dr. Locke's letter of July 19th most likely worked through the system, from my personal experience in similar situations: 1) Dr. Locke wrote a draft letter 2) He sent the draft to the PTPC's attorney, for her review and comments 3) He rewrote his letter, to meet any issues the attorney had with this "Public Document" fi) 4) He resent the final draft to the attorney, for her final approval 5) The letter as you see it below was "approved" for Public consumption Understanding how "the system" works is important. Then, you can read the letter, being fully informed that this letter essentially comes with the approval of the PTPC and their legal and financial interests. THIS LETTER DOES NOT REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA. In Dr. Locke's letter of July 19, 2012 it is clearly stated by him that a letter was issued on October 13, 2011, wherein both the Head of the Department of Ecology (Ted Sturdevant) and Dr. Locke himself were in agreement that a Limited Purpose Landfill permit was most appropriate for the PTPC. Between October 13, 2011 and the present time, the PTPC has hired an attorney and lobbyists to "work with" Dr. Locke and Ted Sturdevant, "helping them" to change their thinking about issuing a Limited Purpose Permit in 2012. Why would decision makers -- employed specifically to represent the Public's health, environmental, and financial welfare -- shirk their responsibilities to the Public, in favor of a corporation owned by a hedge fund out of New York, a company that has billions of dollars in assets, millions of dollars in cash reserves, and the whereforall to cover any costs of"financial assurances" required under a Limited Purpose landfill permit? What liabilities does the PTPC know about in its 7/26/2012 Page 2 of 4 landfill that it is hiding from the Public? What third-party monitoring of its landfill does it want to avoid, so that the Public is kept in the dark? Why should there be any delay at all in issuing a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit for the PTPC? I urge all Members of the Jefferson County Board of Health to say NO to a hybrid-Inert Permit, • and I urge the Director of the Department of Ecology to say NO to a hybrid-Inert Permit. Dr. Locke is recommending this solution to you for 2012. Read further, on previous comments I have written: Very likely, this "creative Inert Permit" being offered by Dr. Locke has enforceability issues. There is no legal precedent for this type of"hybrid permit." The PTPC could decide not to comply, and they could win in Court, regarding non compliance. The PTPC is a shrewd, savvy entity. Their$400/hour attorney knows the law. I wish Dr. Locke had a JD in addition to his MD. Why do you think the PTPC is fighting so hard for ANYTHING BUT a "Limited Purpose" permit? The letter shown below from Dr. Locke is not in the Public's interest. The truth is in the details of the final permit as issued and in the enforceability of anything but a Limited Purpose landfill permit. We have seen no details, the PTPC has not responded to Dr. Locke's letter, and the effective date of any landfill permit keeps moving further and further into the future. ---------------------------------------------------------- 11111 • 7/26/2012 Page 3 o14 JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend Washington 98368 WV.M.ietr-,3oncounfypOkhealtha July 19,2012 Ms.Eveleen Muehlethaler Vice President,Environmental Affairs Port Townsend Paper Corporation 100 Paper Mill Hill Road Port Townsend,WA 98368 Re: Landfill Permit Application Dear Ms.Muehlethaler After almost a year of discussion on the appropriate renewal mechanism for PTPC's landfill permit,the time has come to conclude the permit renewal process. As I have previously stated, no permit renewal can he approved that does not adequately address the following concerns: • a groundwater monitoring plan • financial assurance to cover future closure costs • and adequate characterization of current and future waste material As you are no doubt aware,in the months since the February meeting,the PTPC landfill has undergone considerable scrutiny by the local media and concerned citizens.Dozens of local residents have testified at local board of health meetings,challenging the appropriateness of an inert landfill classification and asking that JCPH permit the PTPC site as a Limited Purpose Landfill per WAC 173-350-400. Given the high pH nature of the waste stream and changes in the waste stream that will occur once the biomass cogeneration project is operational(i.e.a • different mix of fuel sources and potential contaminates), future reclassification of the site as a limited purpose landfill is highly likely. While Jefferson County Public Health and Ecology were in agreement that a limited purpose landfill classification would be the most appropriate one for this particular landfill(as detailed in my letter of October 13,2011),both agencies were willing to consider a one year renewal of the inert Waste permit under WAC 173-350-410 provided the requirements addressing groundwater monitoring,financial assurance,and waste stream characterization are at least as stringent as those required of limited purpose landfills under WAC 173-350-400. PUBLIC HEALTH HEALTHIER COMMUNITY • 7/26/2012 rage 4 OT 4 N,s It is my goal to have a new permit in place by November 1,2012. In order to accomplish this goal,Jefferson County Public Health must receive a completed permit application addressing all relevant issues by September 15,2012. Failure to submit a permit application that adequately addresses these issues will result in the issuance of a limited purpose landfill permit under WAC • 173-350-400. I look forward to your timely submission of the required landfill permit application. In the February 16 meeting,we committed to having a meeting of technical staff prior to.If this is still of interest to you_it will need to take place in August,prior to scheduled vacations of key personnel. Sincerely, Thomas Locke.MD.MPH Jefferson County Health Officer 111, PUBLIC HEALTH , HEALTHIER COMIMMITY S 7/26/2012 Yage 1 of 4 Cathy Avery From: scshumaker@aol.com Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 5:35 AM 4, To: Cathy Avery; Tom Locke Cc: governor.gregoire@governor.wa.gov; ted.sturdevant@ecy.wa.gov; amit_ronen@cantwell.senate.gov; shawn_bills@murray.senate.gov; teno461@ecy.wa.gov Subject: FOR YOUR RESPONSE - Email to Dr. Thomas Locke, Public Health Officer, and The full Board of Health of Jefferson County, WA Dear Dr. Locke and Members of the Board of Health, In the spirit of total transparency, our group,known as the "Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs," would like to keep you completely informed about our activities and point of view on the pending landfill permit for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. Members of our group will be lobbying staff of our State Government in Olympia starting this coming week. We will be visiting staff working for Governor Christine Gregoire and staff in the Department of Ecology. We will also be contacting leaders working for the EPA. We will be acting as CITIZEN WATCHDOGS, relentless in our public relations and communications efforts... all of this on behalf of the PUBLIC HEALTH OF RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, WA. We are a group of more than 750 strong. Our names, email addresses, and phone numbers are of record on this issue of public health. We put YOU, our local decision makers, on notice: Do your job in representing THE PUBLIC INTEREST on this very important issue of a landfill permit for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. You have heard the Public. We support a Limited Purpose Landfill permit for 2012 for the PTPC. Nothing less than a Standard Limited Purpose permit best represents our Public Health. We have nothing to hide and we need you on our side! For the Public Record, Sally Shumaker, on behalf of "Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs" Original Message From: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> To: aarthur <aarthur@ptleader.com>; sradka <sradka@ptleader.com> Sent: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 Subject: For Allison Arthur and Sara Radka - Activities of the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs • Dear Allison and Sara, 7/30/2012 Page 2 of 4 I am forwarding the following email to you, to keep you fully informed about activities of the Public here in Port Townsend, relative to the landfill issue. Our activities include the purchase of two 1/2 page, full 4-color ads for both the August 8th and August 15th issues. We will be handling financial payment for these "Public Announcements" of August 8th and 15th, just as we did in June. One credit card will cover full payment,to simplify it for your bookkeeping11111 department. Contributions from a group of concerned citizens is collected by me, who is responsible for full payment upfront to The Leader. You can call me for my credit card number. We will have finished ad copy available to you on or before your two deadlines: August 8th issue - deadline is no later than 3pm Friday August 3rd. August 15th issue - deadline is no later than 3pm Friday August 10th. Tell us the file format you require for final copy, and the dimensions of the final horizontal 1/2 page format, and you will receive what you need. We request two horizontal half-page ads to appear on the UPPER RIGHT SIDE of any of the following pages In SECTION 1 (you make the choice): Page 3,5,7, or 9. Thank you for accommodating this request. Feel free to be informed of our activities, as you read the email sent below. You have my permission to forward this communication to anyone you wish. We do not mind being on The Public Record. Sally Shumaker, on behalf of "The Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs" Original Message From: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> Sent: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 3:47 am Subject: ADS FOR THE LEADER NEWPAPER- 1/2 PAGE ADS WILL APPEAR AUG. 8TH AND AUG. 15TH Thank you for stepping up to the plate, to help fund those two 1/2 page full-color ads that will appear in The Leader on Wed. August 8th and again on Wed. August 15th. We have a professional designer laying out the ads, so they should look fantastic. We have a professional aerial photographer, who is taking photos of the landfill (and the Mill) for those ads. So, the visuals should be first class. We have professional writers, crafting the right words. Putting together the great designer+the great photographer+ the great writers... WHEW! I cannot wait to see those large, four-color ads in the Leader newspaper! The goal of the ads: to further inform the Public about the Landfill issue and to urge the Public to attend the August 16th meeting of the Board of Health, bringing more comments to the decision makers at this important meeting. Allison Arthur, investigative reporter at The Leader, told me personally two days ago that The Leader will be covering the landfill issue, with articles in upcoming editions. Stay tuned and buy every weekly newspaper for the next month, so you won't miss her reporting! As soon as the first ad appears on August 8th, I will be on the phone PERSONALLY, calling people from our list of 750+ individual supporters, referencing the ads and articles in the Leader. I will be sending out mass emails to our supporters, with the ads attached as pdf files. The Meeting on August 16th will be the final Board of Health meeting, prior to the deadline that Dr. Locke himself has set for the PTPC to send in their landfill permit application.We assume the PTPC will take Dr. Locke's application date of 7/30/2012 Page 3 of 4 September 15th to heart. The PTPC has done everything they can to delay submitting a landfill permit application. Their landfill has been operating on an expired permit all the year 2012 to date. Again, the Board of Health meeting is on Thursday August 16th, starting at 2:30pm. Be sure to mark your calendars. Location is likely to be the Masonic Temple on Jefferson Street, as it was on July 19th. Official word will be sent in a week, regarding the location. Allison Arthur told me that on Wed. August 15th, the final location will be prominently shown in that edition of the Leader. newspaper. We need to KEEP TELLING DR.LOCKE, the Jefferson County Health Officer, who makes the decision on this landfill permit, that LIMITED PURPOSE is the ONLY CLASSIFICATION of permit to be accepted in 2012 for the PTPC. Even if you have told Dr. Locke your viewpoint once or twice or three times before, be prepared to rise to the occasion once again, with new information, if you have it. We will be putting in an official request to have the landfill permit issue placed on the Agenda of the Board of Health meeting of August 16th. Whatever the outcome, there will be litigation on this issue. We assume Dr. Locke will be on the side of the Public (his title is"Public Health Officer for Jefferson and Clallam Counties".) To date, we have not seen Dr. Locke working for the Public. We have seen him supporting a "hybrid Inert permit"for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. Doesn't Dr. Locke realize that the PTPC is owned by a $60+ billion hedge fund, which has very deep pockets to meet every requirement for a Standard Limited Purpose Landfill Permit? The owner of our local Mill and its landfill is not destitute or struggling financially in any way. This hedge fund is, in fact, growing by leaps and bounds. What is their issue with meeting their financial obligations to the Public Health of residents in Jefferson County, WA? Dr. Locke must clearly understand at this point: his best strategy is to be on the side of the Public and accept nothing less than a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit in 2012 for the PTPC. If an Inert permit is approved by Dr. Locke, against all Public appeals for a Limited Purpose permit, it will not look good for his credibility. The Public has an attorney; funding is in place for an appeal. THE STATES DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS ON PUBLIC RECORD STATING: THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT DR. LOCKE IN COURT, SHOULD THERE BE AN APPEAL OF HIS DECISION TO ISSUE ANY KIND OF INERT LANDFILL PERMIT FOR THE PTPC. THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY KNOWS THAT THE WASTE IN THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION'S LANDFILL IS NOT INERT. WAKE UP, DR. LOCKE! If you have not yet sent your personal email to Dr. Locke or the Board of Health on this I landfill issue, it is never too late! You can write more than once. Heaven's... I have written relentlessly and cannot even tell you how many times I have written! These are the email addresses to reach the decision makers. Address your notes to both addresses: 1) Dr. Thomas Locke is: tlockeco.jefferson.wa.us 2) For the Board of Health: caveryco.iefferson.wa.us (Cathy Avery will forward your email to every member of the Board of Health, which includes all 3 of our County Commissioners) Again, thank you for sending your financial contributions to the ads that have already been paid for in full upfront, on behalf of all of us supporting the cause of a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit. Make your check payable to Sally Shumaker, PO Box 156, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Call anytime, if you have questions or want more information. • WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH. As ever, 7/30/2012 Yage 1 or 1 Cathy Avery From: Johanna G Perkins [acmosc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 7:50 AM To: Tom Locke; Cathy Avery • Subject: THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION'S LANDFILL THE STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS ON PUBLIC RECORD STATING: THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT DR.LOCKE IN COURT,SHOULD THERE BE AN APPEAL OF HIS DECISION TO ISSUE ANY KIND OF INERT LANDFILL PERMIT FOR THE PTPC.THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY KNOWS THAT THE WASTE IN THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION'S LANDFILL IS NOT INERT. Now is the time to issue a landfill permit that is appropriate to the waste that has been and will be deposited in it. Johanna Perkins • 7/30/2012 rage or Cathy Avery From: Johanna G Perkins [acmosc@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 8:29 AM To: Tom Locke; news@peninsuladailynews.com • Cc: scshumaker@aol.com; Cathy Avery Subject: Sunday News: PT Landfill http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20120729/news/307299984/port-townsend-paper-county-health- officer-square-off-over-permit-for What about this part: "Seattle business and environmental attorney Leslie Nellermoe, representing Port Townsend Paper, said Locke's"decision to change the manner in which the PTPC landfill is regulated does not have a regulatory or factual basis" in an Oct. 28 correspondence to the health department. "PTPC intends to challenge this arbitrary decision," she wrote, adding that the company would like to resolve the issue"without litigation." Company Vice President of Human Resources Chuck Madison said late Friday afternoon that no company officials were available to answer questions about the landfill." "does not have a regulatory or factual basis": The fact is that this is the only landfill of it's nature in the State of Washington that is mis-labeled, mis-regulated, hence mis-used, and therefore poses huge risks to the local life of Jefferson County. I know that Jefferson County Board of Health is not responsible for the health of our waters and sea life, butyou do govern this landfill. The waters of Puget are public property, and under public care, and when the sea life dies out, as evidence by other PND articles, can human life be far behind? • 7/30/2012 gage i or 4 Cathy Avery From: scshumaker@aol.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:12 AM Aik To: Cathy Avery; Tom Locke IP Subject: IMPORTANT: NEED TO BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE B OF H MEETING OF AUGUST 16TH AND NEED LARGE VENUE DETERMINED NOW Dear Cathy and Dr. Locke, The Citizens of Port Townsend, represented by the"Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs" group, would like officially to be added to the August 16th Board of Health Meeting Agenda, under the topic: LANDFILL PERMIT FOR THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION. At that meeting, you will hear NEW INFORMATION from the Public that will FULLY SUPPORT a Standard Limited Purpose Landfill permit with no modifications. We are running a FULL PAGE ANNOUNCEMENT in the August 8th issue of THE LEADER, to promote attendance at the August 16th Meeting. We need the Masonic Lodge for the meeting's venue (or a similarly large-size venue.) This meeting WILL have a large attendance. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT A LOCATION FOR THE MEETING BE RESERVED VERY SOON, AS WE NEED A LOCATION ADDRESS FOR OUR AD DEADLINE, WHICH IS FRIDAY AUGUST 3RD. You can confirm by calling Sara Radka, Marketing Director of The Leader, at 385-2900. YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC FULLY BEHIND YOU, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED PURPOSE LANDFILL PERMIT WITH NO MODIFICATIONS. Sincerely, Sally Shumaker Member, Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs • PO Box 156 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 821-8529 • Jean Baldwin From: scshumaker@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 3:42 PM 4:: Phil Johnson Tom Locke; David Sullivan; crobinson@cityofpt.us; Cathy Avery; Jean Baldwin; 4ndhand@gmail.com; peter.lyon@ecy.wa.gov; scshumaker@aol.com Subject: For Phil Johnson from Sally Shumaker- responding to your email Dear Phil, Interesting to hear from you at this late moment. Why are we hearing just today that Dr. Locke will not be at the August 16th Board of Health meeting? It appears mysterious to us. We have been working with Health Department staff over the past several weeks,to be sure there is a large enough venue for the August 16th Board of Health meeting,specifically because the Public wants to address Dr. Locke in Public Comment one last time, before the September 15th deadline set by him for the receipt of a landfill permit application from the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. An appropriate venue was approved by the Health Department on July 30th, through Cathy Avery. Dr. Locke and the full Board of Health were in the loop of information on July 30th (see the email I sent you, that you responded to... the date was July 30th). In a letter to the PTPC dated July 19th (discussed further below), please read the last paragraph on page two, where Dr. Locke says: I look forward to your timely submission of the required landfill permit application. In the February 16 meeting, we committed to having a meeting of technical staff prior to. If this is still of interest to you, it will need to take place in August, prior to scheduled vacations of key personnel." As this last sentece reads to me, Dr. Locke is available for meetings in August, and after that time, e might be on vacation. How do you interpret that sentence? Dave McWethy met with Dr. Locke t Thursday, August 2nd, to talk about the landfill. No time during that meeting did Dr. Locke mention e would be on vacation during the month of August and would not be available to attend the Board of Health meeting on August 16th. I spoke with Cathy Avery today, who said Dr. Locke was already on vacation. We wonder. .. if he knew he was going to be on vacation August 16th... why didn't he just tell us about that? Jean Baldwin asserts that Dr. Locke had it on his calendar six MONTHS ago that he would be on vacation. It begs the question... if he was informed about the importance of the August 16th meeting way ahead of time, and he knew months ago that he would not be in town, why did he remain silent to the Public and why did others on the Board remain silent? Why did you email me just yesterday, when Dr. Locke could have told us last month? Strange way to communicate. Of specific concern: the Public has already committed and already paid for a full-page ad in tomorrow's Leader newspaper, announcing the August 16th Board of Health meeting. That happened last week. That ad was paid for by many donations, and that was done last week. It took a lot of time (one week) and effort by many volunteers to write and design and lay out a full-page ad. Enjoy the finished product. See the announcement appearing in the August 8th (tomorrow's) edition of The Leader, on page 5. Four of us in Port Townsend visited staff at the State Dept. of Ecology last Wednesday and had a two-hour meeting with 3 key managers in the "Waste 2 Resources Program" : Laurie Davies, Peter Lyon, and Bill Harris. They are experts on landfills and are very familiar with the one here in Port Townsend as well as others throughout the State. as mentioned above, it was just the day after that meeting of August 1st, that Dave McWethy ent in to personally visit Dr. Locke to review with him some highlights of the meeting, including what Ecology staff told us I. to focus on with the upcoming permit. Dr. Locke never brought up the fact that he would be out of town on the day of the upcoming Board of Health meeting. Surprising. Department of Ecology staff have recommended that Dr. Locke write an airtight, "legally defensible" landfill permit, with fine detail regarding the following requirements of the Port Townsend Paper Corporation: 1) A groundwater monitoring plan - detailed in specifics, so there can be clear enforcement. . 2) Financial assurance to cover future closure costs - this should be in specifics, like the Nippon plant's Limited Purpose permit in Port Angeles. 3) Adequate characterization of curent and future waste material - Ecology staff tell us that the material in the PTPC landfill is NOT Inert and they do not characterize it as "Inert". Please read in full the public document dated July 19, 2012, from Dr. Locke to Ms. Eveleen Muehlethaler. The subject heading is: "Re: Landfill Permit Application". In the last paragraph on the first page, the Public is very confused about the fact that Dr. Locke says he "is willing to consider a one year renewal of the Inert Waste permit....". BUT, then he continues on to say: "provided the requirements addressing groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, and waste stream characterization are at least as stringent as those required of limited purpose landfills...." Managers in Ecology who we spoke with in our two-hour meeting are as confused as the Public --- if Dr. Locke is trying to bend over backwards to have all the areas itemized above meet the requirements of a LIMITED PURPOSE permit, WHY DOESN'T HE JUST REQUIRE A LIMITED PURPOSE PERMIT?Why is he "willing to consider a one year renewal of an INERT permit?" Dr. Locke does not have the support of Ecology in issuing an Inert Permit. Better to have a Limited Purpose permit,with a few deductions, if necessary. It appears to the Public as well as to staff at Ecology that"Power and Politics" are clearly at work here. The PTPC has its Agenda which it has shared with Dr. Locke, and Dr. Locke is bending over backwards to meet it. We ask: "Why isn't Dr. Locke bending over backwards to meet the Agenda of the PUBLIC HEALTH?" As you know, from attending recent Board of Health meetings and reading The Leader, the Public wants the upcoming landfill permit for the PTPC to be a LIMITED PURPOSE landfill permit, NOT an INERT permit, that conains all manner of add-on requirements. We realize that this all comes down to $$$$$; the PTPC wants to spend as little $ as possible and not be required to pay for a landfill liner. It's business and money for them. At the Board of Health meeting in June, Eveleen could not understand why the Public could possibly be concerned about the landfill. Ecology staff told us of a landfill in Pierce County that has an Inert permit and does not have a liner. This landfill includes high pH concrete drilling slurry that has caused groundwater contamination. The PTPC landfill also contains high pH from caustic ash and has no liner. Groundwater contamination of our local landfill here in Jefferson County is of concern to Ecology and to the Public. We have no liner and we have had no adequate groundwater monitoring at our landfill for decades. At the meeting of the Board of Commissioners yesterday, you told me that the Board of Health has nothing to do with the issuance of a landfill permit for the PTPC, and the Board also has nothing to do with the enforcement of a landfill permit. All legal accountability is with Dr. Locke, who is not a member of the Board of Health. This is puzzling to the point of absurdity. The comment given to me: "We could become involved, but only if there was an appeal of the permit already issued." During our meeting with Ecology staff, we learned many details about our local landfill that Dr. Locke himself said he did not know (we asked him in a personal meeting several weeks ago). We learned details from Ecology that other local staff here in Port Townsend who are involved with the landfill permit do not know (for example, Dave McWethy has informed Pinky on important matters that were news to her). We have learned from Ecology that our Health Department has issued landfill permits in the past, but those permits have not been enforced. Overall, our local PTPC landfill has remained essentially unregulated for a long time! It had a Limited Purpose Landfill permit until 2004, but no one in Ecology had any recollection of financial assurances from Crown Zellerbach, during the time they owned the property. Were financial assurances required in the past? So, bottomline,the Public has these concerns: •2 1)that our local PTPC landfill be properly permitted in the first place, with all details of required monitoring spelled out in detail; and 2) once the proper permit is issued, that it is ENFORCED! If there is inadequate or improper enforcement, why bother issuing any permit at all? Enforcement is paramount. the absence of Dr. Locke at the upcoming Board of Health meeting of August 16th, we would like now if you could invite those people from the Department of Ecology, with whom we learned so ch on August 1st? They said they would attend, if they were invited. You can reach Peter Lyon, Regional Manager of the Waste 2 Resources Program at the Department of Ecology, at(360) 407-6381. If Ecology staff can attend the meeting, it would be ideal to have the landfill issue on the Agenda. You mentioned that the Agenda was light this month. Thank you for your timely response to this request. Sally Original Message From: Phil Johnson<pjohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> To: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Aug 6, 2012 4:28 pm Subject: RE: IMPORTANT: NEED TO BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE B OF H MEETING OF AUGUST 16TH AND NEED LARGE VENUE DETERMINED NOW Sally -- Thank you for your testimony this morning before the board. I want to tell you before you run an ad That Dr. Locke will not be able to attend the August meeting of the health board, and he is the person you Most want to address and to hear from. There are apparently several board members unable to attend, so we may not reach a , orum, I will be checking the status tomorrow and will let you know if the August meeting will be postponed cancelled til September. I will let you know tomorrow. Thanks for your interest and input. Phil Johnson From: scshumaker@aol.com [mailto:scshumaker@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:12 AM To: Cathy Avery; Tom Locke Subject: IMPORTANT: NEED TO BE ON THE AGENDA OF THE B OF H MEETING OF AUGUST 16TH AND NEED LARGE VENUE DETERMINED NOW Dear Cathy and Dr. Locke, The Citizens of Port Townsend, represented by the "Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs" group,would like officially to be added to the August 16th Board of Health Meeting Agenda, under the topic: LANDFILL PERMIT FOR THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION. At that meeting,you will hear NEW INFORMATION from the Public that will FULLY SUPPORT a Standard Limited Purpose Landfill permit with no modifications. fie are running a FULL PAGE ANNOUNCEMENT in the August 8th issue of THE LEADER, to promote attendance at the August 16th Meeting. We need the Masonic Lodge for the meeting's venue (or a similarly 3 large-size venue.) This meeting WILL have a large attendance. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT A LOCATION FOR THE MEETING BE RESERVED VERY SOON, AS WE NEED A LOCATION ADDRESS FOR OUR AD DEADLINE, WHICH IS FRIDAY AUGUST 3RD. You can confirm by calling Sara Radka, Marketing Director of The Leader, at 385-2900. • YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC FULLY BEHIND YOU,FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A LIMITED PURPOSE LANDFILL PERMIT WITH NO MODIFICATIONS. Sincerely, Sally Shumaker Member, Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs PO Box 156 Port Townsend, WA 98368 (360) 821-8529 Please read more below.... Original Message From: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> To: sradka<sradka(aptleader.com> Cc: swilson<swilson@ptleader.com>; aarthur<aarthur@ptleader.com> Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 6:06 am Subject: FULL PAGE AD FOR AUGUST 8TH BY THE PORT TOWNSEND CITIZEN WATCHDOGS Dear Sara, We had an important meeting yesterday about our advertising in The Leader, relative to announcing the Board of Health Meeting scheduled for August 16,2012. So many $$$$ donations are coming in that we have decided to upgrade our space to a FULL PAGE PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT FOR AUGUST 8th! So, please allocate that full page space. It will have color to it and arrive in your inbox as a completed file. Please let me know anything about the type of file (pdf vs.jpg) you need, and if you need the fonts in a separate file. Our ad is being prepared professionally. I'll be sure that our designer puts this on the bottom of the ad in small font. "Paid for by the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs." Is that ok for you? What is the best page in Section One of The Leader you can give us for our full-page Public Service Announcement? We want a right-side placement for sure. AND, if it could be a page that can actually be "lifted" from the paper,that would be fantastic. • 4 I don't ask a lot, do I, lol! Call me for my credit card number today, to pay for the ad. ank you. ally Shumaker Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs (360) 821-8529 scshumakernaol.com Original Message From: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> To: aarthur<aarthur(a ptleader.corn>; sradka<sradka@ptleader.com> Sent: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 4:31 am Subject: For Allison Arthur and Sara Radka-Activities of the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs Dear Allison and Sara, I am forwarding the following email to you,to keep you fully informed about activities of the Public here in Port Townsend, relative to the landfill issue. Our activities include the purchase of two 1/2 page, full 4-color ads, for both the August 8th and August 15th issues. We will be handling financial payment for these "Public Announcements" of August 8th and 15th, just as we did in June. One credit card will cover full payment,to simplify it for your bookkeeping epartment. Contributions from a group of concerned citizens is collected by me, who is responsible full payment upfront to The Leader. You can call me for my credit card number. We will have finished ad copy available to you on or before your two deadlines: August 8th issue - deadline is no later than 3pm Friday August 3rd. August 15th issue -deadline is no later than 3pm Friday August 10th. Tell us the file format you require for final copy, and the dimensions of the final horizontal 1/2 page format, and you will receive what you need. We request two horizontal half-page ads to appear on the UPPER RIGHT SIDE of any of the following pages In SECTION 1 (you make the choice): Page 3,5,7, or 9. Thank you for accommodating this request. Feel free to be informed of our activities, as you read the email sent below. You have my permission to forward this communication to anyone you wish. Sally Shumaker, on behalf of "The Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs" Original Message From: scshumaker<scshumaker@aol.com> aol.com> •ent: Sun,Jul 29, 2012 3:47 am 5 Subject: ADS FOR THE LEADER NEWPAPER- 1/2 PAGE ADS WILL APPEAR AUG. 8TH AND AUG. 15TH Thank you for stepping up to the plate, to help fund those two 1/2 page full-color ads that will appear in The Leader on Wed. August 8th and again on Wed. August 15th. We have ap rofessional designer laying out the ads, so they should look fantastic. We have a professional aerial photographer, who is taking photos of the landfill (and the Mill) for those ads. So,the visuals should be first class. We have professional writers, crafting the right words. Putting together the great designer+the great photographer+the great writers... WHEW! I cannot wait to see those large, four-color ads in the Leader newspaper! The goal of the ads: to further inform the Public about the Landfill issue and to urge the Public to attend the August 16th meeting of the Board of Health, bringing more comments to the decision makers at this important meeting. Allison Arthur, investigative reporter at The Leader,told me personally two days ago that The Leader will be covering the landfill issue, with articles in upcoming editions. Stay tuned and buy every weekly newspaper for the next month, so you won't miss her reporting! As soon as the first ad appears on August 8th, I will be on the phone PERSONALLY, calling people from our list of 750+ individual supporters, referencing the ads and articles in the Leader. I will be sending out mass emails to our supporters, with the ads attached as pdf files. The Meeting on August 16th will be the final Board of Health meeting, prior to the deadline that Dr. Locke himself has set for the PTPC to send in their landfill permit application.We assume the PTPC will take Dr. Locke's application date of September 15th to heart. The PTPC has done everything they can to delay submitting a landfill permit application. Their landfill has been operating on an 411 expired permit all the year 2012 to date. Again,the Board of Health meeting is on Thursday August 16th, starting at 2:30pm. Be sure to mark your calendars. Location is likely to be the Masonic Temple on Jefferson Street, as it was on July 19th. Official word will be sent in a week, regarding the location. Allison Arthur told me that on Wed. August 15th, the final location will be prominently shown in that edition of the Leader. newspaper. We need to KEEP TELLING DR.LOCKE, the Jefferson County Health Officer, who makes the decision on this landfill permit,that LIMITED PURPOSE is the ONLY CLASSIFICATION of permit to be accepted in 2012 for the PTPC. Even if you have told Dr. Locke your viewpoint once or twice or three times before, be prepared to rise to the occasion once again, with new information, if you have it. We will be putting in an official request to have the landfill permit issue placed on the Agenda of the Board of Health meeting of August 16th. Whatever the outcome,there will be litigation on this issue. We assume Dr. Locke will be on the side of the Public (his title is "Public Health Officer for Jefferson and Clallam Counties") To date, we have not seen Dr. Locke working for the Public. We have seen him supporting a "hybrid Inert permit" for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation. Doesn't • Dr. Locke realize that the PTPC is owned by a$60+billion hedge fund, which has very 6 deep pockets to meet every requirement for a Standard Limited Purpose Landfill Permit? The owner of our local Mill and its landfill is not destitute or struggling financially in any way. This hedge fund is, in fact, growing by leaps and bounds. What is their issue with meeting their financial obligations to the Public Health of residents in Jefferson County, WA? Locke must clearly understand at this point: his best strategy is to be on the side of the Public and accept nothing less than a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit in 2012 for the PTPC. If an Inert permit is approved by Dr. Locke, against all Public appeals for a Limited Purpose permit, it will not look good for his credibility. The Public has an attorney; funding is in place for an appeal. THE STATE'S DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS ON PUBLIC RECORD STATING: THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT DR. LOCKE IN COURT, SHOULD THERE BE AN APPEAL OF HIS DECISION TO ISSUE ANY KIND OF INERT LANDFILL PERMIT FOR THE PTPC. THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY KNOWS THAT THE WASTE IN THE PORT TOWNSEND PAPER CORPORATION'S LANDFILL IS NOT INERT. WAKE UP,DR. LOCKE! If you have not yet sent your personal email to Dr. Locke or the Board of Health on this 1 landfill issue, it is never too late! You can write more than once. Heaven's... I have written relentlessly and cannot even tell you how many times I have written! These are the email addresses to reach the decision makers. Address your notes to both addresses: 1) Dr. Thomas Locke is: tlocke@cojefferson.wa.us 2)For the Board of Health: cavery@co.jefferson.wa.us . (Cathy Avery will forward your email to every member of the Board of Health, which includes all 3 of our County Commissioners) Again,thank you for sending your financial contributions to the ads that have already been paid for in full upfront, on behalf of all of us supporting the cause of a Limited Purpose Landfill Permit. Make your check payable to Sally Shumaker, PO Box 156, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Call anytime, if you have questions or want more information. WE ARE IN THIS TOGETHER FOR THE PUBLIC HEALTH. As ever, Sally Shumaker, Member, Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs (360) 821-8529 • Cathy Avery From: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. [eveleenm©ptpc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:06 PM To: boh@jeffersoncountypublichealth.org; Catharine Robinson; David Sullivan; Jill Buhler; John Austin; Phil Johnson; Tom Locke Jean Baldwin; Jared Keefer; Pinky Feria-Mingo Subject: FW: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data Attachments: Port Townsend mussel watch PAHs.pdf Port d mussel wat( Folks- Here is some follow-up information on PAHs in Port Townsend Bay- Eveleen Muehlethaler Port Townsend Paper Corporation (360) 379-2112 eveleenm@ptpc.com Original Message From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan©co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 3:36 PM To: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. Subject: RE: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data sure they would appreciate it. David Original Message From: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. [mailto:eveleenm@ptpc.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:50 PM To: David Sullivan Subject: RE: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data Let me know if you'd like me to send it to the rest of the BOH Original Message From: David Sullivan [mailto:dsullivan@co.jefferson.wa.us] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 2:40 PM To: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. Cc: Loney, Roger A.; Wallendahl, Annika S.; DeLeo, Val Subject: RE: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data Eveleen, Thanks. This is helpful. avid k Original Message From: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. [mailto:eveleenm@ptpc.com] Sent: Thu 8/9/2012 2:16 PM • To: David Sullivan Cc: Loney, Roger A.; Wallendahl, Annika S.; DeLeo, Val Subject: FW: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data David- I contacted Lincoln Loehr who is an oceanographer from Stoel Rives & is involved with the mussel watch program. I asked for his impression of the PAH data being sent around. Here is his reply. Eveleen Muehlethaler Port Townsend Paper Corporation (360) 379-2112 eveleenm@ptpc.com Original Message From: Loehr, Lincoln C. [mailto:LCLOEHR@stoel.com] Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 12:27 PM To: Muehlethaler, Eveleen T. Subject: Write up re Port Townsend mussel watch PAH data Eveleen, • I have been involved with the NOAA mussel watch program through the Snohomish County Marine Resources Committee since 2007. I have also closely reviewed Ecology's studies on toxics loadings to Puget Sound from different sources. There have been a number of restoration projects in Port Townsend from 2004 through 2008 removing creosote structures. I understand there was also a derilict boat that was tied up to the railroad trestle for a period of time until funds could be found for removing it. It's my opinion that the PAHs in mussels at the Port Townsend station are associated with the creosote structures and the restoration activities. Lincoln Loehr This email and any attached files are the exclusive property of Port Townsend Paper Corporation and its affiliates ('PTPC'), are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended solely for the use of411 2 the party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a named recipient or believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments. Any unauthorized use, reproduction or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. PTPC cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made diits behalf. This email and any attached files are the exclusive property of Port Townsend Paper Corporation and its affiliates ('PTPC'), are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended solely for the use of the party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a named recipient or believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments. Any unauthorized use, reproduction or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. PTPC cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on its behalf. This email and any attached files are the exclusive property of Port Townsend Paper Corporation and its affiliates ('PTPC'), are deemed privileged and confidential and are intended solely for the use of the party to whom it is addressed. If you are not a named recipient or believe that you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this email and any attachments. Any unauthorized use, reproduction or dissemination of this email is strictly prohibited. PTPC cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the sender's own and not expressly made on its behalf. • • 3 Elevated PAHs in mussels at the NOAA mussel watch station in Port Townsend,Washington are probably associated with a creosote treated railroad trestle which was recently removed. Following • removal,PAHs have decreased. NOAA's mussel watch program was started in 1986 and is the longest running continuous,nationwide contaminant monitoring program in U.S.coastal waters. The overall goal is to describe the current status of pollution and to detect changes in the environmental quality of our nation's estuarine and coastal waters.There are 26 initial NOAA sites in Washington,including one at Port Townsend. The state is looking to modify and expand the program as a tool for monitoring the nearshore environment. A number of stations in Puget Sound have exhibited elevated levels of total PAH when compared with much of the rest of the country. Part of that may be attributed to the water in Puget Sound having a longer residence time than open coastal sites. Part may be attributed to the sampling being in the winter, which for Puget Sound captures stormwater effects(more than the Gulf Coast,which is dry in the winter). In some cases,proximity to creosote treated structures may be important. The Department of Ecology(DOE)has evaluated different sources of PAHs to the air,water and land in Washington. The DOE has determined that the largest releases of PAHs to air is from residential wood burning,while the largest releases to water and land are from creosote treated wood used as marine pilings or railroad ties. In terms of releases that actually contribute to loadings to surface waters,creosote treated marine pilings accounted for 99%of the PAH loading.' The mussel watch station at Port Townsend has been consistently among the higher PAH stations in Washington. The following figure is an oblique aerial photo taken in the 1990s showing a large creosote pile supported railroad trestle located close to the breakwater for the Port Townsend marina. The Port Townsend mussel watch station is located on the south side of the breakwater near the corner and its location maximized the PAH exposure for mussels from this large in-water creosote structure. The structure was removed incrementally during the 2004-2008 time frame in a DNR implemented restoration project. Although the pilings are now gone,thereby removing a significant ongoing source of PAHs,the • removal process will have mobilized PAHs both from the pilings and from the adjacent fine sediments. The mussel watch data for Port Townsend reflect the highest PAHs in the 2004-2008 timeframe in which the restoration project has been ongoing. With the restoration completed,the mussel watch data showed a substantial reduction in PAHs in 2010. It will be interesting to see the PAH data from the 2012 sampling when it becomes available. PAHs bound in the sediment may remain after the pilings were removed and may continue to be a source to the mussels particularly following storm events that may resuspend the sediments. ' See pages 9-11 in Department of Ecology July 2012,Draft PAH Chemical Action Plan, Publication No. 12-07-038. Also see,Table ES-1,footnote e,and discussion on pages 119-131 in Department of Ecology November 2011,Control of Toxic Chemicals in Puget Sound Assessment of Selected Toxic Chemicals in the Puget Sound Basin, 2007-2011,Publication No. 11-03-055. Figure 1. Aerial photo showing location of historic railroad trestle and NOAA mussel watch • station,which is at the outer edge of the right angle bend in the Marina breakwater. ' -w,..6.....„1-,-,.......-- r , w R I q 5 F 'Y •, ,:S.;4,::',,`.‘..!,,,,:%.:;:,..:4:,,,..2,,,.;,. :-.�lFµ ,!' y a' "� ..'1::::12„:‘,.„.:...::t '� . ;'t,1,74,,,,-,_,,k,', ,rte,- x>...� ;t, J„'i,' f.444' 4k z d-. ' mY" - �4`i " 4�. :.--.2..-..."'..,:. a a` ^a 4, tq,,..','„,;°'.°;'.' :� ax . .a , r � P r $A�°t'. ,°-,,,..,,..,,,,,,.."'i.-0,,,,--1-7-'-'4,;'' ,� A .,.., .,..1,,,,°,4.1.11.;°. ; i rat.7. • ;rs �,�r "'�"—r.-+�. _ ` • :V c ..x V '`'7 th- ^.& �'r'. : � bs.,dF" 'V` qtr 4 Vr ggr�a ���yy�� .:4"'!!!!!","'` t xi �.. � 3m s "t{�, a kXi. vow $ o- k}^ ' y x b•�'4�--emp� • Board of aCealth .Media Report 1 August 16, 2012 Jefferson County Public Health July/August 2012 • NEWS ARTICLES 1. "Shellfish harvest ban now includes paralytic poisoning as cause," Port Townsend Leader, July 17th, 2012. 2. "Restaurants,jail, lauded for high food-safety standards," Port Townsend Leader, July 18th 2012. 3. "The $55 million question: Will PT Paper's cogeneration turn a profit?" Port Townsend Leader, July 18th, 2012. 4. "Shelton example: Energy customers hard to find," Port Townsend Leader, July 18th 2012. 5. "Letter: Biomass may work for Aberdeen, not here," Port Townsend Leader, July 18th, 2012. 6. "Letter: Speak up about biomass now," Port Townsend Leader, July 18th, 2012. 7. "10 new pertussis cases reported on Peninsula," Peninsula Daily News, July 20th, 2012. 8. "CDC: '12 may be worst year for whooping cough in 50," Peninsula Daily News, July 20th 2012. 9. "Many Jefferson County beaches bays closed to recreational shellfish harvests," Peninsula Daily News, July 20th, 2012. 10. "CDC: Pertussis at alarming rate rise," Peninsula Daily News, July 22nd, 2012. 11. "Protect kids from outbreaks," Peninsula Daily News, July 22nd, 2012 12. "Vaccine available," Peninsula Daily News, July 22nd, 2012. 13. "Gibbs Lake's status improves," Peninsula Daily News, July 23rd, 2012. 14. "PT Paper Corp. health documents now online," Port Townsend Leader, July 25th, 2012. 15. "Letter: Biomass safe? Prove it," Port Townsend Leader, July 25th, 2012. . 16. "Leader's look at cogeneration continues," Port Townsend Leader, July 25th, 2012. 17. "Free Tdap vaccine in Quilcene, Hadlock," Port Townsend Leader, July 25th, 2012. 18. "Picnic celebrates breastfeeding," Port Townsend Leader, July 25th, 2012. 19. "Many Jefferson County beaches closed to recreational shellfish harvesting," Peninsula Daily News, July 26th, 2012. 20. "Port Townsend Paper, county health officer square off over permit for landfill containing biomass ash," Peninsula Daily News, July 29th, 2012. 21. "Public health event," Peninsula Daily News, July 30th, 2012. 22. "Anderson Lake still closed, but toxins have fallen dramatically," Port Townsend Leader, August 1st2012. 23. "Letter: Electrostatic efficiencies," Port Townsend Leader, August 1st, 2012. 24. "Most beaches closed to shellfish harvest," Port Townsend Leader, August 1st, 2012. 25. "Air agency director to delay requests for Peninsula monitors," Peninsula Daily News, August 2nd, 2012. 26. "Phone line for smokers hoping to quit revived," Seattle Times, August 2nd, 2012. 27. "Shopping for a Better Environment?" City of Port Townsend Newsletter, August 2012. 28. "Hardwood, Nippon among recipients of biomass grants," Peninsula Daily News, August 3rd, 2012. 29. "Letter: Support for mill," Peninsula Daily News, August 3rd, 2012. 30. "Three in state treated after rabid bat exposure," Peninsula Daily News, August 7th, 2012. 31. "County is striving to streamline permits," Port Townsend Leader, August 8th, 2012. 32. "Paper mill to seek renewal of inert landfill permit," Port Townsend Leader, August 8th, 2012. 33. "Ad: Under Public Investigation!" Port Townsend Leader, August 8th, 2012. • • 7/17/2012 12:58:00 PM,Port Townsend Leader Shellfish harvest ban now includes paralytic poisoning as cause Marine biotoxins that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning have been detected at concentrations above the closure level in shellfish samples collected from Discovery Bay. The Washington State Department of Health has updated the closure of recreational shellfish harvest in Discovery Bay to include PSP. This is in addition to the existing diarrhetic shellfish poisoning closure. Quilcene and Dabob bays also remain closed, but only due to diarrhetic shellfish poisoning at this time. Commercially harvested shellfish is sampled separately and products on the market should be safe to eat, according to a press release from Jefferson County Public Health. This closure does not apply to shrimp. Crab meat is not known to contain the biotoxin, but the guts can contain unsafe levels. The health department advises cleaning crab thoroughly and discarding the guts. Marine biotoxins are not destroyed by cooking or freezing. People can become ill from • eating shellfish contaminated with the naturally occurring marine algae. Symptoms of PSP can appear within minutes or hours, and usually begin with tingling lips and tongue, which moves to the hands and feet, followed by difficulty breathing and, potentially, death. Anyone experiencing these symptoms should contact a health-care provider immediately. For extreme reactions, call 911. Recreational shellfish harvesters should check the DOH website at doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/biotoxin.htm or call the DOH Biotoxin Hotline at 800-562-5632 before harvesting shellfish anywhere in Washington. C 2•Wednesday,July 18,2012 / / '-€Q O E'k ' Restaurants, jail, lauded for high food-safetystandards Twenty-eight restaurantsliR . , ti: , 11, food establishments and even k _( 5 the Jefferson County Jail a demonstrated high standards a z t s' t� for safe food handling and 1 445, were presented with 2011 xr Outstanding Achievement : - Awards at the JeffersonTr s ; -County Board of Health meet a "' ing on June 21. Recipients were Belmont y y: • Restaurant, Blue Heron Among the recipients of the recently announced 2011 Outstanding School, BPO Elks Lodge Achievement Awards for food establishments were(from left)Larry Den- 317, Brinnon School District, nison of Dos Okies;presenter Jared Keefer,Jefferson County environ- Cedarbrook Daycare & mental health/water quality director; Mike Garling and Jeffrey.Dale of Preschool, Chimacum Metro Bagels;Andrea Morales and Doreen Carpenter of QFC deli/Port Elementary School, Townsend; and county health director Tom Locke,who also presented Chimacum High School and awards.Submitted photo Dos Okies Barbecue.Also win- ning awards were El Cottage, Cafe, Sirens Restaurant, hold a current Washington Fiesta Mexican Restaurant, Spruce Goose Cafe, Tri-Area state Food Worker Card. The Galley, Highway Twenty Community Center, Upstage For food-safety scores on Roadhouse, Khu Larb Thai, Restaurant and Uptown Pub restaurants, visit jefferson- La Isla Mexican Restaurant &Grill. countypublichealth.org/food and Lanza's. Criteria for the award were safety/index.php. Other food establish- developed by the Jefferson ments receiving recognition County Public Health Food were Metro Bagels, Pizza Service Advisory Committee Factory, QFC 106 Deli in and require evaluations in • Port Townsend, QFC 870 Deli areas of personal hygiene, in Port Hadlock, Jefferson food temperature safety, and County Jail, Quilcene prevention of contamina- School District, Silverwater tion. All food workers must I 7/18/2012 6:00:00 AM,Port Townsend Leader The $55 million question: Will PT Paper's cogeneration turn a trofit? gan Claflin, reporter Paper bags, containerboard and pulp are a few products that come to mind when thinking about the Port Townsend Paper Cop. mill. What about electricity? Promoted as a"win-win"by PT Paper and its affiliates,the proposed cogeneration project is a$55 million investment into new technologies that can expand the mill's current biomass burning capability to generate heat needed for pulp and paper production, and electricity to sell onto the regional power grid. Capable of generating slightly less than 25 megawatts of renewable energy while operating at maximum capacity,the generated electricity (equivalent to electricity consumed annually by 19,000-20,000 residential homes)can be used onsite to reduce the consumption of nonrenewable fuels or sold as energy commodities. Known in the industry as renewable attributes, PT Paper could sell the 25 megawatts as physical power,25 renewable energy certificates(RECs)and/or as carbon offsets. However, as demand for clean energy fluctuates, along with the price of oil, coal and natural gas in national and regional energy markets, securing a buyer for this kind of energy can be a moving target. Until the project is built and is up and running—some time by the end of 2013, according to mill officials—it's not certain how the energy will be marketed and sold. Some mills have taken the gamble and seen success, such as Sierra Pacific Industries in Aberdeen and its$3.35 million contract with the Grays Harbor PUD. Others failed before they began, like Adage, a joint-venture energy company that abandoned its plans for a 55-megawatt biomass- fueled power plant in Shelton in March 2011. At the time,company spokesperson Tom DePonty attributed the decision to"an increasingly difficult energy market."(See related story.) *new partnership To aid the Port Townsend mill in finding a buyer for its energy and recouping its investment, PT Paper sought out and partnered with Sterling Energy Assets, a subsidiary of Sterling Planet Holdings and a sister company to Sterling Planet Inc. based in Norcross, Ga. In April,the Environmental Protection Agency named Sterling the leading U.S. retail provider of renewable attributes. Serving more than 850 businesses, 125 government agencies,40 colleges and universities, and 50 electric utilities in the U.S., Sterling's clientele includes PepsiCo Inc., DuPont and Nike Inc. Sterling is also invested in a biomass-burning plant in Georgia, although it is not a cogeneration project. 50-50 partners Most easily described as an"energy broker," Sterling provides its clients with an energy use analysis and market options for reducing consumption of nonrenewable fossil fuels and/or offsetting carbon emission through investment in "green"energy. PT Paper's arrangement with Sterling was described as a 50-50 partnership by Sterling Energy Assets'vice president and general manager, Gil Waldman. Sterling, he said, is responsible for overseeing the majority of the regulatory requirements associated with selling energy contracts, while PT Paper would take the lead on procuring biomass—woody debris left over from logging jobs, mixed with urban wood debris from demolition or construction jobs. Ensuring that the project complies with all the necessary environmental protections is a task shared equally, he said. Sterling is also financially invested in the project, but Waldman declined to specify an amount. Waldman said the cogeneration project is a"perfect match"for PT Paper because it capitalizes on the renewable aspects of biomass in two ways—the supply of sustainable fuel and the source of renewable energy. 0n a national scale of"green"energy sources, biofuels (including biomass and ethanol) represent the smallest electricity capacity of alternative energies used in the U.S. Hydroelectric power, solar and wind power are far ahead. But,Waldman said, "In the right circumstance, [biomass] is a perfect fit." "In my opinion, [biomass]fits a niche," he said."It is never going to be a dominant source of power, but, in the right circumstances, like at the mill,for example, it's a perfect match." Unlike the intermittent nature of wind and solar power, biomass provides a near-constant stream of electricity known as a base load. S Increased predictability is an attractive attribute for energy customers,Waldman said. There is the option of selling the renewable attributes separately, he said, but Sterling would prefer to"bundle"or sell the power and RECs or carbon offsets together. If the physical electricity and the associated RECs are sold to separate buyers,the electricity is no longer considered "renewable"or "green,"according to the EPA, because the REC product is what conveys the attributes and benefits of the renewable electricity, not the electricity itself. Catalyzed by efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,create"green"jobs and secure greater energy independence, the promotion of clean energy technologies for generating electricity has become an increasingly important priority among policy makers in Washington state and across the U.S. Already, numerous federal-and state-level tax incentives, subsidies and loan programs are available to entice both public and private entities to invest in renewable energy, hybrid vehicles and energy-efficient technologies.The cogeneration project proposed by PT Paper and Sterling is expected to cost$55 million total,with half coming from government tax credits or other support.Additional subsidies are available for continuing biomass supply. Willing to pay A national survey conducted from 2010-2011 by Yale and Harvard university researchers, published in March 2012,found that the average American is willing to add$162 to the annual electric bill, an average increase of 13 percent, in return for a national clean energy standard (NCES).That standard would require that 80 percent of utility-generated energy is derived from renewable sources by 2035. A similar proposal, made by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Senate in 2011,was defeated, as were previous NCES bills in 2009 and 2010. However, as of this year, 29 states, including Washington, have enacted renewable portfolio standard mandates.These require utilities of a certain size to source an ever-increasing percentage of their total energy load from renewable sources. Eight states have made these mandates voluntary. Local consumers In Washington state,the 2006 Energy Independence Act (1-937) created the renewable energy standard (RES), requiring that all electric utilities serving 25,000 or more customers must obtain the following percentage of their electricity from eligible renewable resources: at least 3 percent by 2012; at least 9 percent by 2015; and at least 15 percent by 2020. The Jefferson County PUD won't meet the minimum customer requirements when it is set to take over the East Jefferson County holdings on Puget Sound Energy in 2013, so it does not have to comply with 1-937. PUD general manager Jim Parker said that in addition to being exempt from RES requirements,the PUD operates under a full-service customer agreement with the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA),which allows the utility to purchase electricity at a favorable rate of$30 per megawatt hour. "The PUD has no intention of purchasing electricity from the mill at this time primarily because of cost,"said Parker. Waldman declined to comment on the proposed asking price for energy or RECs generated by the Port Townsend cogeneration plant. Comparatively, Sierra Pacific Industries sells energy at about$61 per megawatt hour—double the cost available to public utilities like the county PUD. Other estimates have placed the selling price of biomass cogeneration power at$100 per megawatt hour. "However, in case of an emergency[such as a natural disaster],the local generation could help to prevent any interruption in service," Parker said. Powering the mill In operation 24/7, PT Paper requires 24 megawatts of"firm power" (energy available for production or transmission at all times)to 411 power its facilities and equipment. Utilizing existing small steam turbines, 3.5 megawatts are already generated on site at the mill— meaning that PT Paper already turns biomass into power, on a small scale.The remaining 20.5 megawatts are purchased from the BPA at the industrial rate of about$36 per megawatt, according to Doug Johnson, a spokesperson with BPA. T Paper buys power cheaply through a two-year power service agreement with BPA, set to expire on Aug. 31, 2013. rice setting The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission oversees price setting in the wholesale energy market. However, its focus is primarily on interstate sales and price manipulation, according to Howard Schwartz, a senior energy policy analyst for the Washington State Department of Commerce's Energy Office. Regional groups such as the Western Electricity Coordinating Council,which oversees 14 western states,from Canada south to Mexico, are responsible for coordinating and promoting bulk electric system reliability. For the most part,the sale of renewable energy attributes is handled in private agreements between a seller and a purchaser, Schwartz said. In addition, Energy Office records indicate that the majority of applicable Washington utilities have already met RES requirements for 2012,including Puget Sound Energy,Avista Corp.and Pacific Energy Group.That means that PT Paper and Sterling are more likely to look for buyers outside of Washington, such as in California,where energy is more expensive as a rule. "Economic growth creating a demand [for renewable energy]greatly affects companies willingness to invest in the supplying energy," he said. Californian ambitions Established in 2002, California's renewable energy mandate(RPS) has since evolved to require that"all retail sellers of electricity shall serve 33 percent of their load with renewable energy by 2020." One of the most ambitious goals of the 37 states with RPSs,California earned a No. 1 ranking in the 2012 State Clean Energy Index, aloduced by U.S. research and advisory firm Clean Edge Inc., based on statewide involvement and leadership in clean energy. From 2008 to 2011, nearly$9 billion in investments in California-based, clean-energy startups surpassed the sum of activity in all 49 other states during the same period. (Washington state is ranked No.4, up two points from No. 6 in 2012.) Driven by regulatory requirements, California-based companies represented a lucrative market for"energy brokers"such as Sterling, which had new supplies of"green" power to sell. But in April 2011, Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. of California signed Senate Bill X1-2, restricting the ability of utilities to meet RPS requirements by purchasing energy produced out-of-state. Instead,the measure sought to provide incentives for pursuing a larger supply of"green"energy sources from inside the state. The California Energy Commission classifies energy producers as top priority if the producer has"first point of interconnection with a California balancing authority, or with distribution facilities used to serve end users with a California balancing authority area..." PT Paper prospects According to Waldman,those changes in California aren't as likely to affect Sterling's ability to sell power to California utilities because PT Paper is connected to the BPA.The BPA is a member of the ColumbiaGrid, a nonprofit corporation responsible for the Pacific Northwest transmission grid,which spans over a quarter-million square miles. Waldman said that Sterling was already engaged in discussions about selling the power produced by the PT Paper cogeneration plant with utilities in Washington and California. He said he felt confident in the company's ability to secure a buyer for the 25 megawatts of cogeneratation power. "As a project developer, I'd like to say I'm 100 percent confident, but it's never a sure thing, so let's say 90 percent"confident that the power produced by PT Paper will find a customer, he said. • Renewable Generation Sour • \" A16ertr ��. ,,, Br trs�l" o{um13414:::: :,,;:t.,.-2 :A`: COiUmbiaL. }r-" , � f Facilities of Current Plannin Parties r ':.4.`� i ,, includes partial ownership and leas facilities k I, RNs/ ColumbiaGrid o r s.. .2` i 'fi Y 4 .�-", 1 s r Other Western Transmission ' oar s rasa-sta o oboes*" tta•n be, ne te* RECs` *r tees` '' " *„ re r Potennal Reach of ColumbaGnd on 51st S,i tus 7x roped cars tae,x�':artia4 Ow m vsA 3!craEn.6 t!» Sb 'w ,A Med,2W7 are,.4ad xs>ara;xd)' n.oroaCiM rbnrim xs:rt7 -�,' ' :.... '' ,d/�-�}0'�� :X'''`� a Sa '•^f's^5;^---^ 4,44,„.64..$0,664,,,,„„i.„ 44,„64..$0 664, ,,„„.„ 3 's iittl 15;.X1 W.Nwart-t+x+s section ere rna3:aarc errnoolY ,,,,ot 10,,tte DiS,,,e trsawY�xy. �!S ts, -.� .. kol +eoa;eat}ars olual triesethe ostt ads en o'Oe graft of Cr.9444 erdwv. -x"p n:.r� ...r, li: , .r a.t� 's �,ti. arC uan-r;a be irx-& 9;r�ii t +fes'"-z ac f em+s+o-taat oras'one ur can spg�iQa/"'+i *)-', .;' 1:',;.,c,,, ,' *#" ".;s '`,,.4, Neat ,ode s£i70;�s SRECl rr ...qll� , Id af'!b ` sn; 1 �'' ;ps3:v ai o 5a)ae am equ tt e'ou of naarw0t'te r5m1fin g,aeaua ioan ? 9 ! „:•:::: :---,--;S:-.4-1‘,,`- ,-•!•,••:.:*', ss � r.,s�fsaww wresarrnw rr�u 4Ore on N,i r VCS txifi�r.”gr j=,40-d Po� "' ' 9.5 yreeMg3a 05 assars4teo RECL roPw irnt IN,WA4 IM*444 ro .: ""-,w" 3 c ;.;9555r5OtiNat dts.`rr:e.,s�d wthe,,real emSims+rey. •r +. ; a i' r '„�.• riECs rr$r arYlxesa Na d�.atffiaKit rb od the >�" f �����. � c \ .*:L.1,:-'.- 1'.7 ''. 1. .',.•.',.:71.V:';.•,- '''.::,:::.;l'';;"''',40-z:.'.›...-''''I':.:',' .' t.1. .:.:'-H.1-V:,‘: ' 41.,,,„ ' '.4 >/ ',.1:,:-...;:,:e,k.Vg,''.''-'.:,.,';',:.::'::;:6Mr-::';:,-A41''''''''''''''. ./. %t Point of Use r )y Nevada z'�` 1 } ems fwn mates a dart Ira,EEC d ''/s` 1.. ^r• wr !' 5:e to a at4ean n'±t i1 near a Ss a i M y p" RECs toomsoai eu sadOtas***Wire . .5,-,..1 .4„,:',"" 1}- } 3 5 - � • i h b. fi t,\4} , One renewable energy certificate (REC) represents 1,000 kilowatt \ _ ; .••...,,:::..•.:,:-.::::•,::.,:.)•,•f;',----..,•;•,,, ,�i f... hours(or 1 megawatt hour) of electricity, generated from a *,� fi h, �` renewable source and placed on the grid" Renewable energy can A i it be sold as physical power, RECs or as a bundle to help a * ---;,-;.:4, ; ~:•C —. purchaser meet its renewable energy goals,whether voluntary or Formed in 2006,the ColumbiaGrid is a nonprofit membership corporation mandated by state standards. Source: U.S" Department of Energy responsible for the planned expansion of the Pacific Northwest transmission grid spanning more than a quarter-million square miles.Washington state a „ea Substitionmembers include Avista Corp., Bonneville Power Administration, Chelan it Transmission Tnrcfor[nar nut transm�Wn County PUD,Grant County PUD,Puget Sound Energy Inc.,Seattle City Light, MR Distribution ' Snohomish County PUD and Tacoma Power.Source:ColumbiaGrid Tranzmtssl,n � '�'�- Lln Gancrattre '■`w +s / :.miam i._.. Prtn Stance ' a r- =. 7 State standards 4111/ .' ; conoratlng rranxmtsranm so�ry In Washington state, the 2006 Energy Independence Act (1-937) r m Castoar r-� '_untomur created the renewable energy standard (RES), requiring that all Tramiormx electric utilities serving 25,000 or more customers must obtain the following percentage of their electricity from eligible renew- Electrons generated through the cogeneration process at able resources. the Port Townsend Paper Corp. mill are transmitted to a step-up transformer, then across Bonneville Power •At least 3 percent by 2012 Administration transmission lines to a step-down transformer before being distributed to various energy •At least 9 percent by 2015 consumers. Source: U.S. Department of Energy •At least 15 percent by 2020 The Jefferson County PUD does not meet that threshold,but many other utilities do.Source:Washington State Initiative 937 • • • Shelton example: Energy customers hard to find The same thick wires that today bring electricity into Port Townsend Paper Corp. from the Bonneville Power Administration power grid can be used to ship power out of the mill to be sold on that grid, if the proposed cogeneration plant is completed. The technology of turning steam produced by biomass burning into electricity by passing it through a massive turbine is clear-cut. The plan is for a new steam-driven turbine to be installed in a new building behind the current oil storage tanks. High-pressure steam from Power Boiler 10 would first turn the turbine, and,then be routed into the pulp mill to dry out the paper and pulp. The turbine, at full capacity, would generate 24 megawatts of power. Existing transmission lines would send those billions of electrons toward users— in the form of energy credits. What's less clear iswhether there are paying customers ready to foot the bill. Officials of Sterling Energy Assets Inc., the Atlanta, Ga.-based power broker company partnering with PT Paper on the proposal, believe the power can be sold. Indeed, some biomass plants are today successfully selling power, especially because it is considered renewable energy, which has been in high demand. But, mill President Roger Loney noted in a June interview that energy policy and economics are in flux right now, especially given the rapid rise of natural gas as an energy alternative. "We're going to see how all that plays out," he said. Another biomass plant proposal, the Adage plant in Shelton that proposed generating 55 megawatts of power, seemed on its way to a permit in spite of vociferous protests by environmental groups. But, the plug was pulled on March 14, 2011. The$250 million project was dropped, according to the Port of Shelton, due to"a weak market for renewable 40 energy." Said Port of Shelton executive director John Dobson, "Ultimately, the decision by Adage to suspend development was made by the marketplace" because it could not find reliable customers for the power it would create. Adage's Tom DePonty, a spokesperson, said at the time that customer demand was low. "Demand has been stagnant for new projects, and low natural gas prices and economic uncertainty has put downward pressure on the price of electricity," he said, according to the Kitsap Sun. Dan Nelson, spokesperson for the Olympic Region Clear Air Agency(ORCAA), the state regulator of the Adage proposal, agreed that the lack of an energy market stalled the Adage effort. "They withdrew their permit," he said. "They did not have a market for their energy. They had a product, but no market for it. Getting power into the grid, then having someone buy it were two different things." But Gil Waldman, Sterling vice president and general manager, whose company is charged with finding a customer for PT Paper's power, is optimistic. 7/18/2012,Port Townsend Leader i 7/18/2012 6:00:00 AM,Port Townsend Leader Letter: Biomass may work for Aberdeen, not here • In the Leader's July 4 article "Aberdeen biomass humming," the operation of Sierra Pacific's biomass plant in Aberdeen is very favorably compared to the one proposed by Port Townsend Paper Corp. (PTPC). Although in a few ways the two plants are similar, many stark differences exist, making the PTPC plant far less desirable. These differences include: 1. Ownership: Sierra Pacific is a family-owned forest products company doing business in Washington and California, while Sterling Planet, a renewable energy developer based in Atlanta, jointly owns the PTPC cogeneration plant along with the two international hedge funds that own PTPC. Thus, the PTPC cogeneration plant is financed by non-local entities and also designed so it can operate as a stand-alone electricity-generating station independent of the paper mill. 2. Fuel source: The Sierra Pacific plant primarily burns sawdust, a waste product produced onsite as a byproduct of the lumber mill. The PTPC's plant will burn forest slash that has to be trucked in over relatively long distances and that would otherwise be left behind to nourish the forest soil. In addition to burning oil, the mill would also burn a large percentage of wood derived from construction and demolition debris, a fuel much dirtier than sawdust. This fuel is difficult to monitor for lead paint and other toxic contaminants. 3. Ash: The ash from Sierra Pacific's plant is sold to another firm for use in fertilizers, while at PTPC the ash is not suitable for agricultural use because the fuel is so dirty. Thus, PTPC's ash must be dumped in a landfill onsite where it can potentially contaminate groundwater. 4. Customers for the electricity: The electricity from Sierra Pacific's plant is sold locally to the Grays Harbor Public Utility District. Our Jefferson County PUD has expressed no interest in the electricity from PTPC, so instead it will need to be transmitted to customers far away, probably outside the Northwest. Because of these differences the PTPC biomass plant does not at all favorably compare to Sierra Pacific's plant, and we need to question whether we want such a facility here. PETER LAURITZEN Port Townsend • Speak up about • biomass now As I write this,it is Independence Day,and I am appreciative of one of the freedoms we enjoy here in the United States,that of free speech. We have the right to speak our minds, yet many of us do so only rarely.Strong amongst the reasons we don't speak out is one that is very pertinent to a current,serious Jefferson County issue,and that is because we do not want to offend our friends and neighbors. I am speaking about the Port Townsend paper mill and the bio- mass plant that is going to be built unless we stop it. We all know someone who works at the mill or whose family member or friend works there, whose lives will be affected in a major way if the mill closes or reduces their workforce. For many of us,this will be enough to keep us quiet — we dare not speak against the project because jobs would be lost, hurting people we know, hurting the local econ- omy. I want to encourage,citizens to speak up anyway. Speak up about the reality that the owners of the mill are not local people and are only in it for the money;they would not pursue the project if it was not heavily subsidized. Speak up that there is no guarantee that jobs will be preserved. Speak up about the pollution that we all live with right now, and why it would be worse when the biomass plant is'operat- ing,both from the plant itself and from the many diesel trucks trans- porting the burnable and possibly toxic materials to the plant.Speak up about the valid concerns of edu- cated citizens who know there is "spin" going on, making the facts appear to be not so bad. Speak up —now is the time. Poor air and water qual- ity would'definitely affect our local economy. Property values would suffer, and people would not want to live here.We need to think about the big picture.Articles with a posi- tive spin may make us feel better temporarily,but get this—it is in the long run that we will all suffer • if the biomass plant is built. LINDSAY HAMILTON Port Townsend I X ea. -� 10 new pertussis cases reported on Peninsula By Rob 011ikainen , Peninsula Daily News, July 20, 2012- PORT ANGELES—Health officials reported 10 new whooping cough cases on the North Olympic Peninsula since June 16. The cases are part of a declared epidemic in Washington state that has affected more than 3,000 since Jan. 1. "We're up to 25 cases in the county,"said Iva Burks, Clallam County Health and Human Services director. • Twenty-two cases of whooping cough,or pertussis, have been confirmed in Jefferson County by the state Department of Health, but no new cases have been confirmed within the past month. No deaths have been reported. Pertussis is a highly contagious bacterial disease that produces severe coughing and can lead to severe complications in infants and children. It spreads through coughing and sneezing. In rare cases, it can be fatal. Spread slowing Since the state declared an official epidemic April 3,the spread of pertussis appears to be slowing down. There were 41 new cases in Washington state last week compared with 249 new cases the week ending May 19, part of a continuing down trend. But the epidemic remains active, state health officials said. There have been 3,014 reported cases since Jan. 1,compared to 219 during the same period last year. Health officials said the best way to protect infants who are too young to be to be fully immunized is to immunize the people around them. The adult booster for pertussis is called Tdap for tetanus,diphtheria and acellular pertussis. "We continue to encourage people to get Tdap shots," Burks said. The Clallam County Health Department will offer a low-cost vaccination clinic for adults 19 and older who are uninsured or whose insurance doesn't cover Tdap vaccinations July 27 from 5 p.m.to 8 p.m. at the health clinic in Forks at 140 C St. The cost is$12 per vaccination. The Clallam County Health Department immunized 166 uninsured adults in Port Angeles and Forks on May 18. "Infants are most at risk for very serious illness from whooping cough, and many are made sick by an adult who didn't know they were carrying the illness,"state Health Officer Dr. Maxine Hayes said. "All teens and adults should get the Tdap shot. Even people who don't have close contact with babies can spread the illness to babies when they're in public." 14,000 more vaccinations The state Department of Health ordered 14,000 more Tdap vaccinations for uninsured adults to go with the 27,000 doses already sent to city, county and tribal jurisdictions. "Whooping cough vaccines work but don't seem to last as long as was expected,"state Secretary of Health Mary Selecky said in a prepared statement released Thursday. "Even so,vaccinated people who get whooping cough have milder symptoms, shorter illnesses and are less likely to spread the disease to others. Our biggest concern is keeping babies from getting sick—and vaccination is still the best protection." Of the 173 infants who have come down with whooping cough this year,38 were hospitalized. For more information, phone the Clallam County Health and Human Services Department at 360-417-2258 or Jefferson County Public Health at 360-385-9400. CDC: '12 may be worst year for whooping cough in 50 • BY Ml. STOBBE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ATLANTA—Health officials said the nation is on track to have the worst year for whooping cough in more than five decades. Nearly 18,000 cases have been reported so far— more than twice the number seen at this point last year. At this pace,the number of whooping cough cases will surpass every year since 1959. "Where is a lot of this out there,and there may be more coming to a place near you,"Dr.Anne Schuchat of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Thursday. Wisconsin and Washington each has reported more than 3,000 cases,and high numbers have been seen in a number of other states,including New York,Minnesota, Kansas and Arizona. In rare cases,pertussis can be fatal,and nine chil- dren have died so far this year. Children get vaccinated against whooping cough in • five doses,with the first shot at age 2 months and the final one between 4 and 6 years.Then a booster is rec- ommended around age 11. The vaccine's protection does wane,and health offi- cials have debated moving up the booster shot. The CDC is urging adults and especially pregnant women to get vaccinated so they don't spread it to infants who are too young to get the vaccine. Whooping cough used to cause hundreds of thou- • sands of illnesses a year,but cases fell after a vaccine was introduced in the 1940s. Starting in the late 1960s,fewer than 5,000 cases were reported annually in the United States for a stretch of about 25 years. But the numbers started to rise in the 1990s. For more information,visit www.cdagov. • /i'49 A/ Many Jefferson County beaches bays closed to recreational shellfish harvests Peninsula Daily News, July 20, 2012 • PORT TOWNSEND—Elevated levels of the potentially deadly paralytic shellfish poisoning, also known as PSP, found in shellfish samples have prompted closures of Fort Flagler, Kilisut Harbor and Mystery Bay beaches to recreational shellfish harvesting. The Jefferson County Public Health Department announced the closures by the state Department of Health on Thursday. Shellfish harvested commercially are tested for toxin prior to distribution and should be safe to eat,the state Health Department has said. PSP, commonly known as"red tide,"is a neurotoxin that can trigger paralysis at high concentrations. Signs have been posted at high-use beaches warning people not to consume shellfish from these areas,the county Health Department said. High levels of marine toxins have prompted closures of Dabob Bay, Quilcene Bay, Port Townsend and Kilisut Harbor —including Mystery Bay—Discovery Bay, Sequim Bay and beaches from Dungeness Spit to Cape Flattery. Beaches on the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Dungeness Spit west to Cape Flattery had been closed to recreational shellfish harvesting earlier because of PSP. Sequim Bay also was closed earlier this month because of both PSP and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, or DSP. DSP is a marine toxin that can cause nausea,vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps and chills,with symptoms typically passing quickly. Quilcene, Dabob and Discovery bays were closed earlier in July because of DSP. The discovery was the first time any toxin has been found in shellfish in either Quilcene Bay or Dabob Bay. • Seasonal closures for shellfish harvesting are in effect for all Pacific Ocean beaches in both counties. All shellfish The closures are for recreational harvest of all shellfish species, including clams, oysters, mussels and scallops. It does not apply to shrimp. Crabmeat is not known to contain the biotoxin, but the guts can contain unsafe levels.To be safe, clean crab thoroughly and discard the guts. Marine biotoxins are not destroyed by cooking or freezing. People can become ill from eating shellfish contaminated with the naturally occurring marine algae containing toxins harmful to humans. Symptoms of PSP can appear within minutes or hours and usually begin with tingling lips and tongue, moving to the hands and feet,followed by difficulty breathing and potentially death. Anyone experiencing these symptoms should contact a health care provider immediately. For extreme reactions, phone 9-1-1. In most cases,the algae that contain the toxins cannot be seen and must be detected using laboratory testing. Recreational shellfish harvesters should check http://tinyurl.com/8482ksr or phone 800-562-5632 before harvesting shellfish. CDC: Pertussis at • alarming rate rise • BY MIICE STOBBE _ • THE ASSOCIATED PRESS : 0410.' 3 i '� ".vtl a ATLANTA — The U.S. 4 ,� . appears headed for its worst r� year for whooping cough in more than five decades,with the number of cases rising at .444- :' an epidemic rate that experts ‘, ., 444 ,- say may reflect a problem -,64,,,w„.„,„,„„, tioc se,soea' r' .,„, with the effectiveness of the aTavus Toxao 0�� vaccine. u4IA,R aoj i Nearly 18,000 cases have I''c,NE Aosoerr'r been reported so far—more e00STRIX than twice the number seen , at this point last year, the - Centers for Disease Control , and Prevention said Thurs- THE ASSOCIATED PRESS day.At this pace,the number An empty bottle of Tetanus,Diphthera and for the entire year will be the Pertussis(whooping cough) vaccine. highest since 1959, when 40,000 illnesses were exempted from rules that versity• of Michigan reported. require them to get their researcher who is co-leader shots to enroll in school. of a federally funded study of Nine children dead Washington state has one of whooping cough trends. Nine children have died, the highest exemption rates The government recom- and health officials called on dilated the nation.But the CDC mends that children get vac- adults—especially pregnant said that does not appear to ated in five doses,with the women and those whospend be a major factor in the out- first shot at age 2 months time around children — to break, since most of the and the final one between 4 get a booster shot as soon as youngsters who got sick had and 6 years.A booster shot is possible. been vaccinated. recommended around 11 or "My biggest concern is for Whooping cough, or per- 12. the babies.They re the ones tussis,is a highly contagious Vaccination rates for • who get hit the hardest,"said Mary Selecky, chief of the disease that can strike peo- young children are good — pie of any age but is most about 84 percent of 3-year- health department in Wash- dangerous to children. Its olds have gotten the recom- name comes from the sound mended number of shots. ington,one of the states with the biggest outbreaks.Wash- children make as they gasp But fewer than 70 percent of ington and Wisconsin have for breath. adolescents have gotten all reported more than 3,000 their shots. cases each, and high num- Drop in cases Most states require per- bers have been seen in a It used to be a common tussis vaccinations for school number of other states, threat, with hundreds of attendance. including New York,Minne- thousands of cases annually. In a possible indicator of a sota and Arizona. Cases •gradually dropped Problem with the vaccine, Whooping cough has gen- after a vaccine was intro- investigators in Washington erally been increasing for duced in the 1940s,and the state were alarmed to see years,but this year's spike is disease came to be thought of high rates of whooping cough startling. Health investiga as a relic of another age.For in youngsters around 13 and tors are trying to figure out about 25 years, fewer than 14. what's going on,and theories 5,000 cases were reported Whooping cough typically include better detection and annually in the U.S. The starts with cold-like symp- reporting of cases,some sort numbers started to climb toms that can include a of evolution in the bacteria again in the 1990s. runny nose,congestion,fever that cause the illness, or hi both 2004 and 2005, and a mild cough.The CDC shortcomings in the vaccine. cases surpassed 25,000.The advises parents to see a doc- The vaccine that had numbers dipped for a few ,for if they or their children been given to young children years but jumped to more develop a prolonged or severe for decades was replaced in than 27,000 in 2010,the year cough. Whooping cough is the late 1990s following con- California saw an especially treated with antibiotics,the terns about rashes, fevers bad epidemic. earlier the better. and other side effects. Experts believe whooping Health authorities are Although the new version is cough occurs in cycles and girding for what may be a considered safer,it is possible peaks every three to five bad couple of years. it isn't as effective long term, years. But they have been "There is a lot of pertussis said Dr.Anne Schuchat,who startled to see peaks this out there,and there may be oversees the CDC's immuni- high. more coming to a place near • - . . zation and respiratory dis- Vaccinations are sup- you,"Schuchat said. • ease programs. posed to tamp down the . � Some parents in Califor- amount of infection in the nia and other states have population and make the CDC information on rebelled against vaccinations valleys in the cycles longer, whooping cough: www.cdc. and gotten their children said Pejman Rohani,a Uni- gov I features I pertussis 3/ /� ,::.r.,..„-p*,7-'--.1„,--=:,N-;;L-c.44,-.7x..--,-•kx.,...,--„,,,-4.;-,,,,x. .,. 13 ® a � 1 �y � �S.c•aw. 7:-.-,4,„‘,-,;-„.„ � tI 5Y . ���� 1 µ� � ,,,,,,„4 Yiiiw �• ' ", 31,1a� �? 1 . .. 5x ..Gy t ,,,,,1w'iE s,ee R ,.a6.• ^ 4\7 i 1i 0 : ��f�y ..k 1 "C iXt t V I I�I i: I 4 . ' 0 � 1i 3tiairtP6° id .* � -44.,444,40‘.,4t e .,:.4 , _ a. 1 `� rp tu M i +et tr i� • P 'ne 'V. a v '!" rsavv,r,i,,,A1,-4--ift.,.* 0 a rtiiK evi f F ,f S f .,, P e 90 ti f tar ..i S .� -r=-41:Y Da :1l t 1111 vi•I VIE a . ! r i k•e 1 d„ #{ D �7f' M < .* t 1 r f iP i s i ..e ce=w.f Pligi Wa� �ae�4 { ` >.W.e r r 7 t ei i e el e A..fg� � E, 1 Pi1E- �! l f.LLl� ��i:i f 1 1i'`'''',,,,,.");1,,b 8ni S��tn'��p,��' k, y +Ant g "'YYY'Xn,' '«. " Z � $ t¢iM Y y JV-i A[A�y� t7W '''...*:;i:4,.;'.... P0(4j1LLt'7_�4_�21q * tia.`ii>t'�i �1 i tlt! Ei! 1 e �IY i g e fl r 7 "p"y v mare S 0'.50 years o 'e lex v ' o n_-4-411-1. .4i. t Pi !I.,'°,`A,21::' r j v vl ul za '"*&q,,,. On. '013:i a f' B ' i y B. ^.3 � 89,e ,_,5 i L�. 8 t . YIt B Bi ate A Al,.0 lig 4 .1r.',; 'fir,).. P11 1a �'.1 e1 i f,Th:e• I '1 I ii�La �L�Ya iaiif- 6 PIl i4 .1!".670P aMit�aa,� Y�vp2 �� 1` .p i•.., n tt, @aMesa I9v � e tae i ..;(.;,?.',01.r0.47.0". • .1),.• E a 4a .a thelii3t.'* Tiz -1271 N k • ,M1m n 9 r :,e a �L f L A y, ":'_ W.,'''''' .i1^xJ if1 �"�90a.iSp �ttia! Ie�71 ie 0e y p .;....m'� P � I f1 epi '..,, -42:4i,,,,, t '* uti Y _ 3 --4.,1:, 4 a•,-;;;,,'.1.,, # ,..,, ,%1I� ,,,,,‘;'„„f; eIr f s p;,,r ,;''ll ju: v:!,� el:,,,T k 4f .v,':''','''''', n ms's" -g� w 32'0 t B P 4"4-..'>;` e P i RP a lv i a Te y,S !:-•.B t�..'.e "�.a, ,e€� 4 s ,.,,,„„A, , e!,..i .3Y" T S 1 •fi=t i E3'ei1e 07.'ail re ti.,C B to i 0:�,p�/.!.'s;. "^t A� e:71"5.114; e, E /VOWag. er EI .tom tI ! e .'hi . Ai 4,2 < 4,;+),..1,1 e �aF 414 ppiBpfi: 34;Eia 'N f; lek t ,,,'..V.!•,- i`°' 4,;+ BL .8 p 6 _tnl!:':' 6 B: B' t>.a,L'' f• P:f r A� 1 ,t1; f' 4' S0 a'd ''i's � y�..'1 i s. i E a :!Ere J B f t t r a + i N ���. BE e B,a I :,'n i p t f t p A'a i •dY •i ":214s:',110"2 0 B) 1:r f S ,.1.14, _ .2, , e1-4 a t.4..:' • • 2/02 622 Vaccine available PORT TOWNSEND— Whooping cough(pertussis) vaccines are available in Port Townsend,Port Had- lock and Quilcene for adult clients with no health insurance or insurance that does not cover vacci- nations. acsnations. A small administrative fee may be charged. Locations are: ■ Port Hadlock Medi- cal Care,121 Oak Bay Road,Port Hadlock,offers the vaccine from 10 a.m.to 3 p.m.Mondays through Fridays. Phone 360-379-6737 for an appointment. ■ South County Med- ical Clinic,294843 U.S. Highway 101,Quilcene, offers the vaccine from 9 a.m.to 6 p.m.Mondays through Thursdays. Phone 360-765-3111 for an appointment. • Jefferson County Public Health,615 Sheri- dan St.,Port Townsend, administers Tdap vaccines • Mondays from 1 p.m.to 4 p.m.or during regular walk-in immunization clin- ics Tuesdays and Thurs- days from 1 p.m.to 4 p.m. In addition to the free Tdap vaccine,Jefferson County Public Health also has pertussis vaccines available for adults wlio do have insurance and for children and teens through the state immunization program. For more information, phone 360-385-9400. - - • • /6/1/ Gibbs Lake's status improves Pensh Leach Peninsula Daily News,July 23f° 2012 PORT TOWNSEND—The warning sign that was posted at Gibbs Lake was switched for one counseling caution Friday after tests found that the level of an algae-produced toxin had dropped below the safety threshold for a second week. Anderson Lake stays closed because of high levels of toxins, while Lake Leland is safe, said Greg Thomason, Jefferson County environmental health specialist, Friday. A warning sign was posted at Gibbs Lake, a popular swimming hole south of Port Townsend, on July 6 after results of a water-sample test discovered that the level of microcystin, a toxin created by blue-green algae, had risen above the safety threshold, to 7.9 micrograms per liter of water. The safety threshold is 6 micrograms per liter of water. Tests received Friday found that the level of microcystin was 0.82 micrograms. The Friday before, the test found the level to be 1.98 micrograms. "That's the way it usually works,"Thomason said. "It peaks out and comes right down." Once an unsafe level of toxin is found in a lake, the department must receive two tests showing safe levels before changing the waterway's status, he said. "We need two weeks in a row,"Thomason said. The most severe effect of microcystin is that some people could develop liver failure if they have consumed water containing the toxin over a long period of time. • Its short-term effects can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, skin irritation and burning, abdominal pain, blistering in the mouth and sore throat. No anatoxin-a, the other algae-created toxin often found in East Jefferson County lakes, was discovered in Gibbs last week. Report algae blooms in Jefferson County by phoning 360-385-9444. For more information about lake quality in Jefferson County, visit the environmental health website at http://tinyurl.com/6z64ofy. Managing Editor/News Leah Leach can be reached at 360-417-3531 or at leah.leach@peninsuladailynews.com. Last modified:July 22.2012 6:07PM • PT Paper corp. health • documents now online Citizens seeking health- "Numerous requests in related documents about recent months have made it the Port Townsend Paper clear.that we need to make Corp. (PTPC) through public documents available online," records requests can now find said Mingo. the documents online through The documents include key a link on the Jefferson County correspondence, the PTPC Public Health website. Inert Waste Landfill permit This approach will pro- and permit Conditions, oper- vide quicker and more conve- ation plan and inert waste nient access to public records, evaluation report. according to Pinky Feria Follow the links by going Mingo of the health depart- to the Jefferson County ment's environmental health Public Health website, division. There also will be a jeffersoncountypublichealth. link to frequently asked ques- org,and clicking on"key locu- tions,which the health depart- ments"and "frequently asked ment will update periodically, questions." she said. Call 379-4489. • Biomass we all know: including the air quality? I 1) If someone at PTPC or don't think so. Shouldn't the safe? Prove it its affiliated corporations did owners of PTPC be required not stand to make significant to prove that the biomass I am not a scientist or a money from this project, no plant will be safe before the11111 doctor, just an ordinary plant would have been pro- plant is built? posed. Corporations are not NILES POWELL person, a resident of Port charities, and the biomass Port Townsend Townsend. There are people with impressive credentials on plant is not a public service both sides of the debate about project. the proposed biomass plant. 2)The argument that there So I have tried to think about not enough scientific data to ways in which those of us who say that exposure to nanopar- tides from wood burning is are not specialists in human health can evaluate this issue damaging to human health sensibly.Here are some things is exactly the same argument that is used by corporations around the world to make it difficult or impossible for ordi- nary citizens to avoid toxic exposures.This is a very effec- tive technique, because it is virtually impossible to prove, after the fact, that a specific exposure created a specific result;there are just too many variables. 3) The argument that there are already nanopar- ticles everywhere and so we shouldn't be worried about them is patently absurd.If you shoot yourself in one foot,does that mean there is no harm in shooting yourself in the other? • This entire debate is based on the premise that we, the citizens of Port Townsend, have to prove that something will be harmful to us before we can reasonably ask that we not be exposed to it. But that is corporate reasoning. We need to turn that around and ask that nothing be done until the business that proposes it can prove to all of us that it is safe.This is called the precau- tionary principle and it is the law in many other countries around the world. The safety of exposure to nanoparticles from wood burning has not been proved, nor has it even been addressed in reference to this particular project. Should we believe it when some corporation tells us that the proposed biomass plant will make things better, o 0 .0 m s, co on o Pa v 01.. 3 i. " of o w o N c• 0 : s. s ro 0 o a0 " E - N a 8 v y Pa .� co y 3'a'y d a> a> ca a> co s., a. p.. a r 10 m ° 0. ° w ° 0 5 d m C.>'a° o.. NO .. Gm ^ y O O ,V▪ 0 . cot.; O R. .0• N QS -0 A. y a> Oa > N as ° d � 0>-".0 N.rd Vti0▪` ,0 - .,, 7., 0a1 J N O .4 . 0 co 4W w oE. s, 2.r„ g rte.'° 5 E. E' a> aW `°P+ b 0 o 0 °x a) .^4.,co cu 0 >� a• • y3voe°c> o -a ai ' 3 to" c> 5 E , o . c i.•a a> A+.. o oa> oo " x • 00aE IN •111111.1 cs 0 CU p •y E .5. arv.„4,. O:y,++ C>•- yO� ° ° V a>.., 0 ° 2y . ' wza E" w m O 0 y a0 %• 'a Cm m ., 0 1'4Z Gyd O °md 0 N 8P co 0 E Npv30'ao g 0� .� .- 0 •-0008 : -a0s � ' - g Gw8O -0 O +•" 5 ° Ca; an 0 OdCLrQ..-+�. a, s. .., . or6 a ›,8,° n. a "I° t. a ww ° 0sy "° .30 4. oP ' 3 m.- '-. d 0 x• a, 8... •° 0 3.. a as ..7 [ ca O i, ^0 i...V. N ', Rf 0....di y . 5 2> 0 P'1� P.0 q G >.0. V.a w w N.r�C. 0 U C V--' y �~ a)J.- +, a>... M m +., o-,A +' o 5.� m nom- •-cs o• 2 uS 1. -. ° aos m o o ko0o g g•. 0,..2 -t3 co,8O 4 nG 0 + >w as �p Q J',U •. .+, a E P. +.. 0 r+ +, as .0 ob o 0 VVaOca. WO y N Fri L.W.a' b. a> •4, 2'LS Y .0.,MI H y to bn .-=...2+ 3 • q r' ■ w Q a'-, .°, O. A• V 0 cu 7 -. +o, .8 0 0.0 4 o 0 aid, ,; ... Ya, 0 a3 o o m C CL P P O 0 P 0 0 0 ° , m w 0"0.0 0 0.0, E .!>> '� :� a> y +�•., () d U c0 N^.., y.ri 00g4 0 v 0 ''5 w E. 0 w.2. m w Z 'Ts s Po 8-s. 8 ''.0 m d' c> V o Aw aa ,o g, 0 O X 4 3y a> d 0 ., >,b `�� 20) QT) .4 7 P � o ^ Cm s) co � +, -IE". °..... zq _->> �x,2 072,4' _....9..0 u. • ai 0. doy om o o � ° a o wo o no 0 . �od £i9a.� ya a ` oo v m .0 • 111111a ,..1.•, • ,..,4,0. dime `. .'. ^ co � o d w MS ti, a W ....'co o 3 .cam a> i, y r.. I S, co d 0 V O "" Ask, ■■ YI �` , _o a, 0o .k. S I ■■ ;.� �Br cd u 0o•� a>w Q ® % ■- !■ =1 Put U1h41 i ` `+ +, >•' a> CC -O a> u7 0 Ut >-. ,. C: ,- ° a> ,,0)74 >-. a> o m P.a"�.,'~N .O, m x' +., o 0 a0> 3.^.o•� . a'.., 0 0 C 9 N 3 +'., oCIO '0 0 0 C. .-.40 N W +., bo 0 07.'4 a) , O V Y m 0 4. ° o 0 0. G a m x 3•� x a °o o'FA'o 1. a,0 ° E d c� a>P. o 0o. n 3 ' o P. +, a c o a o cq [ asmoa> sgYPm o . ~ cw 3od aaNmca E" a' •' C a .0 0 ...0 -a' a3 Efa., C). o�' a; d� ...2m,0,g iOD�0o^ oAE" Ao d ao +, o N ° "A 9 a> a> .0 ca E. -0 o o • 0,a0 ,0ii, sy .., a.).e. °0y8'+ hw ; 0P. --- 581 oO7F. °ycdOG0,o0"" 0pOOs'OO'E O ›U o ''' O3 O os°.wZ aw N q o° .0 cof w v 0 Free Tdap vaccine in Quilcene,Hadlock There is still whoop- ing cough (pertussis) in Jefferson County, reflect- • ing the ongoing epidemic in Washington. Nearly 2,900 cases of pertussis have been reported statewide in 2012, according to Jefferson County Public Health. All adults and older children are encouraged to get vac- cinated to decrease risk of exposing infants. The Washington State Department of Health has purchased supplies of Tdap vaccine for unin- sured adults. This vaccine protects against whoop- ing cough, diphtheria and tetanus. Three locations in the county now offer this free vaccine for adult clients with no health insurance or insurance that does not cover vaccinations.A small administration fee may be charged. Offering the vaccine are: • Port Hadlock Medical Care, 121 Oak Bay Road, Port Hadlock, 10 a.m.-3 • p.m., Monday-Friday. Call 379-6737. • South County Medical Clinic, 294843 U.S. Highway 101, Quilcene, 9 a.m.-6 p.m., Monday- Thursday. Call 765-3111 first to avoid busy times or for information. • Jefferson County Public Health, 615 Sheridan, Port Townsend, 1-4 p.m:on Monday or dur- ing regular walk-in immu- nization clinics, 1-4 p.m., Tuesday and Thursday. Jefferson County Public Health also has pertussis vaccine available for adults who do have insurance, and for children and teens through the state immuni- zation program. Call 385- 9400. Picnic celebrates breastfeeding To celebrate World Breastfeeding Week, Jefferson County Public Health invites breastfeed- ing moms, babies, family and friends to a potluck pic- nic lunch at Chetzemoka Park, at 1 p.m. on Wednesday,Aug. 1. Jefferson County Public Health,the Women,Infants, Children (WIC) program and Jefferson Healthcare provide education and sup- port to help ensure success- ful breastfeeding. Jefferson County Public Health offers a breastfeeding tea sup- port group, 1:30-3 p.m., Wednesdays. The WIC program, also offered through the health department, recognizes the importance of breastfeeding and the impact on health for moms and babies. For information or to make an appointment,call 385-9432. Jefferson Healthcare's . Family Birth Center is making progress in pursuit of a "Baby-Friendly" des- ignation. The hospital has taken this opportunity to formalize its practices and increase hospital-wide edu- cation. • Many Jefferson County beaches closed to recreational shellfish harvesting Peninsula Daily News,July 26"1,2012 Most of Jefferson County's beaches have been closed to recreational shellfish harvesting because of elevated levels of marine biotoxins that cause paralytic shellfish poisoning, or PSP, and diarrhetic shellfish poisoning, or DSP. Both have been detected at concentrations above the safety level in shellfish samples collected at many Jefferson County beaches, said the Jefferson County Public Health Department. That prompted the closure by the state Department of Health of"a significant amount of Jefferson County's shoreline" to the recreational harvest of shellfish, the county department said in a statement issued today. Port Ludlow, including Mats Mats Bay for PSP, and Hood Canal from Seal Rock Campground south to the Mason County line for DSP have been closed. High levels of marine toxins prompted earlier closures of Dabob Bay, Quilcene Bay, Port Townsend and Kilisut Harbor —including Mystery Bay—Discovery Bay, Sequim Bay and beaches from Dungeness Spit to Cape Flattery. The closures are for recreational shellfish harvesting. Commercially harvested shellfish are sampled separately and products on the market should be safe to eat, the state Department of Health has said. Quilcene Bay, Discovery Bay and Dabob Bay recreational beaches are closed because of DSP toxins. DSP is a marine toxin that can cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramps and chills, with symptoms typically passing quickly. A potentially more serious marine biotoxin —paralytic shellfish poisoning, or PSP—earlier this summer prompted recreational shellfish closures of beaches on the Strait of Juan de Fuca from Dungeness Spit west to Cape Flattery, as well as Discovery Bay, Kilisut Harbor, Mystery Bay, Port Townsend Bay, Oak Bay and Admiralty Inlet. Sequim Bay also was closed earlier this month because of both PSP and DSP. • Warning signs have been posted at high-use beaches warning people not to collect shellfish from these areas. Seasonal closures for shellfish harvesting are in effect for all Pacific Ocean beaches in both counties. The closures are for recreational harvest of all shellfish species, including clams, oysters, mussels and scallops. It does not apply to shrimp. Crab meat is not known to contain the biotoxin, but the guts can contain unsafe levels. To be safe, clean crab thoroughly and discard the guts. Marine biotoxins are not destroyed by cooking or freezing. People can become ill from eating shellfish contaminated with the naturally occurring marine algae containing toxins harmful to humans. Symptoms of PSP can appear within minutes or hours and usually begin with tingling lips and tongue, moving to the hands and feet, followed by difficulty breathing and potentially death. Anyone experiencing these symptoms should contact a health care provider immediately. For extreme reactions, phone 9-1-1. In most cases, the algae that contain the toxins cannot be seen and must be detected using laboratory testing. Recreational shellfish harvesters should check http://tinyurl.com/8482ksr or phone 800-562-5632 before harvesting • shellfish. • Port Townsend Paper, county health officer square off over permit for landfill containing biomass ash By Paul Gottlieb Peninsula Daily News,July 29,2012 RT TOWNSEND—A showdown that may come to a head in September is brewing between Jefferson County Public ealth Officer Tom Locke and Port Townsend Paper Corp. over a permit for the 3-acre landfill in which the company deposits biomass ash. Locke, who is also Clallam County's health officer, is requiring the company to upgrade its landfill permit to include a groundwater-monitoring plan, a guarantee the company will pay for future landfill closure costs and a pledge it will conduct more detailed tests on what's contained in the ash and how often it's put into the company's dump. He reiterated these points in a July 19 letter to the company in which he said, "The time has come to conclude the permit renewal process" and is requiring the company to submit a new permit application for the landfill by Sept. 15. The company's permit was up for renewal Jan. 1, Locke said. Seattle business and environmental attorney Leslie Nellermoe, representing Port Townsend Paper, said Locke's"decision to change the manner in which the PTPC landfill is regulated does not have a regulatory or factual basis" in an Oct. 28 correspondence to the health department. "PTPC intends to challenge this arbitrary decision," she wrote, adding that the company would like to resolve the issue "without litigation." Company Vice President of Human Resources Chuck Madison said late Friday afternoon that no company officials were available to answer questions about the landfill. Nellermoe could not be reached for comment Saturday. "To my knowledge, their position has not changed," Locke said Saturday. heir position is they want to continue with the status quo." Port Townsend Paper is expanding its biomass cogeneration plant to generate 24 megawatts in a $55 million project slated for completion in 2013. Nippon Paper Industries USA in Port Angeles is also expanding its biomass cogeneration facility to generate 20 megawatts in a $71 million project that's also slated for completion in 2013. Nippon already deposits its treated biomass ash in a company landfill that is permitted under requirements contained in the"limited purpose landfill" designation that Locke wants to apply to Port Townsend's facility, which is permitted as a less-regulated "inert" landfill. Port Townsend Paper"is the only generator of this kind of waste in the state that has an inert-waste landfill permit for the waste products they generate," Locke said. Inert landfills can accept concrete, asphalt, stainless steel, aluminum and some metals—substances that do not have an impact on the surrounding environment, including groundwater, Locke said. The biomass that is burned at the plant includes wood waste produced by the company, lumber scrap, construction leavings and "urban wood" generated by demolition that is untreated and unpainted, Locke said. After the biomass is burned, the ash that's left is washed and deposited wet into the landfill. The company was granted a change in its landfill permit from limited-purpose status to inert status in 2004 under an expanded definition of inert waste. her letter, Nellermoe said the company"demonstrated to the satisfaction of both [the Department of] Ecology and Jefferson County Public Health]that the wastes are inert." The ash that's generated, the process for disposing of it and the regulations that apply to it have not changed, she said. "The landfill consistently has operated in compliance with its permit and continues to do so," Nellermoe said. "Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the landfill has been monitored for decades. No environmental or human health hazard has been observed. Nothing suggests this will change." Over the past eight years, Ecology has become more concerned about the alkaline, or high pH, content of biomass ash as the science of discerning its content has improved, Locke said. High pH water is unsuitable for drinking or bathing, he said. Ecology "now has misgivings about certain waste being considered inert, especially things that are highly alkaline, that have a high pH," Locke said. "There is more potential for impacting groundwater than we thought it had eight or nine years ago." Locke said there is no indication that groundwater under the landfill has been compromised. But there is no way to really know because the groundwater has not been tested since 2004, he added. While the health department, not Ecology, permits the landfill, Ecology favors an upgraded permit, Bill Harris, Ecology's regional solid waste engineer, said Friday. "We looked at the nature of that particular waste and situations with similar types of waste and said, 'Yes, this probably shouldn't be dealt with strictly as an inert-waste landfill," he said. "The permitting of a landfill should flow from what kind of waste is there." Locke said the landfill could continue as an inert-status landfill, but only if the permit had the additional conditions provided for under the limited-purpose designation. Harris said Ecology monitored the groundwater from 1990 to 2004. "We had not seen any really significant issues with that groundwater monitoring," Harris said. . "The real issue I would be concerned about is how well is access controlled to the site." Wet boiler ash can cause minor skin burns, he said. "I don't believe the site is fenced," Harris said. "It is accessible. The public health department raised concerns about landfill security in a June 15 landfill inspection report. Company environmental manager Annika Wallendahl responded Monday in a letter to the agency. She said company staff conducted a perimeter inspection of the site June 6, posted additional signage and has "undertaken other measures to continue to limit the access to the landfill site." If Port Townsend Paper does not apply for an upgraded permit, the company can appeal the requirement to the county Board of Health. As the county health officer, Locke is the administrative officer of the board. "Following that appeal, they have the option of going to Superior Court," Locke said. The county public health department has received numerous emails expressing concern about the landfill, and the board of health often receives comments from citizens on the topic, Locke said. The county has posted numerous reports and pieces of correspondence on the issue at www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.orq. • Public health event PORT TOWNSEND— • Jefferson County Public Health will join in the global celebration of World Breastfeeding Week with a potluck picnic lunch at Chetzemokah Park on Wednesday. Breastfeeding moms and their babies plus fam- ily and friends are invited. For more information on breastfeeding education and support programs pro- vided by Public Health,the WIC program and Jeffer- son Healthcare,phone 360- 385-9400. • POs/ . Anderson Lake still closed, but toxins have fallen dramatically By Leah Leach, Peninsula Daily News,August 1st, 2012 PORT TOWNSEND—Anderson Lake is still poisonous but to a lesser degree than earlier this summer. The most recent samples from the lake between Port Townsend and Chimacum,which has been closed since May 3 because of high • levels of a deadly nerve toxin, contained only 22 micrograms of the toxin anatoxin-a per liter of water. That's only 22 times the safety threshold of 1 microgram per liter. "It sure is a lot better than 619"micrograms per liter,the level tests found in samples the first week of July, said Greg Thomason, Jefferson County environmental health specialist, Friday after test results were received. The lake remains closed to all recreational use,while other lakes tested last week—Gibbs Lake and Lake Leland—are safe. Only the lake is closed in Anderson Lake State Park.The 410-acre park surrounding the lake remains open. A Discover Pass is needed to park there. The decrease in anatoxin-a is typical for the time of year,Thomason said. "The normal pattern is that the level of anatoxin-a peaks in May or June and drops off now,"he said. As anatoxin-a drops off, microcystin—another algae-produced toxin found in East Jefferson County lakes—tends to rise,Thomason said. "From mid-August to mid-September, microcystin will rise and peak out," he said. Microcystin typically"comes later in the season. "We'll see if it follows the regular pattern or not,"he said. Anatoxin-a acts quickly and can cause paralysis and stop breathing. The most severe effect of microcystin is that some people could develop liver failure if they have consumed water containing the toxin over a long period of time. Its short-term effects can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, skin irritation and burning, abdominal pain, blistering in the mouth and sore throat. Both toxins are created by certain species of blue-green algae. Researchers know that warm weather fuels algae growth when sufficient nutrients such as phosphates are present, but they don't know why algae that is usually benign will suddenly begin to produce toxins. No anatoxin-a was found last week in either Gibbs Lake, a popular swimming hole south of Port Townsend, or Lake Leland, north of Quilcene,Thomason said. Only a trace of microcystin was measured last week in Gibbs Lake,where the level was high enough to prompt the posting of warning signs four weeks ago. The level in Gibbs Lake then was 7.9 micrograms per liter.The safety threshold for microcystin is 6 micrograms per liter. Since then,the warning sign has come down at Gibbs Lake. But Leland—where no microcystin was found last week—and Gibbs remain posted with caution signs because both lakes contain the type of blue-green algae known to produce toxins at times. Weekly test results are announced Fridays after samples are taken Mondays. No toxic blue-green algae has been reported in Clallam County,where health officers do not test for toxins; instead,they visually monitor lakes for signs of algae bloom. Report algae blooms in Clallam County by phoning 360-417-2258. Report algae blooms in Jefferson County by phoning 360-385-9444. For more information about lake quality in Jefferson County,visit the environmental health website at http://tinyurl.com/6z64ofy. • Electrostatic efficiencies In his July 11 critique of the Leader's discussion of emission reduction with electrostatic precipi- tators, Mr. Schumacher stated that ESPs drop in efficiency between 3 and 0.3 micrometers. That was followed with the impli- cation that the filtration will be rela- tively ineffective for over 90 percent of the particles released by the mill. What Mr. Schumacher failed to mention was that (and this was discussed in the EPA site he refer- enced), as the particle size drops below 0.3 micrometer, the efficiency of the ESP goes up,especially in the range of ultrafine particles (UFPs) of 0.1 micrometer or less.One cannot claim significantly reduced filtration efficiency for 90 percent of the mill's emissions, unless it is known 90 percent of the emissions lie in the 0.3- to 3-micrometer range. Which is unlikely. 111 BILL LOWRY Port Townsend • � Most beaches closed to shellfish harvest Marine biotoxins that amount of Jefferson County's 'Bay. and products on the market cause paralytic shellfish poi- shoreline to the recreational. Diarrhetic shellfish poi- should be safe to eat, accord- soning and diarrhetic shellfish harvest of shellfish. soning closures are in effect ing to Jefferson County Public poisoning have been detect- Paralytic shellfish poison- for the following beaches: Health. ed at concentrations above ing closures are in effect for Hood Canal, from Seal Rock Recreational shellfish har- the closure level in shellfish the following beaches: Port Campground south to the vesters should check the DOH samples collected at most of Ludlow, including Mats Mats Mason County line;Discovery website at doh.wa.gov/ehp/sf/ Jefferson County beaches. Bay; Discovery Bay; Port Bay;Quilcene Bay;and Dabob biotoxin.htm or call the DOH This has prompted the Townsend Bay; Oak Bay; Bay. Biotoxin Hotline at 800-562- state Department of Health Admiralty Inlet; and Kilisut Commercially harvested 5632 before harvesting shell- (DOH) to close a significant Harbor, including Mystery shellfish is sampled separately fish anywhere in Washington. • • Air agency director to delay requests for Peninsula monitors fa By Paul Gottlieb na Peninsula Daily News,August 2nd, 2012 The Olympic Region Clean Air Agency should delay a decision on installing new air quality monitors on the North Olympic Peninsula so the agency's regionwide air quality monitoring plan can be updated, ORCAA Executive Director Fran McNair said Wednesday. Port Angeles, Sequim and Port Townsend have requested monitors to measure particulate emissions from two biomass cogeneration plants that are expanding their operations in 2013. McNair will ask the ORCAA board to delay a decision on the requests at the board meeting scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday at 2940-B Limited Lane N.W., Olympia. eneration plant in eNippon Paper xpected to produceries USA is 20 megawatts at hegits Port company'sngeles paper biomass I and bega$71 million project completed in April. Port Townsend Paper Corp. is expanding its biomass cogeneration plant in a$55 million project that will generate 24 megawatts at the company's mill south of downtown. It also is expected to be completed in 2013. ORCAA has approved placing a second air-quality monitoring station in Port Townsend—at Grant Street Elementary School—to measure particulate emissions from Port Townsend Paper Corp. but has not decided how to fund it. "It will be fall before there's a decision on anything," McNair said, adding that discussion on updating its regionwide air-quality monitoring plan will begin in late August for the first time in more than three years. Holding off on the requests also will allow new senior air-monitoring specialist Odelle Hadley,who is replacing the retiring Jim Werner,to acclimate herself to her new job and look at the monitoring plan"with a new set of eyes," • McNair said. "Port Townsend, Port Angeles and Sequim are all asking for changes,"McNair said. "We want to look at all of them honestly, equally and do a really good evaluation to see what is needed, if anything," she said. "We need to hold off on any decisions until [Hadley] has had a chance to come on and get her feet wet." ORCAA board Chairman Phil Johnson, a Jefferson County commissioner, said this week the board should decide on the requests from Port Angeles, Sequim and Port Townsend residents by September. "I don't like pushing this decision off forever,"Johnson said. He said the state Department of Ecology had loaned a monitor to ORCAA, but no decision has been made on where it will go. "We can't be buying three new monitors," he added. Bob Lynette of Sequim,co-chair of the North Olympic Group of the Sierra Club,which has opposed Nippon's expansion project, said he will attend the ORCAA board meeting. "We'd like to get an idea exactly of what they're doing,"he said, adding that he is disappointed by the delay. "Some of us will be at the meeting to hear what staff are doing and some rationale." The Port Angeles City Council voted July 3 to ask ORCAA to place a new monitor downtown, east of Nippon, or move the existing monitor from Stevens School to the downtown area. The Sequim City Council also has asked ORCAA to place an air-monitoring station in Sequim to measure emissions S from Nippon,which is about 20 miles away from Sequim. "I still believe Stevens is a good site," McNair said. "We are looking at ambient monitoring,"she added. "Ambient monitoring is not site-specific. It looks at particulates, but it doesn't tell you, no matter where you put it, specifically where it's coming from." Biomass cogeneration plants burn wood waste to generate electricity, making it impossible to determine pollution source-points in the winter,when wood stoves are going full bore and cogeneration plants are also in operation, she said. "Our technology is such that no matter where you put it, it's not going to be able to say it's from Nippon or Port Towsend Paper,"she said. "We don't want people to be falsely thinking, 'This is the source.'You can't do that with ambient monitoring." But during summers, if large fires are not affecting the weather and the monitors show a spike in pollution downwind from a cogeneration plant, "then yes,you would take another look at it,"McNair said. Holidays and distant fires also can affect air quality, she said. From July 7-11, huge fires in Siberia increased pollution levels in air monitors throughout the Olympic region, and the monitors always spike on the Fourth of July because of fireworks, McNair said. Both projects have survived legal challenges from biomass plant opponents. Opponents have expressed concerns that toxin-laden"ultrafine" particulates and"nanoparticles"the size of less than 2.5 microns will be generated by the plants and are not regulated. Proponents say the expanded plants abide by all existing clean-air laws and will generate less pollution. The smallest monitors cost$17,000 to$20,000 and$10,000 annually to operate. "No community is willing to put money toward this," McNair said. "They are all asking us to pay for the whole thing." ORCAA, one of seven regional air pollution control agencies in Washington state, regulates and enforces local, state and federal air pollution standards in Cla►lam, Jefferson, Grays Harbor, Mason, Pacific and Thurston counties. Clallam County Commissioner Mike Doherty and Port Angeles City Councilman Dan Di Guilio also are on the nine- member ORCAA board. Comments on the air-quality monitors can be emailed to McNair at fran.mcnair(a orcaa.org. Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5060, or at paul.gottlieb(a�peninsuladailynews.com. Last modified:August 01.2012 5:27PM , . . _, • Phoneline for smokers hoping to quit revived STATE FUNDING no insurance,had no 'This is a part of who I am. HAD BEEN CUT money to help themselves." This is the only way I can re- Now with$1.6 million in lieve stress.This is my re- funding from the state and ward.'" Only insured were Centers for Disease Control To combat clients'urges, being helped and Prevention,the hotline the quit-line schedules four will return thousands of follow-up calls.When BY KIBKABE ARAYA calls and welcome new di- someone first calls,a coach Seattle Times staff reporter ents looking to break the asks basic questions and Washington state this habit. helps set a quit date.The week restored funding for "We are really passionate following calls discuss the its toll-free tobacco quit about the Washington quit client's current experience. line,a year after the Legis- line,"said Ryan Crawford, Though 30 days is a pop- lature stopped the program coach supervisor at Alere ular quitting goal,nicotine- as part of budget cuts. Wellbeing,a Seattle-based replacement therapy takes For the past year,Wash- healthy-behaviors company eight weeks.The quit line ington was the only state in running the quit line for the provides nicotine patches, the country without its own state and in states such as gums and lozenges after hotline that offered free to- Florida,Hawaii and Okla- doctors at Alere screen pa- bacco-cessation counseling homa."We see the neigh- tients.For prescription for the uninsured and unde- borhoods people call from, medications,the coaches rinsured. and some of us are from send clients a form to give Since last July,people those places,so it's good to to their doctors. • still called the quit line help our fellow Washingto- 8�0 e state quit line and(1- looking for help,but coach- mans." es assisted only those with From 2003 to 2008,the 877-2N0-FUME in Span- insurance that included to- state Tobacco Control and ish)began in November bacco-cessation coverage. Prevention program used 2000.In 11 years,it has re- More than half of the 6,500 around$28 million to fund ceived more than 165,000 underinsured and unin- the quit ine p even and lo-on calls.Toin the state,50 sured who used the hotline programs asked for a return call once cal health organizations, youths will start smoking, the state restored service. and a media campaign, according to the health de- "It was our goal to get this Church said. partment.This year,7,900 back because we know it "Nicotine withdrawal is people in Washington will helps people,"said state De- really hard.People have die from tobacco-related partment of Health spokes- smoked,dipped and diseases. ` man Tim Church."It was in- chewed for 40 years,so Kibkabe Araya:206-464-2266 or credibly important for us to they feel naked without it," karaya@seattletimes.com.On get back to people who had Crawford said."They think, Twitter@kibkabe • ..".. ‘It (IL/1;4'1-74'2 Shopping for a Better Environment? Look for the Green Business and EnviroStars Logos • —Kt FDRYoDI!RAN . hYO06fYC +.•` CUDTIHJD Businesses displaying these logos have received third party verification that their businesses are reducing waste, minimizing energy and water consumption, and creating healthy workplaces. Put your money where your values are, and look for the Green Business and EnviroStars logo. If you own a business, show your commitment and get certified today. For more informa- tion about certification, contact Pinky Feria Mingo, Jef- ferson County Public Health, 379-4489. • 6/ ./, " • /7 /2- • J Hardwood, Nippon among recipients of biomass grants • By Paul Gottlieb Peninsula Daily News,August 3rd, 2012 Port Angeles Hardwood and Nippon Industries USA are among the North Olympic Peninsula recipients of$705,000 in U.S. Forest Service grants for biomass projects. Both have been awarded$250,000 each,the Forest Service announced this week. The Quinault Indian Nation also received a$205,000 agency grant for a project at its tribal center in Taholah. The companies and the Quinault tribes received three of the Woody Biomass Utilization grants awarded in Oregon and Washington state from among 20 handed out nationwide. They will help pay for final design, permitting and cost analysis for"wood energy projects,"the Forest Service said in a statement. Biomass cogeneration uses wood waste to create electricity and heat facilities. Port Angeles Hardwood,which opened in 2006 and has 80 employees, has built a 40,000-pound-an-hour biomass cogeneration boiler at its 333 Eclipse Industrial Parkway site that processes steam for the plant's dry kiln, President and CEO Lindsay Crawford of Kalispell, Mont., said Thursday. The grant will be used to study the viability of adding a turbine to the boiler and generating electricity, Crawford said. "We definitely could generate everything we need for our own plant," he said. Steam now generated at the plant would go through the turbine,then through the dry kiln,with no additional use of • biomass. "We would use the steam twice," Crawford said. He estimated the project would cost about$4 million and said it still needs financing. At Nippon,the existing cogeneration plant is being expanded in a$55 million project that will be completed in April and generate 20 megawatts of electricity. Projects slated for funding through the grant to Nippon include environmental air emission testing required by the new boiler, environmental engineering for the testing and disposition of excavated soils, design of all boiler and steam control systems and cooling-tower environmental permitting and design, said Ron Saranich,the Forest Service's regional biomass coordinator for Washington and Oregon. Nippon mill manager Harold Norlund said this week that workers have erected 40 feet of the new biomass boiler, and the company officials still expect an April 30 completion date. "It's quite unique what's going on here," Norlund said. "It helps reduce forest management costs by increasing the value of biomass." On the Quinault reservation,which includes the village of Queets in Jefferson County,the facility will create only thermal energy for tribal members in Taholah, said Dave Bingaman, director of the Quinault Division of Natural Resources. Among the six regional award recipients,the Quinault project ranked second, Nippon's third and Port Angeles Hardwood's fourth, Saranich said. There were six regional grant applications, including three from Oregon, and all received funding, he said. • According to the grant applications, the biomass projects will create 10 permanent jobs at the Nippon plant and 15 to 20 jobs related to the removal of biomass from the forest, 11 construction jobs and five permanent jobs at Port Angeles Hardwood, and 10 permanent jobs at the Quinault Indian Nation reservation, Forest Service spokesman Reggie Woodruff said Thursday. . There are other benefits as well,Arthur"Butch" Blazer,the U.S. Department of Agriculture's deputy undersecretary for natural resources and environment, said Thursday in a telephone interview. "This creation of energy for these particular operations at Port Angeles and the Quinault reservation are going to result in utility bill savings for those operations,"he said. Opponents of Nippon's project and Port Townsend Paper Corp.'s$55 million cogeneration expansion project say the • biomass facilities will spew tiny,toxin-laden airborne particulate matter that is unregulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Proponents say the projects follow existing EPA regulations and will produce cleaner particulate emissions than are produced at the existing facilities. "We are going to have those arguments," Blazer said. "What I am looking at in utilizing biomass is, it's 85 more efficient than coal,"he said. "I just try to weigh what we're doing against what is going to happen if we don't do it. "As we continue with our restoration efforts,continue to improve the health of our forests by removing this lower value woody material from our forests,that's going to result in very positive things," Blazer said. Those things include reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires, Blazer said. "When you look at the amount of particulates these wildfires are putting into the air,the long-term utilization of this biomass by taking advantage of these technologies is the way to go." Saranich said Europe has been a leader in creating pollution control technology that increasingly is being employed in the U.S. as well as technology for applying biomass cogeneration to thermal heating. • The grant for the Quinault Indian Nation will support the engineering and design phase of the tribe's Biomass for Heat Facility thermal project,which will warm the tribal health clinic, the Department of Natural Resources/executive office complex and the tribal administrative complex. "We are very excited about this project and are dedicated to the pursuit of clean, sustainable energy and the jobs, independence, economic vitality and cooperative relationship projects such as this help us achieve with other governments and with our neighbors,"Quinault Indian Nation President Fawn Sharp said in a statement. Bingaman said the Quinault tribes will use operational data from a Quillayute School District cogeneration boiler in Forks. Engineering and design of the facility will take at least a year, he added. Roughly 3,000 to 4,000 acres out of the Quinault Nation's 208,000 acres are in Jefferson County, including Queets at the mouth of the Queets River, he said. Senior Staff Writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-452-2345, ext. 5060, or at paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com. Last modified:August 02. 2012 6:07PM • Support for mill In response to recent • politically motivated letters,. it needs to be pointed out that our Jefferson County commissioners have repeat- edly expressed their support for the Port Townsend Paper mill and have docu- mented full support in their letter to Marc Heffner of the Department of Ecology in August 2010. In that letter,they clearly state they are in full support of the permit appli- cation for the construction of the$55 million biomass cogeneration project. So,what might motivate someone to write and pro- mote the ideas.that our county commissioners(a)do not support the millworkers, (b)are trying to reduce the economic benefits of the mill and(c)could be considered ineffectual because they are lacking courage? Our county commission- ers are well aware of and recognize that technology is continually improving. • They want to put to good use all the benefits technol- ogy can offer,while knowing they must work diligently to ensure that the undesirable consequences from any eco- nomic development efforts are minimized and continu- ally being reduced. Are the authors of these politically motivated letters simply ignorant of the facts or are they deliberately mis- informing the voters? ` Whatever the case,the truth is that our commis- sioners are informed and have taken a strong stance in support of the mill. Bill Miller, Port Townsend • - • 4)A/ Three in state treated after rabid bat exposure • PENINSULA DAILY NEWS spokeswoman. is strongly encouraged for or another animal should The department tests all pets and other domestic clean the wound with soap Three people—none on bats that have been caught animals. and water and get medical the North Olympic Penin- after coming in contact with Rabies is fatal if attention. sula — have been treatedpeople,she said. untreated. It can be pre- In Clallam County, this year after exposure to No contact has been vented with prompt medical phone 360-417-2274. rabid bats,the state Depart- reported on the North Olym- care following a bite or other In Jefferson County, ment of Health said. pic Peninsula this year. exposure to rabies virus. phone 360-385-9444. The three were in Sno- Endemic rabies infection Treatment is a series of For more information, homish, Skagit and Chelan in the Pacific Northwest is shots given on a specific see the Department of counties, said Julie essentially confined to bats, schedule over a 14-day period. Health website at www. Graham, department although rabies vaccination Anyone bitten by a bat doh.wa.gov. • • / • 47/7A.-2-, •• Countyis striving t• o streamline permits By Tristan Hiegler of the Leader Smith.said there are 187 permit applica- tions currently awaiting DCD approval. He Two Jefferson County department heads said besides staffing issues, one of the main have presented methods they hope will speed . factors in processing applications quickly up permit processes. is having applicants provide every piece of Carl Smith,director of the Department of information the DCD needs. He said several Community Development, and Jared Keefer, applications are a couple years old and were director of Environmental Health and Water waiting on various studies and data from Quality, presented their efficiency plans to applicants before final approval. the Jefferson Board of County Commissioners There has been no effective time-tracking on July 23. method for applications, Smith said. One of Smith,who started in May,said he would the improvements he plans is to start a clock like to increase the partnership between the for each application to track and report how community and his department. much time each one takes to process. He said there is a backlog of building per- "As we start working on the backlog,we'll mits because of staffing shortages. DCD had keep track of how many days it takes us so we 25 employees in 2008, but starting in 2009 can report on that,"Smith said. the staff was reduced to 14 because of the Smith estimated faster permit-processing recession and budget cuts. He said just five times would be seen within a month of imple.- staff members work on permit applications menting these new efficiencies.Anyone with full time. questions may call the DCD at 379-4450. Smith said the department issued 508 Keefer said he has only one staff mem- building permits in 2008.In 2009,that num- ber handling Environmental Health's permit ber dropped to 418. There were 399 permit requests,which include septic system permit issued in 2010, 340 in 2011 and 171 through applications. He said he looks forward to June 2012. working.closely with the DCD to streamline "We do a tremendous amount of other the permit process and with Information approvals,"he said of DCD's workload. Services to improve the online permit pro- He said many building permits and other cess. applications are currently backlogged. Smith Keefer echoed Smith in emphasizing that added that he is directing his staff to pri- customers need to completely fill out their oritize simple permits that can be completed applications. He said 68 percent of the appli- quickly. Staff members are to work on appli- cations Environmental Health receives don't cations every Friday;the DCD is closed to the have enough information for his department public on Fridays. to act. • - • p� . 8/8/2012 6:00:00 AM,Port Townsend Leader Paper mill to seek renewal of inert landfill permit Permit not on board of health agenda, but public comment welcome Allison Arthur ilkPort Townsend Paper Corp. plans to apply for an inert waste permit for its landfill, not the limited purpose landfill permit that Jefferson County and concerned residents were hoping it would seek. In a statement issued Aug. 6, mill spokesperson Annika Wallendahl confirmed that PT Paper plans to resubmit its annual application for an inert permit under WAC 173-350-410 "and will continue to work with the county to bring this to a resolution." The mill's 25-acre landfill, which sits on a slope on 250 acres south of the mill near Port Townsend Bay, has become controversial in the last five months. Concerned residents speaking at Jefferson County Board of Health meetings are urging county officials to ensure public safety and require more monitoring than what's required by an inert permit. The mill's announcement comes on the heels of a deadline given by Jefferson County Public Health Officer Dr. Thomas Locke in a July 19 letter to mill Vice President of Environmental Affairs Eveleen Muehlethaler. In that letter, Locke said that while the county and state Department of Ecology agreed that a limited purpose landfill (LPL) classification would be most appropriate for the mill's landfill, both agencies were willing to consider a one-year renewal of the inert permit "provided the requirements addressing groundwater monitoring, financial assurance and waste stream characterizations are at least as stringent" as those required by an LPL. Locke gave the mill a deadline of Sept. 15 to submit a completed application. Locke told the mill that failure to submit an application that addresses the issues would "result in the issuance of a limited purpose permit." It is not clear how the mill specifically intends to respond to those three concerns Locke outlined, although mill officials have said they do intend to do groundwater tests. Wallendahl said that while the groundwater wells installed in 1991 and monitored through 2004"demonstrated that the "tdfill does not impact groundwater and that it complied with solid waste permit requirements, it makes sense to test in to make sure that nothing has changed and that groundwater remains unaffected." The LPL permit has stricter requirements than an inert permit and does require a groundwater-monitoring plan, financial assurance to cover future closure costs, and characterization of current and future waste material. New group forms A new organization, Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs, has surfaced to put pressure on public agencies, including the county and DOE, to take a harder look at the landfill permit. There are reportedly about 50 core members and the focus is on the landfill, not on the mill's proposed $55 million biomass cogeneration project that others, including PT AirWatchers, are opposing. The mill's landfill permit has surfaced as an issue in the biomass debate, however, because the landfill is expected to fill up faster as more biomass is burned to generate electricity. Four people, Dave McWethy, Sally Shumaker, Stephen Schumacher and Rick Faraci, met with DOE officials last week. "Dr. Locke and the solid waste managers at Ecology all told me they think it should be an LPL landfill and they want it to be an LPL," McWethy said Aug. 6. "Why that isn't happening is a mystery to me." The group had planned to urge the community to come to one final health board meeting Aug. 16, a message delivered in a full-page advertisement in the Leader's Aug. 8 issue. However, Shumake rwas advised late Monday that Locke won't be at the meeting and there may not be a quorum of board members. The meeting is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Thursday, Aug. •6 at the Masonic Hall, located behind the post office building in Port Townsend. • The mill's permit is not on the Aug. 8 agenda because there is no board activity involving the permit, according to Jefferson County Public Health Director Jean Baldwin. Baldwin said Aug. 6 that health board members have taken tours of the PT Paper landfill in the last few weeks. • • a4 ys. ". s • S • rel * ' rx a Here is the landfill operated by the Port Townsend Paper Corp. (lower left), as photographed in 2010. Leader file photo PT Paper: Inert waste permit to be sought The following is a statement the Leader received Aug. 6 from Fort Townsend Paper Corp.spokeswoman Annika Wallendahl,the mill's environmental manager: `The Port Townsend Paper inert landfill operation is managed under a solid wash permit issued by Jefferson County Public Health. 'The company's management practices are subject to independent oversight by the Department of Ecology. • "We have had a landfill permit since 1983,which we renew every year.We submitted an application in January 2012 to renew our inert landfill permit along with appropriate fees to the county. "The landfill site has been professionally operated and maintained, and has met all state and local regulations, and was classified as inert in 2004. Chemical testing of the waste indicated that the proper waste classification was and still is'inert.'That means the inert waste is stable and unlikely to create a risk to people or to the environment. "The company has agreed to work with Ecology and the count',;to provide chemical analysis of the inert waste to make sure that that classification remains appropriate. No recent regulations have changed regarding inert landfills. "Concerns have recently been raised about groundwater quality and the company has agreed to conduct additional groundwater testing. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in 1991 and monitored from late 1991 through 2004.The 12-plus years of monitoring demonstrated that the landfill does not impact groundwater and that it complied with solid waste permit requirements. • However, it makes sense totest again to make sure that nothing has changed and that groundwater remains unaffected. "When the planned cogeneration facility begins operations in 2013 or,2014,wood ash generated will be analyzed and provided to both agencies.The ash will be managed according to the regulations and the chemical composition of the waste. The inert landfill permit being discussed now is for the year 2012. "As segments of the landfill reach capacity over time, as identified in the landfill closure plan,the segment will be graded, a soil cover will be put in place and vegetated. "It is our intention to resubmit the landfill permit renewal application over the next few weeks to the county." In a follow-up email to the Leader Aug. 6,Wallendahl wrote,"We will be resubmitting our annual application for an inert waste permit under WAC 173-350-410 and will continue to work with the county to bring this to a resolution." PM irmm�flbM1mm Cbmry Leeeer We..,„,>+y.....,. UNDER PUBLIC • EsTlet,.,,,r,INv ,* :a :;ION! - .,0,........ PORT TO WNSEND PAPER CORPORATION (Owned by GoldenTree, a $16 Billion Hedge Fund in NYC) Why is PTPC fighting THE PUBLIC on a "Limited Purpose Landfill Permit for the Mill's industrial ash landfill? WHY ISTHIS ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE TO YOU? "RP' "e.,,�y • 4 r t`4^s' r l"+�«y'f .+k�'r'`'2 " . s 14.E _; x� �_ t91 . �.%?... rt"'t4.v,„p: , f Qin;, f *v.s w } J i#^ya ne� kSl .,a+J �-"�+�{�fix. . 4z `, r; - �04,-..!-'----,4,:',`=;e1 .4',..: "' er -;:'r �,O3� rx rL: i'" ' 0. 5-- XJc.+ .ds 'at ,NY at 476f..:44fi:',,i„,:i..:1;,:reift.ir .-.:,..' '-',`4"'" 1C41`,1,t.,,,,,,e, ' '--.'t-..- •1:'.i''.,4l:tt.1-'ii.:'-p.','::',z.',':;,•-.'-:,--s',,v.4.;!:.04.v,'.1...,4•'„-r:,•.,..-!;,1:5..'.',:,4,:•,7:-''.•-.-.'1..,.-,._:',-,--..'-;--',—'-.-t,'...-f ry • ,, "r' ,,;,7;41,i.,:;444.''1, iB Yf 4 v� K''� j'fy 3T" ? ?,`p ..-,„ '-`T Vel spy ' . .ah.q a -itt.... 0„ ,.:;- -. rx- .,, 4a� .,��, kms? t H - 3 rY >'h :1 x lu(y 29,2012-PTPC Landfill,with PTPC Mi(/in background.Aeriaf Photography by David Woodcock www.greywollpho(ogrophy.com READ YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPERS FOR THE DETAILS Don't miss these front page articles PT Leader June 13th: Mill Landfill Permit in Limbo State,County Want Mill to Test Water,Give Financial Plan" Peninsula Daily News July 29th: PT Paper Landfill Disputed "Jefferson County Health Officer Challenges Mill Permit" View these articles on our website: www.ptwatchdogs.com BE INFORMED • STAY INVOLVED A IT ERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH MEETING Thursday August 16th, 2:30 4:30PM Masonic Hall, 1338 Jefferson Street (behind the Post Office) YOUR OPINION MATTERS. LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD! 1 '/ ep�Cqe~ Paid for by the Port Townsend Citizen Watchdogs:PO Box 156,Port Townsend,WA 98368 /d"/�oC._ Annika Wallendahl 100 Mill Road • 8/16/12 My name is Annika Wallendahl, I am the environmental manager for the mill. I think the BOH meetings have become a touchstone for citizens with landfill concerns and I wanted to take this opportunity to address five concerns I have heard from the community. Concern#1.What is the difference between inert and solid waste? Inert waste is a type of solid waste. Both are considered low risk if managed appropriately. When I hear the word "toxic waste" applied to the PT landfill, it is not accurate.The word "toxic" is emotionally charged; it's a word that is scary to the public, it generates fear, but doesn't accurately describe the landfill's contents. When I read that word in print or on blogs it tells me one of two things: 1) the person using it does not clearly understand waste regulations and the PTPC waste streams, or 2)the person using it is purposely trying to instill fear in our community. Concern#2. Why don't other mills have an inert landfill? The PTPC mill's wood boiler makes steam from burning wood (by boiling water). Our boiler ash is very similar to your fireplace or wood stove ash. Other mills are located closer to facilities that provide beneficial reuse options. Beneficial reuses for wood ash include use as a soil amendment(think about the fertilizing properties of ash following a • wildfire). Lime kiln grits from many pulp mills are sent to cement kilns to be reprocessed to make lime. Port Townsend is geographically isolated, without a rail line, so transporting our wood ash and kiln grits to other facilities becomes very difficult. I think the first person to complain about PT not having a railroad did so in 1890. All landfills are site specific and engineered with local geology and precipitation in mind. Landfills are classified based on their contents, not based on if they are operated by a city, county, region or corporation. There is no loophole for our mill to operate this landfill in Port Townsend.The Port Townsend landfill exists simply because we are more geographically isolated than other mills. Concern#3. What about groundwater monitoring? I don't know where the confusion about this issue is coming from.The mill has already agreed to resume groundwater monitoring. PTPC monitored groundwater for 12 years without finding any contamination, and we will resume monitoring again shortly. Concern#4. What about financial assurance? The mill can and will provide adequate financial assurance.The confusion to me is why there is an erroneous assumption floating around that landfills always create environmental impacts. Most • 1 managed landfills that are properly closed actually don't create environmental issues.There are thousands of landfills across the country that have been successfully closed over the past 100 years that • haven't caused any issues. Many of the golf courses, community parks,green belts and residential developments we live and play in—especially in urban areas—were once landfills. Concern#5. Port Townsend Bay is beautiful, let's keep it that way The mill is located close to Port Townsend Bay. I think everyone can agree that Puget Sound is beautiful. The landfill has been well managed for years, so much so,that it most people didn't realize it was there. There is currently a wildlife conservation easement in place all the way around the landfill. When the landfill is closed, it won't be developed but will become a wildlife corridor and green buffer between the mill and Fort Townsend State Park. The mill believes in continuous improvement, and that includes making the Olympic Peninsula a better place for all citizens and wildlife to live. Continuous improvement also means decreasing our facility's impact on the environment, including Port Townsend Bay. Attachments: 4111 Landfills are being made into scenic golf courses: http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-wa nt-not/granite-links-golf-cl u b Wood ash as a soil amendment: http://hubcap.clemson.edu/'blpprt/bestwoodash.html City of Cambridge, MA, Danehy Park: http://www2.cambridgema.gov/dhsp2/danehy.cfm • 2 Granite Links Golf Club, Waste Not, Want Not Photos GOLF.com Page 1 of 2 Find The Right Club Learn more CLUB TYPES BRANDS VIDEO • 11: 511*"4"1011` 12 issues =. for $10 + FREE gear bag! A SPOT In The IBEROSTAR Golf IBEROSTAR 'I'ean?Giant pio nsh/ MEXICO GOLF x 242 ,2013 Waste Not, Want Not 1OF • 111110 a 1'v (/photos/waste-not-want-not/golf-club-newcastle) CREDIT: Waste Not,Want Not More and more landfills are being remade into scenic courses, like this Boston beauty They say one man's trash is another man's treasure.Case in point:the earth-friendly movement to turn unsightly landfills into golf courses that are prettier than a high draw.The redevelopment of waste sites is a growing golf trend,with more than 70 such tracks in the United States. Perhaps the most dramatic transformation is Granite Links Golf Club(http://www.golf.com/golf/courses travel/coursefinder/course/0,28290,1530865,00.html) 411 in Quincy, Mass.,a 27-hole links-style layout designed by John Sanford. Completed last year after more than six years of construction,the multimillion-dollar project needed 900,000 truckloads of dirt from Boston's"Big Dig"highway project to fill 450 acres f of old quarries and two former landfills.After the space was capped by sand,dirt and fertilizer,course officials analyzed the http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-want-not/granite-links-golf-club 8/16/2012 Granite Links Golf Club, Waste Not, Want Not Photos I GOLF.com Page 2 of 2 groundwater daily for signs of toxic leakage. (None was found.)The result is golf's answer to the ugly duckling that becomes a swan. Greens fee:$125.Contact:617-689-1900, granitelinksgolfclub.com(http://www.granitelinksgolfclub.com1 • Like 0 More Photo Gallesfes (/photos) Latest Clubs&Great Deals GOLF.com Trips Newsletter For All Your Golf Club,Equipment and Your guide to the best golf in the world. still GOLF`ani Accessory Needs! TitiPS Subscribe to GOLF Magazine .1%11t,' Get a year for$10,and receive a NsFREE gear bag! F Forecast F Trips F Lessons F The Shop Enter Email Address PGA Tour News Travel&Courses Tips&Videos Equipment News&Reviews SIGN UP NOW s • if http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-want-not/granite-links-golf-club 8/16/2012 The Golf Club at Newcastle, Waste Not, Want Not Photos I GOLF.com Page 1 of 2 Find The Right Club Learn more CLUB TYPES BRANDS VIDEO Gc• GOLF } t SK I ARIIT Get it FREE it PIAN TO TURN YOUR free night INTO A DAY WITHOUT ANY PLANS. Waste Not, Want Not 2oF6 • r.��xy..ti r�„�, a�«-� 't>rfi. .W.• �m -w fro L h. ,��' .� .:.x { • (/photos/waste-not-wan-Rnot/industry-hills-golfclub) CREDIT:ROB PERRY GET YOUR FILL Four more former landfills that morphed from dumps into dandies The Golf Club at Newcastle(http://www.golf.com/golf/courses travel/coursefinder/course/0,28290,1517440,OO.htmll (Coal Creek Course) Newcastle,Wash. Hilly terrain and Seattle skyline views highlight this 7,024-yard Bob Cupp/Fred Couples design. Greens fee:$110-$160 Contact:425-793-5566, • newcastlegolf.com(http://www.newcastlegolf.com) j http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-want-not/golf-club-newcastle 8/16/2012 Industry Hills Golf Club, Waste Not, Want Not Photos I GOLF.com Page 1 of 2 Find The Right Club Learn more CLUB TYPES BRANDS VIDEO IIIGIVE-MI 4 d I E Y _ .Go-Y GOLF ) '°' �'+ JUST $10 .?•- CLICK HERE ! PLAN TO TURN YOUR free night INTO A DAY WITHOUT ANY PIANS. Waste Not, Want Not 3OF6 _ �7 i" tom; • w w --"..., — - . '.—,.... "'.. � "' Jr •: nq. eY 4-- -rA • _,u. u £ , (/photos/waste-not-want-noUharborside-intemationat) CREDIT: Industry Hills Golf Club(http://www.golf.com/golf/courses travel/coursefinder/course/0,28290,1445394,00.html) (Eisenhower Course) City of Industry,Calif. Elevation changes and undulating greens make the Ike one of L.A.'s toughest tracks. Greens fee:$85-$119 Contact:626-810-4653, ihgolfclub.com(http://www.ingolfclub.com) t1// • Like 0 Motu PhQto Galleries (/photos) http://www.gol£com/photos/waste-not-want-not/industry-hills-golf-club 8/16/2012 Harborside International, Waste Not, Want Not Photos GOLF.com Page 1 of 2 Find The Right Club Learn more CLUB TYPES BRANDS VIDEO .r /°;a Ofty SUBSCRIBE «d=:.JET . `t ArrMir_ NOW Waste Not, Want Not 4OF6 • (/photos/waste-not-want-noUfairwinds-go lfcourse) CREDIT:CHRIS JOHN Harborside International(http://www.golf.com/golf/courses travel/coursefinder/course/0,28290,1490947,00.html) (Port Course) Chicago, Ill. This breeze-fueled faux links boasts fescue-topped mounds and Windy City vistas. Greens fee:$55-$92 Contact:312-782-7837, (http://www.harborsideinternational.com) Like 0 More Photo Galleries (/photos) • w GOLF Magazine Tablet Edition GOLF.com Trips Newsletter " Now available.Get it FREE for 30 `�`ti� Your guide to the best golf in the world. II(17 1 days! )S http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-want-not/harborside-international 8/16/2012 'Fairwinds Golf Course, Waste Not, Want Not Photos 1 GOLF.com Page 1 of 2 Find The Right Club Learn more CLUB TYPES BRANDS VIDEO III reimerlimmamErr--- �' r.aOtitySUBSCRIBE . n NOW STAPLES 01'1 Save 15% .rl„,J, OFF . on school supplies all season longpAss . Waste Not, Want Not 5OF6 • fik, _, r. trTrte i ti CREDIT: Fairwinds Golf Course(http://www.golf.com/golf/courses travel/coursefinder/course/0,28290,1253506,00.htmI Fort Pierce, Fla. Jim Fazio's 1991 handiwork resulted in a classic Florida layout, replete with lakes and bunkers. Greens fee: $21-$26 Contact:772-462-4653, V/6, stlucieco.gov/fairwinds(http://www.stlucieco.gov/fainvinds) • Like 0 More Photo Galleries (/photos) http://www.golf.com/photos/waste-not-want-not/fairwinds-golf-course 8/16/2012 •Best Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment Page 1 of 5 Soil Acidity and Liming Internet Ynservice Training • BanSt y l .mal �' .�.-'! }�*� Anictionifee Ash Used as asAgeficatwal "` I si rAummullatemt S From the 1700's through the early 1900's, wood was combusted in the United States to produce ash for chemical extraction. The ash was mainly used to produce potash for fertilizer and alkali for industry. As other potash production technologies became more economical the value of wood ash as a raw material dropped. Recently, ash has been considered a waste product instead of a resource as few industries have taken advantage of the beneficial properties of the ash. Today, approximately three million tons of wood ash are produced annually in the United States. While approximately 80% of all ash is land applied in the Northeast United States, less than 10% is being land applied in the Southeast. The other 90% of this wood ash is currently being landfilled. While several alternative uses for wood ash have been developed, land application is one of the best methods for ash utilization as nutrients taken from the land during harvest are recycled back to the land. In a survey of more than 80 Southeastern paper mills, 60% of the responding mills reported an interest in land application. Wood ash has the potential to be used as a lime substitute in almost all Georgia's counties. • O Wood ash is the inorganic and organic residue remaining after the combustion of wood or unbleached wood fiber. The physical and chemical properties of wood ash vary significantly depending on many factors. Hardwoods usually produce more ash than softwoods and the bark and leaves generally produce more ash than the inner woody parts of the tree. On the average,the burning of wood results in about 6-10% ashes. When ash is produced in industrial combustion systems, the temperature of combustion, cleanliness of the fuel wood,the collection location, and the process can also have profound effects on the nature of the ash material. Therefore, wood ash composition can be highly variable depending on geographical location and industrial processes. This makes testing the ash extremely important. • Ash is composed of many major and minor elements needed by the tree for plant growth (Table 1). Since most of these elements are extracted from the soil and atmosphere during the tree's growth cycle, they are elements that are common in our environment and are also essential elements in the production of crops and forages. Calcium is the most abundant element in wood ash and gives the ash properties that are similar to agricultural lime. Ash is also a good source of potassium,phosphorus,magnesium, and aluminum. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average wood ash would probably be about 0-1-3 (N-P-K). In addition to these macronutrients, wood ash is also a good source of many micronutrients that are needed in trace amounts for adequate plant growth. Wood ash contains few elements that pose environmental problems. Heavy metal concentrations are typically low and not in a highly extractable or available form. • Field and greenhouse research have confirmed the safety and practicality of recycling wood • ash on agricultural lands. It has shown that wood ash has a liming effect of between 8 and 90% of the total neutralizing power of lime and can increase plant growth up to 45% over traditional limestone. The major constraints to land application of wood ash are transportation costs, low �S http://hubcap.clemson.edu/—blpprt/bestwoodash.html 8/16/2012 Best Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment Page 2 of 5 fertilizer analysis, and handling constraints. With ever increasing disposal costs, land application of wood ash will probably be the disposal method of choice in the coming century resulting in savings for the industry, an opportunity for agriculture, and conservation of our resources. • • Georgia's regulations concerning wood ash application are rather vague and difficult to follow. Wood ash is specifically exempted from the Georgia Department of Agriculture's fertilizer act and does not meet the specifications outlined in the regulations that govern agricultural lime distribution. Depending on the interpretation, it could be registered under the Soil Amendment Act, however,the Department of Agriculture has not registered it in the past. To facilitate the distribution of wood ash, a recommended procedure for the land application of wood ash has been established and approved by the Georgia Department of Agriculture and Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Basically,these recommendations state that the wood ash supplier should meet certain requirements that insure that the wood ash composition is safe for the environment. To distribute wood ash to landowners,the supplier will likely require the landowner to show that proper soil tests and analysis have been performed to calculate the optimum application rate. In addition,the supplier will probably maintain records on the distribution of the wood ash and ask the landowner to sign a release form. The landowner is responsible for obtaining soil test and calculating the appropriate application rate, however,these services may be provided through the Extension Service or other qualified individuals. • Most of Georgia's soils are naturally infertile, acidic, and low in organic matter. Therefore, continuous agriculture requires many soil additions to correct for these deficiencies. The fact that additions such as nitrogen often lower the soil pH makes the addition of neutralizing agents such as lime or wood ash a necessity on most Georgia soils. Liming improves crop growth by decreasing the availability of certain metals below toxic levels, providing Ca and Mg to crops, and improving P availability. While dolomitic and some calcitic limes are the most common additions used in Georgia, wood ash has many of the same effects as commercial lime. It also has the added benefit of being able to replace many of the macro and micro nutrients removed during plant growth and • harvesting. Several studies have compared plant growth using both traditional limestone and wood ash and most have concluded that ash gives better growth responses than limestone. While some studies have reported detrimental effects at extremely high application rates,these responses were explained by the drastic increases in soil pH beyond the plantls optimal level. As long as the soil pH is maintained at the proper level,productivity will be enhanced by using wood ash as a liming agent and soil amendment. • Planning for wood ash application requires several considerations. Before planting any crop the soil's nutrient level and pH must be determined through proper soil testing. Landowners should consult with their local Extension office or soil testing laboratory to obtain a bulletin outlining the proper procedures for soil sampling and determining proper liming rates, however, several of the essentials are reviewed here. Samples should be taken in the fall or winter. If fields contain variable soils,they should be divided into blocks with similar characteristics and sampled individually. It is also important to obtain a representative sample. This can be accomplished by mixing several cores from a variety of locations within each sampling area.Not only will this enhance crop uniformity and production, but could reduce the input expenses as well. Maintaining accurate records is an important aspect of soil testing. A collection of past records can be used to identify the buildup or decline of any chemical component in the soil profile so that changes in the inputs can be made. • Wood ash applications should be limited to a level that maintains the soil pH within the optimum range for the intended crop growth. The liming ability of wood ash is usually estimated using a laboratory measured parameter called the calcium carbonate equivalent(CCE). The CCE • tells you how well the wood ash will raise the soil pH compared to lime (calcium carbonate). As with the nutrient composition of wood ash,the CCE of different wood ash may vary considerably, 7/S however, most are within the range of 25 to 60%. With proper soil tests and the lime equivalency of http://hubcap.clemson.edu/-blpprt/bestwoodash.html 8/16/2012 Best Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment Page 3 of 5 • the wood ash, application rates for wood ash can be calculated by dividing the recommended lime application rate by the lime equivalency of the wood ash as shown: Wood ash application rate. in tans#acre Recommended tuning Rat*1a toO$!ac s . Percent lime equ.valaw0y(CCU)/ 100 • For example, if two tons of lime are needed per acre and the ash has a CCE of 50%,then four tons of ash would be required. While this calculation is relatively easy to make, it is strongly recommended that producers allow the county extension agent or other qualified individuals to calculate appropriate application rates. At times, fertilizer application rates may also need to be reduced when liming with wood ash as the ash may contain significant amounts of plant nutrients. Therefore, if additional fertilizer applications are being used, they should be formulated to insure that the plant requirements for these elements are not being exceeded, especially on crops that are known to be sensitive to particular nutrients such as phosphorus and potassium. • During application of wood ash to the soil, special care should be taken to prevent the ash from entering any surface or ground water. A distance of at least 50 feet should separate the wood ash from any farm ditches, wells, or other bodies of water. This distance should be increased to 100 feet in highly erodible areas or areas without riparian stream side vegetation or buffer zones. Karst areas in Georgia present unique conditions where surface waters can rapidly reach the groundwater with little attenuation of pollutants. In these areas, or within wellhead protection areas where local ordinances may impose additional restrictions, application rates should be reduced or larger buffer zones should be used. Wood ash should not be applied to areas with water standing on the soil surface. Care should also be taken to avoid wood ash applications immediately preceding periods of prolonged rainfall or when large storms are expected. S S Wood ash should be land applied as soon as possible to avoid the need for on-site storage. When conditions such as inclement weather do require on-site storage, wood ash should be stored in a manner that prevents runoff particulate from entering surface or ground water. Indoor storage is ideal; however, when it must be stored outdoors it should be placed on packed soil or pad surrounded by a small berm to prevent surface water from entering or leaving the storage area. The storage area should also be located away from wells, surface water, and animal watering areas and covered or shielded as much as possible to prevent nuisance conditions if it were moved or disturbed during dry or windy weather. • One of the major obstacles to land spreading of wood ash is the undesirable handling and spreading characteristics of ash. Most ash has a low density and small particle size and consequently creates dust problems during transport and application. Wood ash should always be covered during transport to prevent losses in route to the application sites. Studies indicate that the handling characteristics of ash generally improve with increasing relative humidity so attempts should be made to avoid spreading on extremely dry days. Moisture can be added to improve the handling characteristics of ash, however, if too much moisture is added the ash will cake and become difficult to spread uniformly. Ash can be spread with conventional manure spreading or lime application equipment and is either top dressed or incorporated. To get the maximum benefit, incorporate the wood ash throughout the root zone whenever possible as the benefits only occur where the ash and soil are in contact. It is also essential to calibrate the spreader to insure that the target application rate is met. Due to the physical characteristics of ash, it is often difficult to obtain uniform application, but calibration and knowledge of the application distribution of the spreader can help to minimize non-uniformity. • • The fall is generally the best time for wood ash application. Soil pH is generally lower in the 7 http://hubcap.clemson.edu/-'blpprtlbestwoodash.html 8/16/2012 •Be'st Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment Page 4 of 5 fall and applications at this time will allow the ash will have plenty of time to react with the soil before rapid spring growth. Soils are also usually drier and more accessible in the fall. Application at other times throughout the year is acceptable; however, ash should not be applied immediately preceding planting or during early emergence as it could cause short term concentrated alkaline conditions that could interfere with plant growth. Ash may also absorb pesticides if it not given Ilktime to neutralize in the soil, so chemical applications should be avoided for three to five days prior to or after wood ash application. Health considerations must be taken into account when dealing with ash to prevent both particle inhalation and contact with the skin. Inhaling any small particle is dangerous so masks should be worn during application or when dusty conditions warrant them. Ash is an alkaline material with a pH ranging from 9-13. Therefore, this material could irritate the skin. To prevent this, skin should be covered during application and transport and skin areas exposed to ash should be washed and thoroughly rinsed with water immediately following application. It is also important to remember that fresh ash can still retain hot coals which are both a health risk and a fire hazard. 4 In summary, wood ash application is similar to lime application. Both materials can benefit crop productivity but wood ash has an added advantage of supplying additional nutrients. Both materials are also alkaline and could cause crop damage if over applied or misused. It is imperative that the land owners follow the prescribed application rates and use common sense approaches to prevent accidents and avoid environmental contamination. Table 1. Range in elemental composition of industrial wood ash samples and ground limestone. Element Wood Ash* Limestone Macroelements Concentration in % • Calcium 15 (2.5-33) 31 Potassium 2.6 (0.1-13) 0.13 Aluminum 1.6 (0.5-3.2) 0.25 Magnesium 1.0 (0.1-2.5) 5.1 Iron 0.84 (0.2-2.1) 0.29 Phosphorus 0.53 (0.1-1.4) 0.06 Manganese 0.41 (0-1.3) 0.05 Sodium 0.19 (0-0.54) 0.07 Nitrogen 0.15 (0.02-0.77) 0.01 Microelements Concentration in mg/kg Arsenic 6 (3-10) Boron 123 (14-290) Cadmium 3 (0.2-26) 0.7 Chromium 57 (7-368) 6.0 Copper 70 (37-207) 10 Lead 65 (16-137) 55 { itS http://hubcap.clemson.edut-blpprt/bestwoodash.html 8/16/2012 . •Best Management Practices for Wood Ash Used as an Agricultural Soil Amendment Page 5 of 5 Mercury 1.9 (0-5) Molybdenum 19 (0-123) Nickel 20 (0-63) 20 Selenium 0.9 (0-11) Zinc 233 (35-1250) 113 Other Chemical Properties CaCO3 Equivalent 43% (22-92%) 100% pH 10.4 (9-13.5) 9.9 % Total solids 75 (31-100) 100 * Mean and (Range) taken from analysis of 37 ash samples By: • Mark Risse, Extension Engineering, 307 Hoke Smith Bldg., Athens 30602. 706-542-2154 • Glen Harris, Extension Agronomist, P.O. Box 1209, Tifton 31793. 912-386-3194 O Return to Part V of the Training Schedule Return to Soil Acidity & Liming Training Schedule y5 http://hubcap.clemson.edu/-blpprt/bestwoodash.html 8/16/2012 Human Services: Danehy Park Page 1 of 1 City of : ambridge S Human Service Programs divisions, rommissions& programs about dhsp publications directory doss analog home . l ! , Recreation Quick Links . Printer-friendly version Search: •■ Danehy Park Danehy Park is a 50-acre recreational facility built on the site of the former city landfill.The landfill was closed to active dumping in the early 1970s.The City <Back to Divisions,Commissions& subsequently reclaimed what would have been a wasteland,and turned it into a Programs community resource. Recreation Home Page For further information regarding permits for Danehy Park please contact Kevin Clark at 617-349-6238.If you are inquiring on playing field conditions you can also War Memorial contact Danehy Park directly at 617-349-4895. Gold Star Pool(Summer only) See the Danehy Park Brochure. Athletic Field Permits Danehy Park Danehy Park BBQ Rules Outdoor Recreational Sites Programs for Individuals with Special Needs DANEHY PARK FAMILY DAY Adult Leagues September 24,2011 Youth Leagues Mark your calendar for the City's Annual Danehy Park Family Day on Saturday, Youth Athletic Camps September 24 from 11:00 a.m.—4:00 p.m. Summer Playgrounds Enjoy a fun-filled day of children's amusement rides,arts and crafts,music and Municipal Golf Course at Fresh Pond roving performers,plus free hot dogs,chips,sodas,and T-shirts while supplies last! The Cambridge Program Check out performances throughout the day at the children's stage. Other special giveaways include colorful kites that appeal to kids of all ages! Contact Information Danehy Park is a 55-acre facility located at 99 Sherman Street in North Cambridge (adjacent to Garden and New Streets).This free event,sponsored by the City of Cambridge,attracts over 4,000 people annually and offers something for everyone. Shuttle buses will be running throughout Cambridge to provide transportation. Danehy Park can be reached by public transportation: #74 bus or#78 bus from Harvard Square;#83 bus from Central Square;or take a shuttle bus from the Alewife MBTA Station. Picnics and lawn chairs are encouraged. For further information,please call 617-349-4301 or 617-349-6229. ©2003 DHSP I DHSP Home I City of Cambridge Home I City Departments I Webmaster i Disclaimer I Contact • http://www2.cambridgema.gov/dhsp2/danehy.cfm 8/16/2012 Page 1 of 1 Cathy Avery From: Rosemary Sikes [mail@change.org] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2012 4:26 PM • To: boh@jeffersoncountypublichealth.org Subject: "Limited Purpose Landfill" Permit for PTPC Greetings, I just signed the following petition addressed to: Jefferson County Board of Health. "Limited Purpose Landfill" Permit for PTPC Tell Dr. Locke, our Public Health Officer, and the Jefferson County, WA Board of Health: "This is a No Brainer!" All papermill ash landfills in the State of Washington are operating under "Limited Purpose" Landfill permits (WAC 173-350-400). Only Port Townsend Paper Corporation (PTPC) has an "Inert" Landfill permit(WAC 173-350-410). Both Department of Ecology and Jefferson County Public Health have stated that the correct permit for PTPC is Limited Purpose (LP). Dr. Locke of Public Health is offering to issue a mongrel "Inert" permit with add-on features. Continuing with an "Inert" permit, in any form, is a mistake. Dr. Locke and Ecology know it! Only a "Limited Purpose" permit has the right requirements to protect public and environmental health, and protect local taxpayers from landfill closure costs. The Port Townsend Paper Corporation (owned by a $16 billion dollar hedge fund in NYC) has • fought and will continue to fight this change. The PTPC is not above the law. The Public is late coming to the table, but we speak loud and clear NOW. Tell the Board of Health to insist that Dr. Locke do the right thing. The Public wants a Limited Purpose landfill permit for the PTPC landfill in 2012. Sincerely, Port Townsend, Washington Note: this email was sent as part of a petition started on Change.org, viewable at http://www.change.org/petitions/a-limited-purpose-permit-for-ptpc-protects-public-and- environmental-health. To respond, click here • 8/17/2012 Ai" `a Of WASH? INGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PO Box 47600•Olympia,WA 98504-7600•360-407-6000 711 for Washington Relay Service•Persons with a speech disability can call 877.833-6341 August 9,2012 Stephen Schumacher 2023 E. Sims Way,#200 Port Townsend,WA 98368 Dear Mr. Schumacher: Thank you for your July 25,2012 email to Director Sturdevant forwarding concerns you expressed to Dr.Thomas Locke,Jefferson County Health Officer,about permitting of the Port Townsend Paper Company(PTPC) Landfill. I was asked to respond on the Director's behalf. I hope the discussion in our August I meeting added to your understanding of the Washington State Department of Ecology's(Ecology)role in the solid waste permitting process,and actions Ecology has taken in recent years in working with Jefferson County Public Health(JCPH)and PTPC. I would like to reiterate a couple of points we discussed during our meeting. Those points center on the process by which PTPC's waste was designated as inert,and on the financial assurance requirements for limited purpose landfills. • JCPH permitted PTPC's landfill as a limited purpose landfill between 1990 and 2004. In 2003,the state's solid waste handling regulation was updated. The updated regulation included the addition of criteria that could be used in evaluating whether a waste could be considered inert. In late 2003,PTPC presented JCPH and Ecology with an evaluation to show that PTPC's combined boiler ash and lime kiln grits met the criteria for designation as inert waste. This is the only time a landfill operator has put forward an evaluation of these types of waste as inert under the updated regulation. After several months of review of PTPC's evaluation.JCPH and Ecology agreed in May 2004 that PTPC's wastes could be designated as inert under the new criteria. PTPC then presented JCPH with an application to re-permit the landfill under the standards for inert waste landfills rather than the limited purpose landfill standards. JCPH subsequently issued PTPC an inert waste landfill permit. In the Solid Waste Handling Standards,WAC 173-350,inert waste landfills do not have requirements to perform periodic groundwater monitoring or provide financial assurance for closure or post-closure activities. However,the PTPC landfill solid waste permits issued since 2006 have included a requirement for annual analysis of the waste. JCPH established this requirement to ensure the waste is not changing in character from the waste designated as inert in 2004. In late 2010,JCPH asked Ecology for technical assistance in updating the PTPC landfill permit. Both agencies anticipated that PTPC's biomass-cogeneration project had the potential to cause changes in the character of the waste PTPC disposes in the landfill. As a result of these discussions, Ecology revisited the previous evaluation of the waste,particularly with respect to its alkalinity. 0 Stephen Schumacher August 9, 2012 Page 2 In the eight years since PTPC's wastes were first designated as inert,Ecology has developed more • experience with highly alkaline solid wastes. We have determined that such wastes should no longer be categorized as inert under the Solid Waste Handling Standards criteria because of their potential to cause leachate that could violate water quality standards. For that reason,we recommended to JCPH in April 2011 that PTPC's landfill be transitioned from an inert waste landfill permit to a limited purpose permit, as befits the character of the waste disposed in the landfill. Ecology believes that while the designation of PTPC's waste as inert in 2004 and the subsequent permitting of PTPC's landfill as an inert waste disposal facility are notable as unique circumstances, those actions were carried out in a manner consistent with the requirements of the state's Solid Waste Handling Standards. We also believe that with our improved understanding of the issues presented by highly alkaline wastes since the decisions in 2004, JCPH's and Ecology's recent actions to revisit the permitting of PTPC's landfill continue to be consistent with those regulatory requirements, and with protecting the environment and public health. I believe Dr. Locke was very clear in his July 19, 2012 letter on JCPH's ultimate goal -to permit the PTPC's landfill as a limited purpose facility under Washington State's Solid Waste Handling Standards. I believe Dr. Locke was also very clear on the particular issues that are of immediate concern to JCPH in connection with the landfill,regardless of what type of facility permit JCPH issues next. Those issues are to restart a groundwater monitoring program,provide financial assurance for closure and post-closure care,and provide adequate characterization of current and future waste material. Ecology recognizes the potential public liability that arises from landfills with inadequate financial • assurance. We also believe the type of permit for the landfill should be aligned with the designation of the waste. Ecology agrees with JCPH's goal of permitting PTPC's landfill as a limited purpose facility, and understands Dr. Locke's concerns about the issues he identified in his letter. If you have any additional questions or concerns,please contact Peter Lyon of Ecology's Southwest Regional Office at peter.lyon(aecy.wa.gov or(360)407-6381. Sincerely, (76-24- twAeizza. es aurie G. Davies Waste 2 Resources Program Manager cc: Ted Sturdevant Sally Toteff • • Ila • � BN,l TOWNSEND p August 16,2012 To:Jefferson Board of Health Subject: Solid Waste Permit Renewal My name is Eveleen Muehlethaler, 100 Paper Mill Road and I am here today to represent the Port Townsend Mill. I understand that this is not a public hearing but I do feel I have an obligation to speak. The Port Townsend Paper Mill provides full-time jobs for 300 and produces unbleached Containerboard, Kraft paper and Market pulp for customers around the globe. The mill is the largest recycler and the largest producer of green energy on the Olympic Peninsula. Our fiber sources are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative(SFI). 2012 marks the 85th year of operation. We have remained in business that long by doing things well and doing things right. We operate our business according the regulations at hand and strive for continuous improvement. • As Dr. Locke has stated for the Board in previous meetings,there is an established regulatory process for permit renewal and it does not include reacting to those who scream the loudest. We are committed to finishing up the work with Dr. Locke and the Department of Environmental Health. We thank the Board for its patience in listening. Thank you for your consideration. AO Eveleen Muehlethaler • r 4 A UNITED STEELWORKERS 111 TOWNSEND1 •NITY AND STRENGTH PCR WORKERS , 3€ `r • August 14, 2012 Jefferson County Public Health 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 Attn: Dr. Tom Locke Attn: Phil Johnson, Chair, Board of Health Subject: Port Townsend Paper Inert Landfill Permit We represent 200 union members, and on this issue, are also representing an additional 100 management employees. All of our members have families and we all live in Port Townsend and the surrounding communities. We have not been attending the recent Board of Health meetings because we assumed Jefferson County Public Health would follow the letter of the law regarding our application submitted in January 2012 to renew our inert landfill permit. From reading recent newspaper articles and Dr. • Locke's letter of July 19, 2012 it is apparent to us that the County may be attempting to satisfy the demands of a small group of very vocal and even threatening activists. From our point of view we see the facts as follows: • The landfill was established in 1983 and has been professionally operated and maintained throughout its life. • We have had an inert landfill permit that has met current regulations WAC 173-350-410 which were established in 2003. • We have had no violations of that permit. • No recent regulation has changed regarding inert landfills. • If and when the cogeneration project starts up in 2013 or 2014, the ash generated will be analyzed to determine if it is different from the current ash being generated by the boiler. • Chemical testing of the waste indicates that the proper waste classification is "inert." That means the waste is stable and unlikely to create a risk to people or to the environment. Concerns have been expressed regarding the risk the landfill may pose to people's health and groundwater quality. One is direct contact or inhalation, but because access to the landfill is restricted and the waste is covered after it is placed in the landfill, this potential route of exposure does not exist. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed in 1991 and monitored from late 1991 through 2004. The 12-plus years of monitoring demonstrated that the landfill does not impact groundwater and that it complied with solid waste permit requirements. The mill has agreed to do more groundwater sampling, but we have never seen data from the past that indicates there have been any problems. We see this "concern" as just an activist scare tactic. A cost effective permit is critical for the ongoing operation of our mill and workplace. We object to you creating more burdensome requirements at the demand of a small group - no matter how loud they are. Up to this point we have remained part of what we feel is the silent majority on this topic. Please get on with re-issuing our inert landfill permit so we can get back to our jobs and bigger issues. Respectfully, Jim Beebe Union President United Steel Workers Union, Local 175 • • n n D -< CD r<n Cr0 o cm. D D 1-, c o = = U1 C NJ NJ NJ N NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 c0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LU _ O O O O O O O O O O W lO 00 V Ol U1 A W NJ N 0 S - -v - O O co CD CD CD CD 4 4 4 4 4 co n Q o �. e-+ ee-1- O N —. W 0 0 OV1 = = rn X rt N NJ a' NJ NJ o 0 0' .4=. .p ET I- N N N N N F+ N W W VIn 1.0 A Co01 W Ln ..50.50 `0 1.0 01 :t00 0 10i/ enr• 00 I•. O N 0Co 10 N O 00 W C 00 00 -i, V 01 A 0o V to A tD N1 0o o to V V 01 00 00 w N 0 N 1 o - - - - -. c C7 V �D �D 00 `p N 0/ 01 01 al .< O I CD• = OV 0 0 ttn tvl1IV N 0 ne-1O D 0) CO70 — rD C _ 0 a Q- n - co O 'I 0 - 1�' O W 1-i I-. A 1-h W N rD `D -4 * tz p:j ►.j a) 0 �- o F+ LO w tc o A o1 tD w O Cl CD O = tvn 7o Q v? + lO V A W Q1 W to o0 01 cn cn O O N 01 W O N 01 tD V tD .` N 3 3 � K '-1 CD O ffrrrrl1++++�� f"�' f1 N N =. OJ Co W W W W W W A n �• N W N 00 O ) rn O A W C 7 O C pWp ao 0 00 0 -...i 0 0 0 n v w ��-3 .:<,:i.- < G r) -0 70 00 L0 0 0 0 0 0 c '77 r►-S �+ OJ 3 iZ C� m 3 E. C'7 < C-I O a) SGT • o•• '~' `V vi 000 w w w w W W W A ANJ NJ •01 • 1 0� CD a X Q -� D D W A In 01 V 00 to 0 0 6 a1 �/ ZS (D ITI Uq Z . 1 I--+4. N W .AA lU1 Cii J W LA0 ve n 1 �• -< Q Q x n Z * ? C ' �' � Ci = C Q aj -< o w w CD c �/'1 Q cr = .. r * Ss. C-., `'C$ m O -0 N rn MW m N 0T cv -I -0 o 0 17—4 0 o (D Q' Z N Z . "0 m '* - NJ O n Q c`n n, o, 0 D N n = 1= r m m 00 7 N m v -- �' O c -� o D acro = C N W N = Z oo. m w W of Di D a) CD o v CD N fD 0 m . m coo . o = N n p T o < 0- O0 C m C C O �".f' c N lip C/1 I-" - CCD ai CD ' N c 0 — r -, 0) Q -, -, _+, XI CD o 0m .a — + ..< Cr m ,,� -FD m e•+ I 0 e s 0oov+ m = -.1 r+ C Q 0- -n o 1O 0 r+ c 0 0o c N < - cu-- rn ro O O ° - o D o°— m- crtaN N r a ' 3 P U! v) N 0 . O r-F m = 0 O ri NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ NJ 0 V) -' N- 1..-) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. M A- 5 l0 00 -1 Ol U'1 .4. W NJ N 0 O o * o c o - rn+ Ort W .p P. .P N N wC Q' Co l0 W W in - W O N — "0 = Ol N 0 1-L -0 1--1 .A 00 1-.1 -0 • 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o p C 0_ 3 c .-r 0 0 SZ = • V1 0 VI 0 VN1 0 lWl1 ....._. N A �......_ W O N A..._.. -_.„ O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O T NJ p ~ _ I O ON ilu e, • NI 12 i 8 ,-N ` ' N • j iA 71 A kN ..'S a) . O O O ^C W W N N4' N rm N 'O N O O Co. t 0 Q NM• 0p a./. NJ O 00 Q I N O N O Q VICI O n I N I O `v N �' 0 1 N '� 0 • 00 0 O e) o $ 1 to O to • F�w45 c°G� JEFFERSON T PUBLIC HEALTH �9'SH114G��2 615 Sheridan Street o Port Townsend o Washington o 98368 www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org • August 8,2012 To: Jefferson County Board of Health .From: Tom Locke, MD,MPH, Jefferson County Health Officer t Re: Question Regarding Landfill Permitting Raised at July 19,2012 Board of Health Meeting Thank you for the opportunity to address the following questions posed by Board of Health member Sheila Westerman. 1)Who decides whether a landfill groundwater monitoring plan is adequate and how are samples collected,analyzed,and interpreted? Detailed requirements for groundwater monitoring are included in all landfill permits that require such monitoring. Groundwater monitoring plans must be individually developed for each landfill site and meet the standards set forth in WAC 173-350-500(attached). These standards comprehensively address site characterization, groundwater monitoring system design, sample and analysis plan and data analysis,notification,and reporting. WAC 173-350-500(4)establishes criteria that must be addressed in each plan(e.g. sample • collection and handling or chain-of-custody control). Each plan must address these criteria in sufficient detail to meet approval standards of the local health jurisdiction with concurrence from the Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE). Considerable hydrogeological and engineering expertise is required to determine the adequacy of a site specific groundwater monitoring plan. DOE has expertise in these areas and will play a central role in determining the adequacy of any groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation's (PTPC)landfill. 2) How are the provisions in a landfill permit enforced? Where are the"teeth"? State and local solid waste codes contain detailed enforcement mechanisms ranging from civil infractions to criminal penalties. For permit holders,the most important enforcement authority is the ability to suspend or revoke a permit for non-compliance with its terms. Suspension of a landfill permit requires that the permit holder cease all disposal of regulated waste materials at that site, a significant penalty for an industrial operation. Enforcement of landfill permit requirements is best accomplished by detailed permit language clearly describing all required activities. A permit is, in effect, an agreement of the permit holder CDOEVELO PMENTALD DISABILITIES UNITY HELTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WATER QUALITY • MAIN: (360)385-9400 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX: (360)385 9401 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 to abide by the conditions of that permit. Failure to carry out required activities subjects the permit holder to suspension or revocation of the permit in addition to potential civil and criminal penalties. 3) Is it possible to do core samples of a landfill to determine what type of waste is currently in the landfill? Borehole studies are routinely performed on landfills to develop groundwater monitoring plans as detailed in WAC 173-350-500(2)(b). I am not aware of any legal authority provided by WAC 173-350 to conduct core sampling of an existing,permitted landfill to determine what wastes have been disposed of in the past. To require something that lies outside the specific authority granted by RCW or WAC, a local health jurisdiction must have a compelling and legally defensible reason. One conceivable reason would be the detection of a contaminant in down gradient groundwater sample that was inconsistent with waste materials known to be present in the landfill. Core sample testing might be a way of determining if that waste product was illegally disposed of in the landfill. Lacking a compelling reason to require such testing, I do not think the local health jurisdiction has the authority to require it. Testing of waste (known as"waste stream characterization") is generally performed on a regular basis on waste as it is brought to the landfill. This waste is sampled according to procedures set forth in the permit. In general, an environmental health specialist should be present at the time of sample collection to assure that samples accurately represent the waste stream being characterized. This requires that an adequate number of randomly distributed samples be taken to assure that the tested samples accurately represent what is going into the landfill. Local health jurisdictions can require"split samples"to be taken, i.e. samples are divided for testing at • different facilities. Who performs specific analytical tests is addressed in the permit. In all cases,it must be done by a certified lab that meets state criteria for quality control for the type of testing being performed. Financial responsibility for all analytical tests performed under a landfill permit(groundwater testing,waste testing)rests with the permit holder. COMMUNITY HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES WATER QUALITY ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360)) 50400 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY MAIN: (360) ((360)385-944 4487 • FAX: 385-9401(360) WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 1 of WAC 173-350-500 Groundwater monitoring. (1) Groundwater monitoring-Professional qualifications.All reports, plans, procedures,and design specifications required by this section shall be prepared by a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW. (2) Groundwater monitoring-Site characterization.A site proposed for solid waste activities shall be characterized for its Sgeologic and hydrogeologic properties and suitability for constructing,operating,and monitoring a solid waste facility in accordance with all applicable requirements of this chapter.The site characterization report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall include at a minimum the following: (a)A summary of local and regional geology and hydrology, including: (i) Faults; (ii)Zones of joint concentrations; (iii) Unstable slopes and subsidence areas on-site; (iv)Areas of groundwater recharge and discharge; (v) Stratigraphy;and (vi) Erosional and depositional environments and facies interpretation(s); (b)A site-specific borehole program including description of lithology, soil/bedrock types and properties, preferential groundwater flow paths or zones of higher hydraulic conductivity,the presence of confining unit(s)and geologic features such as fault zones,cross-cutting structures, etc.,and the target hydrostratigraphic unit(s)to be monitored. Requirements of the borehole program include: (i) Each boring will be of sufficient depth below the proposed grade of the bottom liner to identify soil, bedrock,and hydrostratigraphic unit(s); (ii) Boring samples shall be collected from five-foot intervals at a minimum and at changes in lithology. Representative samples shall be described using the unified soil classification system following ASTM D2487-85 and tested for the following if appropriate: (A) Particle size distribution by sieve and hydrometer analyses in accordance with approved ASTM methods(D422 and 0 D1120); and (B)Atterburg limits following approved ASTM method D4318; (iii) Each lithologic unit on-site will be analyzed for: (A) Moisture content sufficient to characterize the unit using ASTM method D2216; and (B) Hydraulic conductivity by an in situ field method or laboratory method.All samples collected for the determination of permeability shall be collected by standard ASTM procedures; (iv)All boring logs shall be submitted with the following information: (A)Soil and rock descriptions and classifications; (B) Method of sampling; (C) Sample depth, interval and recovery; (D) Date of boring; (E)Water level measurements; (F) Standard penetration number following approved ASTM method D1586-67; (G) Boring location; and (H) Soil test data; (v)All borings not converted to monitoring wells or piezometers shall be carefully backfilled, plugged, and recorded in Saccordance with WAC 173-160-420; (vi) During the borehole drilling program,any on-site drilling and lithologic unit identification shall be performed under the direction of a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW who is trained to sample and identify soils and bedrock lithology; httn-//anns.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 2 of 5 (vii)An on-site horizontal and vertical reference datum shall be established during the site characterization.The standards for land boundary surveys and geodetic control surveys and guidelines for the preparation of land descriptions shall be used to establish borehole and monitoring well coordinates and casing elevations from the reference datum; (viii)Other methods, including geophysical techniques, may be used to supplement the borehole program to ensure that a sufficient hydrogeologic site characterization is accomplished; (c)A site-specific flow path analysis that includes: • (i)The depths to groundwater and hydrostratigraphic unit(s)including transmissive and confining units; and (ii) Potentiometric surface elevations and contour maps, direction and rate of horizontal and vertical groundwater flow; (d) Identification of the quantity,location,and construction(where available)of private and public wells within a two thousand -foot radius, measured from the site boundaries; (e)Tabulation of all water rights for groundwater and surface water within a two thousand-foot(610 m) radius, measured from site boundaries; (f) Identification and description of all surface waters within a one-mile(1.6 km)radius, measured from site boundaries; (g)A summary of all previously collected site groundwater and surface water analytical data,and for expanded facilities, identification of impacts of the existing facility upon ground and surface waters from landfill leachate discharges to date; (h)Calculation of a site water balance; (i) Conceptual design of groundwater and surface water monitoring systems, and where applicable a vadose zone monitoring system, including proposed construction and installation methods for these systems; (j) Description of land use in the area, including nearby residences; • (k)A topographic map of the site and drainage patterns,including an outline of the waste management area, property boundary,the proposed location of groundwater monitoring wells,and township and range designations; and (I) Geologic cross sections. (3) Groundwater monitoring-System design. (a)The groundwater monitoring system design and report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall meet the 110 following criteria: (i)A sufficient number of monitoring wells shall be installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield representative groundwater samples from those hydrostratigraphic units which have been identified in the site characterization as the earliest potential contaminant flowpaths; (ii) Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance,and include at a minimum: (A)A groundwater flow path analysis which supports why the chosen hydrostratigraphic unit is capable of providing an early warning detection of any groundwater contamination. (B) Documentation and calculations of all of the following information: (I) HydrostratigraPhic unit thickness including confining units and transmissive units; (II)Vertical and horizontal groundwater flow directions including seasonal, man-made,or other short-term fluctuations in groundwater flow; (III)Stratigraphy and lithology; (IV)Hydraulic conductivity; and (V) Porosity and effective porosity. (b) Upgradient monitoring wells(background wells)shall meet the following performance criteria: (i)Shall be installed in groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from a landfill unit; or (ii) If hydrogeologic conditions do not allow for the determination of an upgradient monitoring well,then sampling at other monitoring wells which provide representative background groundwater quality may be allowed. • (c) Downgradient monitoring wells(compliance wells) shall meet the following performance criteria: • (i) Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance; t,rrn•Hanng leg.wa.aov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 3 of (ii) Be installed as close as practical to the point of compliance; (iii)When physical obstacles preclude installation of groundwater monitoring wells at the relevant point of compliance at the landfill unit or solid waste facility,the downgradient monitoring system may be installed at the closest practical distance hydraulically downgradient from the relevant point of compliance that ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the chosen hydrostratigraphic unit. 0 (d)All monitoring wells shall be constructed in accordance with chapter 173-160 WAC, Minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells, and chapter 173-162 WAC, Regulation and licensing of well contractors and operators. (e)The owner or operator shall notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of any proposed changes to the design, installation, development, and decommission of any monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices. Proposed changes shall not be implemented prior to the jurisdictional health department's written approval. Upon completing changes, all documentation, including date of change, new monitoring well location maps, boring logs, and monitoring well diagrams, shall be submitted to the jurisdictional health department and shall be placed in the operating record. (f)All monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement,sampling,and analytical devices shall be operated and maintained so that they perform to design specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program. (4) Groundwater monitoring-Sampling and analysis plan. (a)The groundwater monitoring program shall include consistent sampling and analysis procedures that are designed to provide monitoring results that are representative of groundwater quality at the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells. In addition to monitoring wells,facilities with hydraulic gradient control and/or leak detection systems will provide representative groundwater samples from those systems.The owner or operator shall submit a compliance sampling and analysis plan as part of the permit application.The plan shall include procedures and techniques for: (i)Sample collection and handling; (ii) Sample preservation and shipment; (iii)Analytical procedures; (iv)Chain-of-custody control; (v)Quality assurance and quality control; III (vi) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment; (vii) Procedures to ensure employee health and safety during well installation and monitoring; and (viii)Well operation and maintenance procedures. (b) Facilities collecting leachate shall include leachate sampling and analysis as part of compliance monitoring. (c)The groundwater monitoring program shall include sampling and analytical methods that are appropriate for groundwater samples.The sampling and analytical methods shall provide sufficient sensitivity, precision,selectivity and limited bias such that changes in groundwater quality can be detected and quantified.All samples shall be sent to an accredited laboratory for analyses in accordance with chapter 173-50 WAC,Accreditation of environmental laboratories. (d) Groundwater elevations shall be measured in each monitoring well immediately prior to purging, each time groundwater is sampled.The owner or operator shall determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow each time groundwater is sampled.All groundwater elevations shall be determined by a method that ensures measurement to the one hundredth of a foot (3 mm) relative to the top of the well casing. (e)Groundwater elevations in wells that monitor the same landfill unit shall be measured within a period of time short enough to avoid any groundwater fluctuations which could preclude the accurate determination of groundwater flow rate and direction. (f)The owner or operator shall establish background groundwater quality in each upgradient and downgradient monitoring well. Background groundwater quality shall be based upon a minimum of eight independent samples. Samples shall be collected for each monitoring well and shall be analyzed for parameters required in the permit for the first year of groundwater monitoring. Each independent sampling event shall be no less than one month after the previous sampling event. (g)Groundwater quality shall be determined at each monitoring well at least quarterly during the active life of the solid waste facility, including closure and the post-closure period. More frequent monitoring may be required to protect downgradient water supply wells. Groundwater monitoring shall begin after background groundwater quality has been established.The owner or • operator may propose an alternate groundwater monitoring frequency. Groundwater monitoring frequency must be no less than semiannually.The owner or operator must apply for a permit modification or must apply during the renewal process for changes in groundwater monitoring frequency making a demonstration based on the following information: (i)A characterization of the hydrostratigraphic unit(s)including the unsaturated zone,transmissive and confining units and b++,•//m-mc 1Po wa_gov/wac/default.asp x?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 4 of include the following: (A) Hydraulic conductivity; and (B) Groundwater flow rates; (ii) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the solid waste handling unit and downgradient monitoring wells • (minimum distance of travel); and (iii)Contaminant fate and transport characteristics. (h)All facilities shall test for the following parameters: (i)Field parameters: (A) pH; (B) Specific conductance; (C)Temperature; (D) Static water level; (ii)Geochemical indicator parameters: (A)Alkalinity(as Ca CO3); (B) Bicarbonate(HCO3); (C) Calcium (Ca); (D) Chloride(CI); (E) Iron (Fe); (F) Magnesium(Mg); (G) Manganese(Mn); • (H) Nitrate(NO3); (I) Sodium (Na); (J)Sulfate(SO4); (iii) Leachate indicators: (A)Ammonia (NH3-N); (B)Total organic carbon(TOC); (C)Total dissolved solids(TDS). (i) Based upon the site specific waste profile and also the leachate characteristics for lined facilities,the owner or operator shall propose additional constituents to include in the monitoring program.The jurisdictional health department shall specify the additional constituents in the solid waste permit. (j)Testing shall be performed in accordance with"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," U.S. EPA Publication SW-846, or other testing methods approved by the jurisdictional health department. (k)Maximum contaminant levels(MCL)for groundwater are those specified in chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington. (5) Groundwater monitoring-Data analysis, notification and reporting. (a)The results of monitoring well sample analyses as required by subsection (4)(h) and (i)of this section shall be evaluated using an appropriate statistical procedure(s), as approved by the jurisdictional health department during the permitting process, to determine if a significant increase over background has occurred.The statistical procedure(s)used shall be proposed in the sampling and analysis plan and be designed specifically for the intended site, or prescriptive statistical procedures from appropriate state and federal guidance may be used. • (b) If statistical analyses determine a significant increase over background: 1PQ AM a uov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. t'age of (i)The owner or operator shall: (A) Notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of this finding within thirty days of receipt of the sampling data.The notification shall indicate what parameters or constituents have shown statistically significant increases; (B) Immediately resample the groundwater for the parameter(s)showing statistically significant increase in the monitoring well(s)where the statistically significant increase has occurred; (C) Establish a groundwater protection standard using the groundwater quality criteria of chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington. Constituents for which the background concentration level is higher than the protection standard,the owner or operator shall use background concentration for constituents established in the facility's monitoring record. (ii)The owner or operator may demonstrate that a source other than a landfill unit or solid waste facility caused the contamination, or the statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling, analyses, statistical evaluation, or natural variation in groundwater quality. If such a demonstration cannot be made and the concentrations or levels of the constituents: (A) Meet the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Assess and evaluate sources of contamination;and (II) Implement remedial measures in consultation with the jurisdictional health department and the department. (B) Exceed the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Characterize the chemical composition of the release and the contaminant fate and transport characteristics by installing additional monitoring wells; (II)Assess and, if necessary, implement appropriate intermediate measures to remedy the release.The measures shall be approved by the jurisdictional health department and the department;and (III)Evaluate,select,and implement remedial measures as required by chapter 173-340 WAC,the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation,where applicable.The roles of the jurisdictional health department and the department in remedial action are further defined by WAC 173-350-900. (c)The owner or operator shall submit a copy of an annual report to the jurisdictional health department and the department 41) by April 1st of each year.The jurisdictional health department may require more frequent reporting based on the results of groundwater monitoring.The annual report shall summarize and interpret the following information: (i)All groundwater monitoring data,including laboratory and field data for the sampling periods; (ii)Statistical results and/or any statistical trends including any findings of any statistical increases for the year and time/concentration series plots; (iii)A summary of concentrations above the maximum contaminant levels of chapter 173-200 WAC; (iv) Static water level readings for each monitoring well for each sampling event; (v)Potentiometric surface elevation maps depicting groundwater flow rate and direction for each sampling event, noting any trends or changes during the year; (vi)Geochemical evaluation including cation-anion balancing and trilinear and/or stiff diagraming for each sampling event noting any changes or trends in water chemistry for each well during the year; and (vii) Leachate analyses where appropriate for each sampling event. [Statutory Authority:Chapter 70.95 RCW.03-03-043(Order 99-24),§173-350-500,filed 1/10/03,effective 2/10/03.] httrv//annc 1Pu.wa..tov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 ,s0N JEFFERSON COUNIY PUBLIC HEALTH 615 Sheridan Street o Port Townsend o Washington o 98368 www.jeffersoncountypublichealth.org • August 8, 2012 To: Jefferson County Board of Health .From: Tom Locke,MD,MPH,Jefferson County Health Officer Re: Question Regarding Landfill Permitting Raised at July 19,2012 Board of Health Meeting Thank you for the opportunity to address the following questions posed by Board of Health member Sheila Westerman. 1)Who decides whether a landfill groundwater monitoring plan is adequate and how are samples collected,analyzed,and interpreted? Detailed requirements for groundwater monitoring are included in all landfill permits that require such monitoring. Groundwater monitoring plans must be individually developed for each landfill site and meet the standards set forth in WAC 173-350-500 (attached). These standards comprehensively address site characterization, groundwater monitoring system design, sample and analysis plan and data analysis,notification, and reporting. WAC 173-350-500(4)establishes criteria that must be addressed in each plan(e.g. sample • collection and handling or chain-of-custody control). Each plan must address these criteria in sufficient detail to meet approval standards of the local health jurisdiction with concurrence from the Washington State Department of Ecology(DOE). Considerable hydrogeological and engineering expertise is required to determine the adequacy of a site specific groundwater monitoring plan. DOE has expertise in these areas and will play a central role in determining the adequacy of any groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant for the Port Townsend Paper Corporation's (PTPC)landfill. 2) How are the provisions in a landfill permit enforced? Where are the"teeth"? State and local solid waste codes contain detailed enforcement mechanisms ranging from civil infractions to criminal penalties. For permit holders,the most important enforcement authority is the ability to suspend or revoke a permit for non-compliance with its terms. Suspension of a landfill permit requires that the permit holder cease all disposal of regulated waste materials at that site, a significant penalty for an industrial operation. Enforcement of landfill permit requirements is best accomplished by detailed permit language clearly describing all required activities. A permit is, in effect, an agreement of the permit holder COMMUNITY HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES WATER QUALITY • MAIN: (360)385-9400 ALWAYS WORKING FOR A SAFER AND MAIN: (360)385-9444 FAX: (360)385 9401 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY FAX: (360)379-4487 to abide by the conditions of that permit. Failure to carry out required activities subjects the permit holder to suspension or revocation of the permit in addition to potential civil and criminal penalties. • 3) Is it possible to do core samples of a landfill to determine what type of waste is currently in the landfill? Borehole studies are routinely performed on landfills to develop groundwater monitoring plans as detailed in WAC 173-350-500(2)(b). I am not aware of any legal authority provided by WAC 173-350 to conduct core sampling of an existing,permitted landfill to determine what wastes have been disposed of in the past. To require something that lies outside the specific authority granted by RCW or WAC,a local health jurisdiction must have a compelling and legally defensible reason. One conceivable reason would be the detection of a contaminant in down gradient groundwater sample that was inconsistent with waste materials known to be present in the landfill. Core sample testing might be a way of determining if that waste product was illegally disposed of in the landfill. Lacking a compelling reason to require such testing, I do not think the local health jurisdiction has the authority to require it. Testing of waste (known as"waste stream characterization")is generally performed on a regular basis on waste as it is brought to the landfill. This waste is sampled according to procedures set forth in the permit. In general, an environmental health specialist should be present at the time of sample collection to assure that samples accurately represent the waste stream being characterized. This requires that an adequate number of randomly distributed samples be taken to assure that the tested samples accurately represent what is going into the landfill. Local health jurisdictions can require"split samples"to be taken, i.e. samples are divided for testing at • different facilities. Who performs specific analytical tests is addressed in the permit. In all cases,it must be done by a certified lab that meets state criteria for quality control for the type of testing being performed. Financial responsibility for all analytical tests performed under a landfill permit(groundwater testing,waste testing)rests with the permit holder. COMMUNITY HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ALWAYS WORI(I"' FOR A SAFER AND WATER QUALITY MAIN: (360)385-9400 HEALTHIER COMMUNITY MAIN: (360)385-9444 • FAX:(360)385-9401 FAX: (360)379-4487 • WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 1 of WAC 173-350-500 Groundwater monitoring. (1) Groundwater monitoring-Professional qualifications.All reports, plans, procedures,and design specifications required by this section shall be prepared by a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW. (2) Groundwater monitoring-Site characterization.A site proposed for solid waste activities shall be characterized for its • geologic and hydrogeologic properties and suitability for constructing,operating,and monitoring a solid waste facility in accordance with all applicable requirements of this chapter.The site characterization report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall include at a minimum the following: (a)A summary of local and regional geology and hydrology,including: (i) Faults; (ii)Zones of joint concentrations; (iii) Unstable slopes and subsidence areas on-site; (iv)Areas of groundwater recharge and discharge; (v)Stratigraphy;and (vi) Erosional and depositional environments and facies interpretation(s); (b)A site-specific borehole program including description of lithology, soil/bedrock types and properties, preferential groundwater flow paths or zones of higher hydraulic conductivity,the presence of confining unit(s)and geologic features such as fault zones,cross-cutting structures, etc.,and the target hydrostratigraphic unit(s)to be monitored. Requirements of the borehole program include: (i) Each boring will be of sufficient depth below the proposed grade of the bottom liner to identify soil, bedrock, and hydrostratigraphic unit(s); (ii) Boring samples shall be collected from five-foot intervals at a minimum and at changes in lithology. Representative samples shall be described using the unified soil classification system following ASTM D2487-85 and tested for the following if appropriate: (A)Particle size distribution by sieve and hydrometer analyses in accordance with approved ASTM methods(D422 and • D1120);and (B)Atterburg limits following approved ASTM method D4318; (iii) Each lithologic unit on-site will be analyzed for: (A) Moisture content sufficient to characterize the unit using ASTM method D2216; and (B) Hydraulic conductivity by an in situ field method or laboratory method.All samples collected for the determination of permeability shall be collected by standard ASTM procedures; (iv)All boring logs shall be submitted with the following information: (A) Soil and rock descriptions and classifications; (B) Method of sampling; (C)Sample depth, interval and recovery; (D) Date of boring; (E)Water level measurements; (F) Standard penetration number following approved ASTM method D1586-67; (G) Boring location;and (H) Soil test data; (v)All borings not converted to monitoring wells or piezometers shall be carefully backfilled, plugged, and recorded in • accordance with WAC 173-160-420; (vi) During the borehole drilling program,any on-site drilling and lithologic unit identification shall be performed under the direction of a licensed professional in accordance with the requirements of chapter 18.220 RCW who is trained to sample and identify soils and bedrock lithology; httn-Hanus.le2.wa.zov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 2 of 5 (vii)An on-site horizontal and vertical reference datum shall be established during the site characterization.The standards for land boundary surveys and geodetic control surveys and guidelines for the preparation of land descriptions shall be used to establish borehole and monitoring well coordinates and casing elevations from the reference datum; (viii) Other methods, including geophysical techniques, may be used to supplement the borehole program to ensure that a sufficient hydrogeologic site characterization is accomplished; (c)A site-specific flow path analysis that includes: (i)The depths to groundwater and hydrostratigraphic unit(s)including transmissive and confining units; and (ii) Potentiometric surface elevations and contour maps,direction and rate of horizontal and vertical groundwater flow; (d) Identification of the quantity, location, and construction (where available)of private and public wells within a two thousand -foot radius, measured from the site boundaries; (e)Tabulation of all water rights for groundwater and surface water within a two thousand-foot(610 m) radius, measured from site boundaries; (f) Identification and description of all surface waters within a one-mile(1.6 km)radius, measured from site boundaries; (g)A summary of all previously collected site groundwater and surface water analytical data, and for expanded facilities, identification of impacts of the existing facility upon ground and surface waters from landfill leachate discharges to date; (h)Calculation of a site water balance; (i) Conceptual design of groundwater and surface water monitoring systems, and where applicable a vadose zone monitoring system, including proposed construction and installation methods for these systems; (j) Description of land use in the area, including nearby residences; (k)A topographic map of the site and drainage patterns,including an outline of the waste management area, property boundary,the proposed location of groundwater monitoring wells,and township and range designations; and (I)Geologic cross sections. (3) Groundwater monitoring-System design. (a)The groundwater monitoring system design and report shall be submitted with the permit application and shall meet the • following criteria: (i)A sufficient number of monitoring wells shall be installed at appropriate locations and depths to yield representative groundwater samples from those hydrostratigraphic units which have been identified in the site characterization as the earliest potential contaminant flowpaths; (ii) Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance,and include at a minimum: (A)A groundwater flow path analysis which supports why the chosen hydrostratigraphic unit is capable of providing an early warning detection of any groundwater contamination. (B) Documentation and calculations of all of the following information: (I) Hydrostratigraphic unit thickness including confining units and transmissive units; (II)Vertical and horizontal groundwater flow directions including seasonal, man-made, or other short-term fluctuations in groundwater flow; (Ill)Stratigraphy and lithology; (IV) Hydraulic conductivity; and (V) Porosity and effective porosity. (b) Upgradient monitoring wells(background wells)shall meet the following performance criteria: (i)Shall be installed in groundwater that has not been affected by leakage from a landfill unit; or (ii) If hydrogeologic conditions do not allow for the determination of an upgradient monitoring well,then sampling at other monitoring wells which provide representative background groundwater quality may be allowed. • (c) Downgradient monitoring wells(compliance wells)shall meet the following performance criteria: (i)Represent the quality of groundwater at the point of compliance; hrrn•//annc 1ec_wa.aov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. rage 3 of (ii) Be installed as close as practical to the point of compliance; (iii)When physical obstacles preclude installation of groundwater monitoring wells at the relevant point of compliance at the landfill unit or solid waste facility,the downgradient monitoring system may be installed at the closest practical distance hydraulically downgradient from the relevant point of compliance that ensures detection of groundwater contamination in the • chosen hydrostratigraphic unit. (d)All monitoring wells shall be constructed in accordance with chapter 173-160 WAC, Minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells, and chapter 173-162 WAC, Regulation and licensing of well contractors and operators. (e)The owner or operator shall notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of any proposed changes to the design,installation, development,and decommission of any monitoring wells, piezometers,and other measurement, sampling, and analytical devices- Proposed changes shall not be implemented prior to the jurisdictional health department's written approval. Upon completing changes, all documentation, including date of change, new monitoring well location maps, boring logs, and monitoring well diagrams,shall be submitted to the jurisdictional health department and shall be placed in the operating record. (f)All monitoring wells, piezometers, and other measurement,sampling,and analytical devices shall be operated and maintained so that they perform to design specifications throughout the life of the monitoring program. (4) Groundwater monitoring-Sampling and analysis plan. (a)The groundwater monitoring program shall include consistent sampling and analysis procedures that are designed to provide monitoring results that are representative of groundwater quality at the upgradient and downgradient monitoring wells. In addition to monitoring wells,facilities with hydraulic gradient control and/or leak detection systems will provide representative groundwater samples from those systems.The owner or operator shall submit a compliance sampling and analysis plan as part of the permit application.The plan shall include procedures and techniques for: (i) Sample collection and handling; (ii) Sample preservation and shipment; (iii)Analytical procedures; (iv)Chain-of-custody control; (v)Quality assurance and quality control; • (vi) Decontamination of drilling and sampling equipment; (vii) Procedures to ensure employee health and safety during well installation and monitoring;and (viii)Well operation and maintenance procedures. (b) Facilities collecting leachate shall include leachate sampling and analysis as part of compliance monitoring. (c)The groundwater monitoring program shall include sampling and analytical methods that are appropriate for groundwater samples.The sampling and analytical methods shall provide sufficient sensitivity, precision,selectivity and limited bias such that changes in groundwater quality can be detected and quantified.All samples shall be sent to an accredited laboratory for analyses in accordance with chapter 173-50 WAC,Accreditation of environmental laboratories. (d) Groundwater elevations shall be measured in each monitoring well immediately prior to purging, each time groundwater is sampled.The owner or operator shall determine the rate and direction of groundwater flow each time groundwater is sampled.All groundwater elevations shall be determined by a method that ensures measurement to the one hundredth of a foot (3 mm) relative to the top of the well casing. (e)Groundwater elevations in wells that monitor the same landfill unit shall be measured within a period of time short enough to avoid any groundwater fluctuations which could preclude the accurate determination of groundwater flow rate and direction. (f)The owner or operator shall establish background groundwater quality in each upgradient and downgradient monitoring well. Background groundwater quality shall be based upon a minimum of eight independent samples. Samples shall be collected for each monitoring well and shall be analyzed for parameters required in the permit for the first year of groundwater monitoring. Each independent sampling event shall be no less than one month after the previous sampling event. (g)Groundwater quality shall be determined at each monitoring well at least quarterly during the active life of the solid waste facility, including closure and the post-closure period. More frequent monitoring may be required to protect downgradient water supply wells. Groundwater monitoring shall begin after background groundwater quality has been established.The owner or 0 operator may propose an alternate groundwater monitoring frequency. Groundwater monitoring frequency must be no less than semiannually.The owner or operator must apply for a permit modification or must apply during the renewal process for changes in groundwater monitoring frequency making a demonstration based on the following information: (i)A characterization of the hydrostratigraphic unit(s) including the unsaturated zone,transmissive and confining units and h++„•ilci,,,,'z 1P0-wa_cev/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. Page 4 of 5 include the following: (A) Hydraulic conductivity; and (B) Groundwater flow rates; (ii) Minimum distance between upgradient edge of the solid waste handling unit and downgradient monitoring wells (minimum distance of travel); and (iii) Contaminant fate and transport characteristics. (h)All facilities shall test for the following parameters: (i)Field parameters: (A)pH; (B) Specific conductance; (C)Temperature; (D) Static water level; (ii)Geochemical indicator parameters: (A)Alkalinity(as Ca CO3); (B) Bicarbonate(HCO3); (C)Calcium(Ca); (D) Chloride(CI); (E) Iron (Fe); (F) Magnesium (Mg); (G)Manganese(Mn); (H)Nitrate(NO3); • (I)Sodium(Na); (J) Sulfate (SO4); (iii) Leachate indicators: (A)Ammonia(NH3-N); (B)Total organic carbon (TOC); (C)Total dissolved solids(TDS). (i) Based upon the site specific waste profile and also the leachate characteristics for lined facilities,the owner or operator shall propose additional constituents to include in the monitoring program.The jurisdictional health department shall specify the additional constituents in the solid waste permit. (j)Testing shall be performed in accordance with"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," U.S. EPA Publication SW-846,or other testing methods approved by the jurisdictional health department. (k)Maximum contaminant levels(MCL)for groundwater are those specified in chapter 173-200 WAC, Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington. (5) Groundwater monitoring-Data analysis, notification and reporting. (a)The results of monitoring well sample analyses as required by subsection (4)(h) and (i)of this section shall be evaluated using an appropriate statistical procedure(s), as approved by the jurisdictional health department during the permitting process, to determine if a significant increase over background has occurred.The statistical procedure(s)used shall be proposed in the • sampling and analysis plan and be designed specifically for the intended site,or prescriptive statistical procedures from appropriate state and federal guidance may be used. (b) If statistical analyses determine a significant increase over background: 1P um uriv/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 WAC 173-350-500: Groundwater monitoring. t'age of (i)The owner or operator shall: (A) Notify the jurisdictional health department and the department of this finding within thirty days of receipt of the sampling data.The notification shall indicate what parameters or constituents have shown statistically significant increases; (B) Immediately resample the groundwater for the parameter(s)showing statistically significant increase in the monitoring well(s)where the statistically significant increase has occurred; • (C) Establish a groundwater protection standard using the groundwater quality criteria of chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington.Constituents for which the background concentration level is higher than the protection standard,the owner or operator shall use background concentration for constituents established in the facility's monitoring record. (ii)The owner or operator may demonstrate that a source other than a landfill unit or solid waste facility caused the contamination,or the statistically significant increase resulted from error in sampling,analyses,statistical evaluation,or natural variation in groundwater quality. If such a demonstration cannot be made and the concentrations or levels of the constituents: (A)Meet the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Assess and evaluate sources of contamination; and (II) Implement remedial measures in consultation with the jurisdictional health department and the department. (B) Exceed the criteria established by chapter 173-200 WAC,Water quality standards for groundwaters of the state of Washington,the owner or operator shall: (I)Characterize the chemical composition of the release and the contaminant fate and transport characteristics by installing additional monitoring wells; (II)Assess and, if necessary, implement appropriate intermediate measures to remedy the release.The measures shall be approved by the jurisdictional health department and the department;and (III) Evaluate, select,and implement remedial measures as required by chapter 173-340 WAC,the Model Toxics Control Act cleanup regulation,where applicable.The roles of the jurisdictional health department and the department in remedial action are further defined by WAC 173-350-900. (c)The owner or operator shall submit a copy of an annual report to the jurisdictional health department and the department by April 1st of each year.The jurisdictional health department may require more frequent reporting based on the results of groundwater monitoring.The annual report shall summarize and interpret the following information: (i)All groundwater monitoring data, including laboratory and field data for the sampling periods; (ii) Statistical results and/or any statistical trends including any findings of any statistical increases for the year and time/concentration series plots; (iii)A summary of concentrations above the maximum contaminant levels of chapter 173-200 WAC; (iv) Static water level readings for each monitoring well for each sampling event; (v) Potentiometric surface elevation maps depicting groundwater flow rate and direction for each sampling event, noting any trends or changes during the year; (vi)Geochemical evaluation including cation-anion balancing and trilinear and/or stiff diagraming for each sampling event noting any changes or trends in water chemistry for each well during the year; and (vii)Leachate analyses where appropriate for each sampling event. [Statutory Authority:Chapter 70.95 RCW.03-03-043(Order 99-24),§173-350-500,filed 1/10/03,effective 2/10/03.] • 1,ttn•//annc 1eu_wa_tov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-350-500 8/8/2012 JEFFERSON COUNTY -44' BOARD OF HEALTH 0 GUEST LIST TITLE: Regular Meeting DATE: Thursday,August 16, 2012 2:30 -4:30 pm PLACE: Masonic Hall, 1338 Jefferson St., Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE IP1A til 0P Y ) kJ *- 1002- D t Pte=- Dv- -�' -74� 114 cn/r/7, 7 � n T.' c41-., ,, 3..5 -33 vld P7— V ❑i E 7./1-1E1- ,cam" e At„.a.,-T 13.27 5 k e _ 1-0711C3" atcc (1a v 73AracA N c&ui _ 7/[3- L 1 0,t kIcti uc\---t- B1 Ft;itioleft ONtA.:.‘ P,c1 pi- El -c-/n Ova 1 '-'- .__.e v n act 0 ',4 3,1/4,A ? 1 E ,Z-7/ , / (;-=-4cY / go /-,241."4-17-P.R 72, —r. E El E] ioo ,�, .. l YC°ol �; P4, PT ElV n r 4.,„„, lei), /v Co / ` . I n / -,..)61,€_41Q09-0 --on 7.),, )._.ceronv_50-1.-- A---i- hro 602; Ill 2 CI iC( /1 e6 ?d1A5/1 fir/ J .--P7--- Q' 111:- z) ) l/,- 3Dg st p, ► - - �- 44-e-c, --(17--;,,,e,:41,, 1.-2.-- Vize-,-.6,g,f f7 g--n i.--- v& ,' , /)-- It53 ., ri - 2 n 1 - Az9s,--,d' do.".. _A- 0 *---Th-1 a eitqc4Le__ • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH • GUEST LIST TITLE: Regular Meeting DATE: Thursday,August 16, 2012 2:30 -4:30 pm PLACE: Masonic Hall, 1338 Jefferson St., Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET,STREEET ADDRESS CITY-p' �G�' Testimony? ')7/A' l?Li L EAC/ /�D ,ADDRESS A jetA/r PIZ /9 / �" ��1xO YES !( MAYBE JAJ . ;-/i.) c,,) ( oi3o- JA-.-c(cs- "i ' ( n Cl - J, ..‹.___, Jo4-1a N..,i '/ n KJ ❑ ✓'26 i+/ M n -- E---- 6\\ C s CAS 1,t(ac--- 1:4- ,a S4=tt•V ?' ❑ � \ � VC[re atekrt-ti 14/ AcdE E--ii q 0( °, c7.. cA, PT K Ei -„.... �4 hst,51- pv A H n 0— :,,y) -8e-A d d -5 2-) S 7 'IltY P T E),*(.1 ?-41 1611,J ' i.-0 .3 jqLyE64,. icoi f 3 iii s-{- H n [g Sitcom JOS 2631 !Asko 4 C(iv.vo A ems-- IX1 _ --- E - n ❑ - ❑ n = n ❑ C = nnn • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH • rk''' GUEST LIST TITLE: Regular Meeting DATE: Thursday,August 16, 2012 2:30 -4:30 pm PLACE: Masonic Hall, 1338 Jefferson St., Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE - IN n n - ---. - . - , _ K - n . L) iE Ed 2201. 4r 1 P r ❑ n Roee L Hv au6-► x s-K) PT ❑ g_ CI URcQ) ,J& kjq J,4A ?o K0oc 2_ 'T` ❑ 1R ❑ Ay,IVVA, \ ie.0I 100 KA hAi PT AIJ n r- ---- z 6/63 /0o 14 4A-Iv in to 7---- n2 ❑ 0 ./L-Ix\-/-45-r//466:77efi (ct 1.4 ' - - 40 1 l ❑ 1M ❑ bE-6 6 la 6--A-70, 1 0 0 I-1 11-4- 4"---1\ /6 ( El P Ill M / /5-7- ;- r H n Qiv LAUoZ 2c-- ,,oz m,'1- Pr p31 n -/ ct cUtAlc.)</nctii f 7) -60‘( of Nt- E S 17 5-kyk C vy,,, 2°2-3 6- PT- • _. ®' Rd.4_,L„:7` 4(40/Ai f• .' 43 rrafPt 5V r 7 IS 1_ 1El - fkb I •:' INCI \J I (21Y C T-12) inn • JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH • GUEST LIST TITLE: Regular Meeting DATE: Thursday,August 16, 2012 2:30 -4:30 pm PLACE: Masonic Hall, 1338 Jefferson St., Port Townsend NAME (Please Print) STREET ADDRESS CITY Testimony? YES NO MAYBE TN)C4 eCLuL 3221 �� �5 ._ V:\--cty\i.<`)*, Cool+)\ 1-1- kl(1161,) fY) n I ()) 1)c),<L,,_, n r )1 1 LI k)gs ,t+11 -, T T,ibrflgc n nnn — nil n - u n n HIn n nl n llll n n II mill till n n n