Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Karen Varney

9/23/20 @ 4:05 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Brill

9/23/20 @ 3:32 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: John Preston

9/23/20 @ 3:16 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. This ear...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise.

Sincerely,
John Preston

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Mr. john preston
4655 NE 89th St Seattle, WA 98115-4975
gepreston@msn.com
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Ibach

9/23/20 @ 3:14 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

Inherent in this moral imperative is investing in a livable future that is safe for all to thrive. If this...↓

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Ms Jennifer Ibach
3246 15th Ave S Seattle, WA 98144-6317
jibach@olgseattle.org
No attachments

Comment From: Hilary Gaddis

9/23/20 @ 3:07 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for both the well-being of communities and the environment.

I am called to act out my values – I'm a member of Fauntleroy United Church of Christ and also a loca...↓

Yet I continue to remain hopeful and was proud of our state for declaring their commitment to clean energy and climate goals. I believe that clean energy for all is the path forward and the only way to move if we want to protect all we hold dear.. such as our human right to clean water and healthy air.

However I am concerned about this proposed menthol plant and wholeheartedly believe it goes against the values I have shared with you tonight – it frightens me that we are cowing to the pressures of the fossil fuel industry – I know in my heart that we can reject the path they have set out , a path that does not align with my values of clean water and healthy air.

So in conclusion I am firmly rejecting this proposal and need YOU Dept of Ecology to deny the Shoreline Permit in order to preserve a HEALTHY – SUSTAINABLE – THRIVING – FUTURE – WITH – CLEAN ENERGY !!

Building the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol plant in Washington does not align with my personal values of stewardship and justice, nor does it support our state's commitment to reducing climate pollution. Please reject Northwest Innovation Work's proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit.

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is dirty, dangerous, and unwise. If built, our state will be locked into decades of additional climate pollution, even though we know it is past time to pursue a truly low-carbon future. Speculating that this project may displace other fossil fuels is not adequate justification for the known pollution that will harm our communities and climate.

Northwest Innovation Works has demonstrated that they are deceptive and will seek profit over people's wellbeing. They cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery. The fact that the project has needed three reviews, with outspoken community opposition during each, shows that there is something wrong with it at its core. As Governor Inslee stated, we cannot support such fracked gas projects in good conscience.

You have a moral responsibility to protect public health and reduce our region's climate pollution. Please do what is right and deny this project. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Hilary Gaddis
3655 S Spokane St Unit 4 Seattle, WA 98144-7113
hilgaddis@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Lakshin Kumar

9/23/20 @ 2:51 AM
It is absolutely essential that permits for this facility are not passed as it would represent a drastic step in the wrong mansion for the fight against climate change. The Department of Ecology has shown that the construction of this facility will l...↓
No attachments

Comment From: barrett gifford

9/23/20 @ 2:49 AM
My name is Barrett Gifford. I live in Southern
Oregon. I am writing to voice my thoughts on the Kalama Refinery, while also being evacuated from my home due to wildfires. These wildfires are a direct result of climate change, rising temperatures and d...↓
It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.
The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.
We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.
Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.
No attachments

Comment From: Tracy Anonymous

9/23/20 @ 2:48 AM
There is no guarantee or even any likelihood that NWIW would "mitigate" its greenhouse gas emissions over a sustained period. Plus we have NO idea what kind of mitigation measures they are talking about. Since we don't have any way to remove CO2 fr...↓

This project would emit massive amounts of methane from the fracking well, through transport, and I don't even know what would happen after it leaves Washington. There is no way to mitigate methane. Any talk of mitigation should be completely disregarded for this dangerous project.

We need ALL resources dedicated to removing greenhouse gases currently existing in the atmosphere, and you have the power to STOP THIS POTENTIAL release of inconceivable amounts of additional greenhouses gases. I BEG YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND DENY THIS PROJECT'S PERMITS!
No attachments

Comment From: Philip Scott

9/23/20 @ 2:45 AM
I am hereby testifying against the Kalama Methanol Refinery. This proposed refinery will have a devastating impact on the environment both upstream, downstream and through localized emissions.

We already face an existential threat to the planet assoc...↓

We are at a climate tipping point. Global temperatures have already risen 1 degree centigrade and 2 degrees centigrade is likely to result in irreversible devastation of our environment, leading to the end of life throughout the world as we presently know it. Wildfires, drought, historic high temperatures, extreme storms and hurricanes will only intensify in size and scope short of drastic reductions in greenhouse emissions.

The only acceptable answer to this existential threat is to stop building any and all significant generators of carbon emissions, together with phasing out all existing coal and natural gas facilities. Any new developments must only focus on new clean energy facilities.

The future of mankind, including your children and your children's children beseech you to reject this project outright.
No attachments

Comment From: Andrea Burke

9/23/20 @ 2:28 AM
Hello, I am Andrea Burke, an educator in Portland, Oregon:

I have taught my students to live simply and naturally. To protect the earth and support nontoxic projects. I oppose the Kalama Methanol Refinery and encourage my students to oppose it, too, f...↓

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

Let's protect future generations by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you,

Andrea Burke
andreasueburke@gmail.com
Portland, Oregon 97219

No attachments

Comment From: Don Roberts

9/23/20 @ 2:23 AM
Based upon the findings of the draft second supplemental EIS, any plans to permit this methanol plant are extremely shortsighted and pose a significant threat to our environment and the planet. As a WA licensed professional mechanical engineer, I agr...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sue Rutherford

9/23/20 @ 2:19 AM
Good day and thank you for this opportunity to say: Deny the permit for the proposed Kalama Methanol Plant, Kalama, Washington

First of all, the method for production is a huge project unto itself. Building a natural gas pipeline for the Methanol pl...↓

Next is the impact on the Columbia River. I have lived in Cowlitz County for almost 50 years and it has taken almost that long to bring the Mighty Columbia back to a pristine level. The pollution was abhorrent and disastrous to the fishing industry. If this plant is built, there are two major factors that could deliver a severe environmental impact: 1) Many containers that would travel on the Columbia River and the Pacific Ocean. Any amount of methanol would have serious effects on aquatic life. It only take .5% methanol to hinder digestion. Methanol will be broken down into water and CO2 (USMEOH)- gee, more to add to the climate change disaster, occurring before us. 2) If the carbon dioxide emissions are not reduced, the impact of global warming will expedite the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, raising global sea levels by 15" by 2100 if the world keeps producing greenhouse gases at or near its current pace - Cryosphere(ISMIP6)

Finally, the air we breath. The area to be considered sits in a bowl, where air stagnates during the worst of the winter season. The entire West Coast just went through weeks of hazardous air, where the conditions of global warming/climate change, exacerbated the dry forest and a high pressure system of heat. It makes absolutely no sense, to add to the problem of global warming/climate by adding to the amount of CO2. The argument of we won't be adding as much as some other method is ludicrous. To avoid paying Peter (the future), this methanol plant is going to cheat Paul (the present).

The air, the water, and the earth are counting on us to be better stewards. We don't want to be at the point where we say' "I wish we would haven't done that". Please please deny the permit for the building of the Kalama Methanol plant, in Kalama, Washington.
No attachments

Comment From: James Tejcka

9/23/20 @ 2:14 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Peter Fink

9/23/20 @ 1:36 AM
If you're told you're an alcoholic and you need to quit or it will kill you, you don't go out and buy a bunch of drinks to stock your liquor cabinet—even if the alcohol content is lower than something else. Why not? Because why pay all that mo...↓
We have been told we have 20 years before the worst of the climate emergency's wrath will be fully inflicted. The cause? A terrible dependency on fossil fuels which with each ton burned will worsen the situation. In those 20 years every ton burned will bring flooding to Southeast Asia, and the American South, drought to the Sahel and California, and fires there and in Australia, the Amazon, and the Congo Basin. Millions will be displaced, sickened, or killed; thousands of species will go extinct. So if the prognosis is to quit fossil fuels the last thing we should be doing is investing in that infrastructure. It is a waste of money if we get our act together and decide to never use it just a few years after it's built. It's a waste of money if we use it for 30 years and have to spend trillions curing the climate harm with Band-Aid fixes, and restoration and relief efforts. It doesn't matter that this fossil fuel infrastructure will be less damaging, less toxic, lower emitting. We have other options even for an energy-intensive economy: the solar and wind capacity is logarithmically approaching demand. To fulfill an immoral, unnecessary need with the most efficient method doesn't make it moral or necessary. To choose to kill someone with a slow drip of drugs instead of a burning at the stake shouldn't be tolerable.
And the few jobs this project will bring? What about the fastest growing job sector: renewable energy? Do jobs and profits from producing clean energy to distribute or convert not compare with the glory of industrial plastics or fuels sustaining a pollution indulgence?
Our liver is giving out but as it goes it's taking the kidney, the heart, and the lungs down with it. From an economic standpoint we need to reject anything remotely long term that only has viability in the short term. From a land rights standpoint we must reject a project that further degrades the land, dismisses the traditional custodians' council and appeals, and pollutes the industrialized section that through affordability subjects the most vulnerable to the greatest risks from emissions. From a global justice standpoint we must reject a project that accepts a climate regime where the greatest polluters are allowed to pollute (even if it's to a lesser degree) for their "economic stability" and "growth" while the least emitting are forced to bear the most unbearable of the consequences. From a human standpoint we must reject the utter surrender to the ails of dependency. We have the will and the power to get clean, we can quit, we might need help, but this addiction WILL be overcome one day.

No attachments

Comment From: Eileen Fromer

9/23/20 @ 1:34 AM
My name is Eileen Fromer. I live in Portland and I am passionate about the climate crisis and stopping greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that the Department of Ecology has an opportunity through its analysis and these hearings to do the right thing...↓

On its website, Ecology states "Washington is a national leader in cutting greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change." Now they state that the Kalama refinery would be one of the top greenhouse gas polluters in Washington emitting 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution annually...for 40 years. How on earth can Ecology claim to be cutting greenhouse gas emissions and approve this shoreline permit?

The Kalama fracked gas to methanol refinery will in no way cut greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change.. They mention mitigation. Mitigation is a pipedream in the Ecology analysis. It's meaningless.

But what is not meaningless is the underestimated methane leakage from fracking natural gas, transmission along the pipe route and at the refinery. And after the methanol leaves the refinery....what then?

First, it was only going to be used to make plastics...as if plastics are not already an environmental disaster, but at least the methanol wouldn't be burned for fuel. Then, NWIW changed their story so 40% might be burned as fuel yielding 2 million tons of carbon pollution each year. And, there is no guarantee that all the methanol won't be burned. That would mean 5 million tons of pollution a year. In other words, NWIW will do whatever they want with it and never mind their claims and never mind the environmental impacts.

This refinery would increase Washington's global warming impact by 10% and in just 5 years, by 2025, this refinery could be the largest polluter in the state.

We are in a climate crisis. The wildfires are here along with drought, storms, floods and displaced people all over the world. It's time to say 'no' � enough is enough. Washington and the Dept. of Ecology must live up to their claim and be a leader in addressing the climate crisis.

No attachments

Comment From: Dashiell Glenn

9/23/20 @ 1:26 AM
The world does not need more plastic right now. I find it everywhere I go, in the city and in the mountains. Do the Columbia a favor and keep this plant from being built.
No attachments

Comment From: Marianna Grossman

9/23/20 @ 1:24 AM
September 22, 2020

Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Public Hearing testimony

Dear Mr. Zenk:

Thank you to you and your Ecology Dept. colleagues for setting up hearings. Here is the text of what I presented verbally this evening.

I am Marian...↓
The State of Washington must meet its climate goals and set an example for other states so that humanity has a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C. We can see that our current trajectory is already resulting in catastrophic fires, storms, smoke and enormous social, environmental and economic costs.

I am troubled by the unnecessary conflict expressed today between good paying jobs and human and environmental health and well being.

One example of a community that shifted from fossil fuels to locally produced bio and renewable energy is G�ssing a small town in Austria, near the Hungarian border. Now they produce high quality jobs in clean energy production, technology research and innovation. They even had to build a hotel to support visitors coming to study their transformation and the technology and economic models they innovated. We should do this in our region too. We can increase forestry and agricultural jobs as well as technology and hospitality jobs by investing in all of our futures.

The initial investment in Gussing's transformation came from a combination of sources: the EU, the Austrian Department of Environment, local government and private investors.

The region went from out-migration for work and spending on fossil fuels to innovative new businesses, including an eco-industrial system where waste saw dust from the veneer/furniture plant is used to power heat for the noodle factory which uses eggs from local chickens and creates zero CO2 noodles, as one example.

Here is information about G�ssing achieving zero GHG emissions.
https://www.100-percent.org/gussing-austria/

Here is more information about the technology and economic impact of their regional transformation.
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/austria/new-formula-for-renewables-revolutionises-gussing

To quote the European Union website report this has been a profitable investment:
"The plant gets around 15 euro cent per kWh for its electricity. This is much less than the price, around 25 euro cent, being paid by domestic consumers in the area. It is estimated that this plant, together with another wood-fired heating system with a capacity of 42 MW, means that �18 million stays in the district each year that would otherwise have leaked out. This represents massive return on investment.
The availability of cheap heat (30% cheaper) has led to over 1,000 new jobs being created in and around the town, including 100 in a new office building on an industrial estate which houses the European Centre for Renewable Energy. This employs 12 people itself and the other people renting space in the building are mostly from companies or consultancies to do with renewable energy. One of the centre's activities is arranging visits for the increasing number of visitors who come to see what G�ssing has done, an activity which itself creates employment in hotels and restaurants.
By making the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, the people of G�ssing are now more than self-sufficient for electricity and heat."
They raise agricultural crops for biomass as well as using cultivation techniques to remove excess vegetation from surrounding forests and strategically located solar energy generation, as well.
This transformation was designed to lift the well-being of all the residents of this small town and rural community. We should do the same in our own communities.

Sincerely yours,

Marianna Grossman
Portland, OR

Attachments:

Comment From: Renee Lang

9/23/20 @ 12:47 AM
Renee from Tacoma WA
I'm a working mother of two handsome boys. We spend a lot of time in SW Washington camping, hunting, fishing and working. I've worked in construction my whole life and I'm very thankful to have had a job through out COVID-19. Not...↓
I am in support of the Kalama Project and appreciate the review done by the Department of Ecology. This project sets new High standards for development in Washington State and lead other states. Please approve this project as a great example to drive those high standards.
Thank you , Department of Ecology. Good Work!!
Please procced swiftly to allow positive impacts.

No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Wolff

9/23/20 @ 12:35 AM
Washington Dept. of Ecology Sept. 23, 2020
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

Greetings,
My name is Kathy Wolff and I've lived in Portland for the past 16 years. I have fourteen close members of my family who ...↓

Our planet is in an escalating crisis that threatens human life on earth. The results of climate change are happening all around the globe and right here in our northwest with this summer's unprecedented fires. The Northwest charted the worst air quality in the world for weeks on end. Fires rage across our planet. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt at alarming rates. Hurricanes and super storms are no longer "once in 500 year events" but happening sometimes more than once a year. Mass extinction of the animal and plant kingdoms is documented. Plastics already clogs huge areas of our oceans, destroying marine life. Climate change is happening now. We are in a crucial time regarding the survival of humankind and life as we know it.

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.

Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

We MUST redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, my kids and your kids, my grandsons, Ollie and Max, and your grandkids, and all future generations.

I appeal to you, please work tirelessly to do whatever is necessary to reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you.
Kathy Wolff

No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Kullberg

9/23/20 @ 12:24 AM
September 23, 2020
To the Washington State Department of Ecology:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify today in opposition to the proposed methanol refinery in Kalama. My name is Patricia Kullberg. I am a retired physician and public health offici...↓
Despite presenting a dizzying array of future scenarios, the analysis makes unsupportable claims about corporate behavior, makes highly speculative assumptions about market trends, and forecloses on the very opportunities we have to save our way of life in the Pacific NW.
After so much documentation about how Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW), the company behind KMMEF, has mislead the public about its intentions for marketing the methanol it generates, it is unbelievably na�ve to take their current statement of intent to target the plastics industry at face value. To assume that at most 40% of the methanol will be marketed as fuel is a fantasy. NWIW will market their methanol in whatever way they please to turn a profit, even if that means 100% of their product is used as fuel. Given that the plastics industry itself is subject to increasing regulatory demands, that 40% assumption seems particularly untenable.
The SSEIS assumes that the market for methanol will continue to grow unabated for the next 40 years, once it recovers from the current pandemic-induced contraction. Underlying this assumption are many more: that we will never be faced with another pandemic, which is not what the infectious disease experts are telling us; that there will be global political and economic stability, which is difficult to imagine in an era of increasing numbers of nation-states ready to conduct trade wars and withdraw from long-standing regional economic relationships, plus the social unrest and dislocation associated with massive climate induced migration; that the regulatory environment will remain unchanged when countries all over the globe are looking for ways to reduce their carbon footprint.
But most egregious of all is the total lack of consideration in the SSEIS for true alternatives to the climate-destroying fossil fuels. Coal-based production of plastics in China should not be our benchmark for comparison. Anything better than coal is not the policy that will spare the planet. We should be bench-marking against climate-saving scenarios, for example, a ban on single-use plastics, which alone would reduce the production of plastics by up to 40%. Or a ban on methanol and coal based production of plastic in favor of naphtha-based production, which method results in the lowest net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Allowing the KMMEF proposal to move forward not only locks the community of Kalama into supporting an industry that is doing immeasurable harm to our planet, it will have the effect of squeezing renewable sources of energy out of the market. Additionally it risks sending Kalama into a boom-bust cycle. After a significant contraction in the market for methanol, which is hardly a rash prediction, the community would be saddled with all the costs of a stranded asset. You can be sure that NWIW will not be picking up the tab.
I, like most residents of the Pacific Northwest, am devoted to our way of life here. We should be promoting projects that protect and preserve our natural resources like our forests, our abundant and clean water and our clean air, not projects that will only hasten their destruction.
Respectfully submitted,
Patricia Kullberg, MD MPH

No attachments

Comment From: Bridget Irons

9/23/20 @ 12:11 AM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Brett Ensor

9/22/20 @ 11:56 PM
Washington Dept. of Ecology Sept. 22, 2020
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

Hi, I'm Brett Ensor, I live in Kirkland, Washington.

Right here and all over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily...↓

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you.
Brett
No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/22/20 @ 11:54 PM
It is important to remember the history of this place we call home. The area we're talking about is the ancestral homeland of Native Americans. Indigenous peoples continue to honor Mother Earth through sustainable stewardship and cultural traditions....↓

Natural areas and wildlife in SW Washington are at risk with the NWIW project because of air pollution and increased vessel traffic. Several of these natural areas are designated as IBA's:Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. IBA's are internationally recognized as globally important for the conservation of bird populations. The "Washington State BIrding Trail" includes these IBA's close to Kalama:

-- J.B. Hansen National Wildlife Refuge: 6,000 acres of Columbia River islands and sloughs.

-- Chinook County Park and the 1,900 acre Cape Disappointment State Park.

-- Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge, 5,000 acres of wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands.

-- Vancouver Lake Park and Columbia River Lowlands are also designated as IBAs.

The NWIW plant would degrade the area's air and water, threatening natural areas and wildlife. Yet none of these significant impacts are included in the SSEIS.

I would like to end with this Native American proverb:

Listen to the Wind; it talks.
Listen to the Silence; it speaks.
Listen to your Heart; it knows.

(Presented as oral testimony Tuesday evening, 9/22/2020)

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Kennedy

9/22/20 @ 11:54 PM
Right here and all over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt at alarming rates. Climate change is happening now. We are in a crucial time regarding the survival of humankind and life as we know it.

It is our serious responsibili...↓

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

No attachments

Comment From: Brett Ensor

9/22/20 @ 11:52 PM
Washington Dept. of Ecology Sept. 22, 2020
Attn.: Rich Doenges
PO Box 47775
Olympia, WA 98504-47775

Hi, I'm Mirabai Peart, I live in Portland, OR.

Right here and all over the globe, fires rage. Glaciers and polar ice steadily melt ...↓

It is our serious responsibility now to outright reject any new fossil fuel infrastructure and we must deny the Kalama Methanol Refinery. Instead we must look to create jobs and careers within sustainable industries.

The 'Without Kalama' case in this SEIS is a strawman argument. Saying this methanol refinery will create an emissions 'reduction' compared to if, theoretically, the plant were built using other technologies and locations, is a fallacy and an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is blatant greenwashing by The Chinese government corporation, Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting it has to be and will be built, whether here or somewhere else, is wrong. It does not, and it must not.

We must not allow a refinery that would cause more methanol to be burned as fuel overseas and result in significant methane pollution from fracking.
We must not allow this methanol refinery which would quickly become one of Washington's most significant sources of climate-changing pollution, and use more fracked gas than all of Washington's gas-fired power plants combined.
Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny bandaid on a gaping wound.
Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study fail to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades.

Let's be bold, and redefine our generation by making decisive and final rejection of this new fossil fuel development. This, in hope for the future of us, our kids, grandkids and all future generations. I appeal to you, please reject the Kalama Methanol Refinery. It shouldn't be built here or anywhere, and we must do our part to stop it.

Thank you.
Brett
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Young

9/22/20 @ 6:44 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.

Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.

The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.

Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Marianna Grossman

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
September 22, 2020

Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Public Hearing testimony

Dear Mr. Zenk:

Thank you to you and your Ecology Dept. colleagues for setting up hearings. Here is the text of what I presented verbally this evening.

I am Marian...↓
The State of Washington must meet its climate goals and set an example for other states so that humanity has a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5C. We can see that our current trajectory is already resulting in catastrophic fires, storms, smoke and enormous social, environmental and economic costs.

I am troubled by the unnecessary conflict expressed today between good paying jobs and human and environmental health and well being.

One example of a community that shifted from fossil fuels to locally produced bio and renewable energy is G�ssing a small town in Austria, near the Hungarian border. Now they produce high quality jobs in clean energy production, technology research and innovation. They even had to build a hotel to support visitors coming to study their transformation and the technology and economic models they innovated. We should do this in our region too. We can increase forestry and agricultural jobs as well as technology and hospitality jobs by investing in all of our futures.

The initial investment in Gussing's transformation came from a combination of sources: the EU, the Austrian Department of Environment, local government and private investors.

The region went from out-migration for work and spending on fossil fuels to innovative new businesses, including an eco-industrial system where waste saw dust from the veneer/furniture plant is used to power heat for the noodle factory which uses eggs from local chickens and creates zero CO2 noodles, as one example.

Here is information about G�ssing achieving zero GHG emissions.
https://www.100-percent.org/gussing-austria/

Here is more information about the technology and economic impact of their regional transformation.
https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/projects/austria/new-formula-for-renewables-revolutionises-gussing

To quote the European Union website report this has been a profitable investment:
"The plant gets around 15 euro cent per kWh for its electricity. This is much less than the price, around 25 euro cent, being paid by domestic consumers in the area. It is estimated that this plant, together with another wood-fired heating system with a capacity of 42 MW, means that �18 million stays in the district each year that would otherwise have leaked out. This represents massive return on investment.
The availability of cheap heat (30% cheaper) has led to over 1,000 new jobs being created in and around the town, including 100 in a new office building on an industrial estate which houses the European Centre for Renewable Energy. This employs 12 people itself and the other people renting space in the building are mostly from companies or consultancies to do with renewable energy. One of the centre's activities is arranging visits for the increasing number of visitors who come to see what G�ssing has done, an activity which itself creates employment in hotels and restaurants.
By making the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, the people of G�ssing are now more than self-sufficient for electricity and heat."
They raise agricultural crops for biomass as well as using cultivation techniques to remove excess vegetation from surrounding forests and strategically located solar energy generation, as well.
This transformation was designed to lift the well-being of all the residents of this small town and rural community. We should do the same in our own communities.

Sincerely yours,

Marianna Grossman
Portland, OR

Attachments:

Comment From: Lee McKiernan

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Lee McKiernan. I've lived in Kelso, Washington in [inaudible] for 45 years. This is a beautiful county with lots of rivers and lakes and into quality of the Kalama River should really be highly considered, also, the susceptibility to slide...↓

It's illegal to move dirt around or log in landslide areas. I'm sure you'll find slides every year in this area. It's a great risk to this area, both ecologically and to human lives. The positions of Washington also said it was dangerous to our health. The electricity which would take the electricity of 100,000 homes will all put us in dire financial straits by raising our electric bills.

You should talk to the geologists at University of Washington and Dave Montgomery and Portland State Scott Burns. You should also talk to the people that were in the fish hatchery that got wiped out of upper Kalama River and they can inform you of all the fabulous ecology watching the salmon go by in the clear River.

I've walked along the port of Kalama and on the Columbia and seen all the fishermen catch five salmon in a row. It would be a shame to waste all this for a plastic factory. It would be a disgrace for Ecology to permit it. I believe my minutes are up.
No attachments

Comment From: Theresa Hardy

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
I'll provide comment. My name is Teresa Hardy. I'm a resident of Vancouver, Washington. I want to urge to do the right thing by rejecting the Shoreline permit and the facility clean your matters. I've been a member of the Sierra Club for many years, ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Noelle Allen

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
This is Noelle Allen. I'm a resident of Seattle, Washington. I just believe that Washington State should be honoring the spirit of the Paris Protocol even though our country is not. We do not need to allow a facility that creates plastic and increase...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Janth Hedgpath

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
 I will provide comment. Good evening. My name is Janet Hedgepath. I live in Vancouver, Washington. The past weeks surrounded by smoke is an undeniable evidence of the effects of our carbon-based economy. If we had any shred of hope of preservin...↓

By the Department of Ecology's own analysis, you found that unequivocally and under every set of assumptions, the Kalama Refinery would be one of the top polluters in Washington.

It will boost climate emissions both upstream and downstream, and it would prompt new fracked gas pipeline expansion throughout the region, creating more risk of spills and explosions.

The promoters of this project contend that will replace worst polluters, thus bringing overall world emissions down. This speculation is based on the assumption that we will continue to do business as usual without regard to climate change. Scientists tell us we have 10 years to dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

The Kalama Refinery would produce 4.6 million tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year for 40 years. We do not have 40 years. Now is the time to pursue a low carbon future. Now is the time to intensify our efforts to comply with the state statutes regarding carbon reduction. Now is the time for the Department of Ecology to safeguard our climate, our health, and our safety. Now is the time to reject the Kalama Methanol refinery project. Thank you very much for your tome.
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Keely

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Mark Keeley. I urge you tonight the shorelines permit for NWIW. NWIW is a shell company. They don't even have an act of Washington business license number. This has gone on for too long. Port of Colombia can get a multiple amount of sustai...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Adam Davidson

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Adam Davidson. I'd like to know what on earth would make any American believe anything that Northwest Innovation Works says. This company was founded in 2011 by the Pan Pacific Energy Corp which is owned by Shanghai Bi Ke Clean Energy Tech...↓

Is it because of their current treatment of Hong Kong? Is it the current treatment of what they're doing in Taiwan with 40 warplanes flying overhead? I just don't understand why we would do business with a terrible communist regime such as China at all. I don't understand it one bit, not to mention the horrible environmental impacts down the road.

Why don't we address our insane overuse of disposable plastic, single-use plastics. I wish people would please use your brains for more than profit-seeking and return to some level of sanity. We cannot allow ourselves to continue to do business with an evil communist regime led by Zhi Jing Ping. This is outstandingly insane. Thank you. That's all I have.
No attachments

Comment From: Pat Freiberg

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Pat Freiburg. I'm from Ridgefield, Washington. I'm a longtime Washington resident. I'm asking if you all remember when Origin had a 500-foot cooling tower across the river in Rainier. The Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was shut down in 1992 bu...↓

Today, a Chinese entity wants to buy Canada's [inaudible] and ship it by pipeline to Kalama, convert it to methanol, and then send it to China to be burnt as fuel or made into plastics. I smell another debacle. Building this plant will [inaudible] into methane use for another 40 years.

There's been talk of greenhouse gas mitigation but tell me, what just cutting back coal emissions while creating methane submission, how does that actually save us from the climate emergency that we are currently experiencing? We are already overcome by ferocious wildfires, polar ice caps are disappearing, and Greenland is turning green. We have more frequent and devastating tornadoes and hurricanes every year.

The oceans have warmed with carbon which converts to carbonic acid and is killing coral reefs and impeding the shell production for crabs, lobsters, clams, and oysters. Climate scientists predicted these events 32 years ago and now they are here. Ecology should deny this permit. We have enough debacle to contend with right now and there's way too much at stake. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Monica Laguerta

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, my name is Monica Laguerta. I'm from Vancouver, Washington. I also have on the phone with me my son Eric Paver. He's six years old. I am calling in tonight to oppose this. I don't even know I am speaking to my [inaudible]. I am shaking right now ...↓

If you use fossil fuels like I know there's a better tomorrow. I noticed a greener tomorrow. I know we don't need this. I know my son doesn't need this. I know that [inaudible] tell you all. I hope you all listen and I really do thank you for that. Thank you so much and I hope you all take care. Peace, love, and unity.
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Gordon

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, this is Thomas Gordon. My wife, Diana will follow.
The SSEIS gives 40% for the amount of exported methanol to be used as fuel. However, on page 16, in Section 1.1, Introduction, the SSEIS states, "It is possible, however, that the methanol could b...↓

The methanol could be used to fuel both civilian and military sectors in China. On September 19th, "American Undersecretary of State, Keith Krach, who handles the Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment portfolio held talks with Taiwan's minister at Economic Affairs and Vice Premier. He also met with business leaders over lunch and, obviously, dined with President Tsai Ing-wen later Friday."

The Chinese flew 18 warplanes, including fighter jets, over the strait between China and Taiwan, and are also conducting war games to show their displeasure with America over our friendship with Taiwan, who they regard as a renegade province. NWIW's methanol would probably go to China can easily be used as a fuel by its military. Why should Kalama refine methane into methanol fuel for China's war machine?

If a confrontation between the United States of America and China over [inaudible] occurred, we would have to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression, as outlined in our treaty with Taiwan. Kalama Methanol Refinery should not be built. Deny the shoreline permit and deny the use of methanol made in America. It could be used against us and our ally, Taiwan. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Diana Gorgon

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
 Hi, this is Diana Gordon, and I'm against building this refinery for many reasons. Just last week, I thought we were in the midst of a climate crisis. The East Coast was dealing with early and damaging hurricanes and flooding, and the West Coas...↓

The second SSEIS for the refinery estimates that at least 4.6 million tons of greenhouse gas would be released every year. That seems like a huge amount to me. We know that greenhouse gases worsen climate change. Here in the West, climate change has created hot and dry conditions, making our forests sitting ducks for wildfires. In addition, greenhouse gases make our oceans more acidic and warm our rivers, impacting our seafood producers and tourism, both important sources of jobs and income.

Climate change also affects our health and quality of life. This refinery has too many problems and too few benefits. A few people may get good permanent jobs, but most of the profits will be scooped up by the Canadians and the Chinese. We are left with a large explosive refinery in the midst of potential wildfire hazards and huge increases in climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

This would be a good time to say no to this project and encourage the port and the county to seek new businesses to move into the area. A diversity of businesses will help guard against economic downturns, employ more people per acre, and we hope, be more climate-friendly. Please deny the shoreline permit and stop this untenable project. Thanks.
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer Vennard

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hello. Hi, there. My name is Jennifer Venard and I live in Kalama with my family. We live just a few miles from the proposed site, and we adamantly oppose it. We moved to Kalama because we love to hunt and fish, and this is the only place that we wan...↓

The EIS, yes, it talks about mitigation, but they don't explain how they're going to mitigate it exactly. Planting trees, what do they intend to do? What happens if 100% of the fuel is used or methanol is used for fuel? The EIS doesn't produce that, it's only a portion. The supporters of this project, most of them don't live here. We're doing everything that we can to protect this beautiful country that we love so much, and to have China reap the rewards and Kalama, Cowlitz, Washington and our planet pay the price and live with the consequences, it just isn't worth it. We just really hope that ecology protects us and denies this permit. There's other jobs that we can get in here. We do need jobs but not like this. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Cathy Sampson-Kruse

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Cathy Sampson-Kruse. My Waluulapum name is Wey-ow'sux. I'm a tribally enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 200 miles east of the proposed Kalama facility. I speak only for myself and for my childre...↓

I'm here to witness and listen to these testimonies, but I want my voice heard. In 40 years, I'll be a 106 years old. My youngest grandchild who's only five, I pray that she will not see the outcomes that may prevail if this were approved. The second SSEIS is flawed. I'm a board member of the Columbia Riverkeeper and I have colleagues at the Sightline Institute. I hope that you take both of them seriously into account in their testimony. We need to deny the shorelines permit.

The Northwest Innovation Works has lied. We have to understand that the mitigation plan is for Washington, it does not include Oregon, but there is really no wall here between us. There's just a beautiful big river. We know what happened to those mitigation plans when we sacrificed [inaudible] dams and the rest of them that are there. You have a moral--
No attachments

Comment From: Bonnie McKinley

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Bonnie McKinley. I call on the Washington State Department of Ecology to reject Northwest Innovation Works' misguided plans and deny the shorelines permit. I live across the Big River in Portland. I live close enough to Kalama to have been...↓

I live just 40 miles from the proposed methanol refinery, but my own proximity to it isn't my concern. What matters is that I live on Earth, a climate-destructed planet, where physical and natural realities are emerging with force. We see it, we know it, we hear it bellowing from forests to coastlines, from diminishing glaciers to wind-ravaged and flooding communities. Washington State should not be scooped up in a whacked plan leading them away from science. Washington State, aware of the social and economic benefits of a healthy natural system, must not embrace this climate folly, this Kalama methanol refinery.

What if Northwest Innovation Works succeeds in securing permission? What lies ahead? We know. When increasing deluge and drought finally convince humans to put away their fossil fuel schemes, what will Kalama [inaudible] on this riverbank? At best, an empty, mega facility and a crushed community. It can be so different. We have the direction to clean renewable energy and employment opportunities far better than the crooked, hazardous tasks Northwest Innovation Works pays for us.

I call on the Washington State Department of Ecology to reject Northwest Innovation Works misguided plans and deny the shoreline's permit. Protect Kalama, protect its people, protect our special planet. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Catherine Chudy

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Catherine [inaudible]. I listened carefully to all who spoke during three hearings. I was dismayed to be told that in opposing this proposed facility, I'm putting feelings over fact and ignoring science, that I rely on plastics, and I'm a ...↓

Feelings are essential when combined with facts that clearly show how this proposal will harm rather than help us, both in the short run and especially in the decades to come. I see through the selective science advocated by proponents, intentionally misleading and misrepresenting in order to reach conclusions that will somehow justify a yes outcome. A stronger case has been made by many of us that the science when not cherry-picked, along with basic common sense compels the Department of Ecology, the guardian of our land, air, and water to do the right thing for Washington by saying no.

Plastic and methanol for fuel are end-uses that we, as stewards of the future, for our children and grandchildren, should be steering away from, rather than embracing. We can and will find alternatives that won't cost the health, safety, and quality of life for the next several generations.

As for maintaining the status quo, the Kalama proposal actually represents continuing a classic status quo that advocates business as usual, aka, pursuing obscene profits for the few over harm to the many. We are asking for trying something different. Say no to profits in light of doing no harm. I would not think to tell a child faced with a bully in front of him to let that bully land a sucker punch on his left or right eye, simply because there's probably is another meaner bully around the next corner who will do worse. We should not tolerate this kind of reasoning to justify this facility, and neither should the Department of Ecology. As Thoreau said, "The cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life, which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run." Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Neal Anderson

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Yes. In the presentation he gave at the beginning of the hearing, he described how this plant would affect emissions given the expected global market from ethanol, but you seem to have only considered one possible future, and it's a very pessimistic ...↓

The Washington State is still committed to the goals of the Paris Agreement, as is virtually every country in the world. How can we assess a project against a future where we don't meet these targets and not even consider the option that we will? When the IPCC models possible climate futures, they don't just consider one alternative, they model four scenarios. From optimistic, where we start drastically cutting our emissions right now, to pessimistic, where we continue on with business as usual.

The SSCIS seems to be based on the pessimistic view. The demand for fossil fuel based methanol will keep increasing over the next few decades. In the language of the IPCC, this would correspond roughly to the RCP 8.5 scenario, which would be a disastrous outcome where hundreds of millions would be displaced as climate change renders large parts of the world uninhabitable. This can't be the only future we consider and it can't be the one we use when we're deciding whether we should build this plant and add to the problem.

Not only is there a good chance that the increase in weather related disasters will cause people to start acting more quickly to curb admissions, but any number of technology innovations could cause renewable adoption to accelerate much faster than the scenario predicts. I request that you update the SSCIS to compare other possible scenarios, to be more in line with the IPCC pathways, which lead to outcomes that are within the Paris Agreement's goals of keeping warming to less than two degrees, and that are in line with a livable future for the next generation. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Bonlender

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi. Anna just stepped out, but she's going to come back before I finish making comments. My name is Brian Bonlender. I just want to say that this is an opportunity for us to put in place a facility that will allow us to buy less carbon intensive mate...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anna Bonlender

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, sorry, I stepped away for a sec right when you called my number. I heard what Brian said mostly, and I strongly agree that I'd like this project to go forward. I would like less dependence on carbon. I know eventually we will move even past this,...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Gretchen Armstrong

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
 This is Gretchen Armstrong and I have lived in Kalama for 28 years. I am so against this proposed gas to methanol refinery. Washington State should be pursuing industries with low greenhouse gas to gas pollution, and this is not one of them. Ch...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dan Mark

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Yes, my name is Dan Mark [inaudible]. When the fossil fuel industry proposes new projects, they are always presented as if all positive with no negatives, which is impossible, so I have learned to distrust that industry and so should you. When counti...↓

The current methanol proposal is too big, too costly, too destructive. Upstream gas fracking destroys water supply, destroys water table, destroys subsurface geology. Piping the gas leaks all along the route. Processing frack gases abuses water supplies and leaks more gas, transferring methanol leaks more, shipping the methanol leaks more, transferring at destination leaks more, and of course, burning methanol for 40 or more years in China adds gigantic amounts of greenhouse gas to an already overburdened atmosphere.

Have we learned nothing from what climate change has brought us in the form of extreme weather? Did our recent West Coast unbreathable air teaches nothing? This project is dangerous, it is also unnecessary, shut it down. We must get off coal, we must get off oil, we must get off meth. There is alternative to our chemical dependency, and it's green. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Joan Meyerhoff

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Joan Meyerhoff, and I live in Portland, Oregon. I'm testifying this evening because I [inaudible] and the people who live on it. I am motivated by my concern for future generations and by my commitment to the common good. Anyone who's brav...↓

The argument that Northwest Innovation Works methanol factory proposal for Kalama could cause less carbon pollution than other possible high-carbon futures, is in my mind, weak, based on speculation. By contrast, I present two realities. If we're not successful in curbing global warming, it will result in immeasurable suffering for all life on earth. The second is that there is an enormous surge in the number of people who describe climate change as their number one concern and they are demanding policy change. In this, there is surely hope.

We are engaged in a battle for the viability of life on earth. The course of the battle and the outcome are both unknown, but just like other high-stakes battles, like a nation fighting for freedom from an oppressor, or a person faced with a life-threatening illness fighting for their life, we need generals, we need doctors, we need leaders who are fully committed to winning. Washington Department of Ecology, we need you to fight with us for the environment. Do not support the methanol refinery, which will contribute to global warming. Deny the shoreline permit for the project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper (Kate Murphy)

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Kate Murphy and I'm a community organizer with Columbia Riverkeeper. Thank you to the Department of Ecology for your efforts in organizing these hearings. Over the course of these public hearings, we have heard overwhelming opposition to t...↓

You have heard from many people about the massive amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would come from this refinery, the lack of any tangible plan for mitigation, the high level of uncertainty about the speculative displacement theory, the concerns about staggering gas, electricity, and water use, the plastic already choking our oceans. You have heard many other concerns about this project, each one of which should compel you to deny the world's largest fracked gas to methanol refinery.

Now, on our last opportunity to give oral comments on this potential disaster of a plan, I feel at a bit of a loss. At a time when we need bold leadership to lessen the impending crisis, I fail to understand why the Washington Department of Ecology is even entertaining such vague and speculative scenarios. The main justification for even considering this project is based on the assumption of a catastrophic climate failure. It assumes a failure of human will and determination on a global scale.

This is a false dichotomy. Morally equivalent to offering someone a different brand of poison. There is no scenario in which approving this project actually makes sense if our shared goal is to protect the health and safety of our communities and our environment. You have all the information you need to fulfill your mission and stop this refinery from being built. If we have any hope at all, we must speculate about the good we are capable of accomplishing together when we value health, safety, in a livable future over short-term profits and empty promises. We're counting on you to do the right thing. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper (Dan Serres)

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, my name is Dan Serres. I'm the conservation director for Columbia Riverkeeper. I want to thank the Department of Ecology for the effort it has put in to holding these hearings and soliciting public comments. I also want to say that I'll be counti...↓

Roughly one million tons of this pollution would occur in Washington State each year alone. The refinery will be one of Washington's top polluters. NWIW had suggested that it can mitigate all of its in-state pollution. We doubt this claim and we urge Ecology to find the mitigation plan incomplete and inadequate on several grounds. The plan lacks specifics. NWIW has put forward a voluntary framework, a plan for a plan that gives little substance for the public to comment on at this time. Although, we will attempt to offer more detailed comments in writing as best we can.

NWIW has not identified any mitigation projects in Washington thus far, and according to the plan, projects wouldn't be identified until far too late in the game to know if they are likely to succeed. The governance structure of the mitigation framework is suspect. NWIW states that it will set up a board of its own choosing. This is inadequate. Ecology is responsible for identifying the impacts of the project and how they will be mitigated. Ecology should protect Washington by denying this project altogether. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Edith Gillis

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
I am Edith Gillis living in Portland and Seattle with family in both cities. I oppose the world's largest fracked methane gas and methanol refinery anywhere, but especially in Kalama, because it would devastate the local economies, ecosystem, communi...↓

The climate warming also weakens plants, evaporates somebody's water, increases vulnerability and vulnerability to fire explosiveness, and heating faster spreads fire and explosions. Thus lessening snow-packed rain and water flow and increasing flow from the water clogging pumps, and wells, and water horses means it will be harder to extinguish fires and care for the wounded and ill.

Before and after the fires at Kalama, the increase in the fire danger and worsening in fires would put at risk the nearby Trojan Nuclear Plant radioactive waste. It's getting too hot downstream ready to explode, which in turn, would also affect the radiation poisoning being released continually every day and worsening at Hanford Nuclear Reservation.

The radiation poisoning and increased fires with hazardous air and poison will kill people along the Columbia River, and eventually also around the world as radioactive poisoning air circulates the planet. This attack on the environment means attacks on workers' jobs, public health and safety, and our ability to solve problems again [inaudible]. The longer we're exposed to air pollution, the more damage to our brains and ability to problem-solve and handle stress. This poison disables and kills more Washingtonians and Arizonians. The survivors will be too overwhelmed with grief, fear, and caring for the sick and working longer hours or cloaking with poverty.

Our communities would have fewer volunteers and ability to solve the serious problems we need to have. This is making our [inaudible] go extinct to increase the fires and worsen the cooling. We need to stop it now and we need to increase our ability to handle better regenerative cultures instead.
No attachments

Comment From: Judith Bartholomew

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Judith Bartholomew. There was a time when Cowlitz County was a thriving and vital area with low unemployment and good health ratings, but in the recent past, those once low unemployment level...↓

The NWIW methanol facility in Kalama will create 1,000 construction jobs, 200 permanent high-wage jobs, and over 500 indirect jobs. It will have a significant positive impact, not only for those who get these jobs but on the entire community. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Ted Gleichman

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
This is Ted Gleichman. I live in Portland, the stolen lands of the Chinook and other peoples as the Umatilla elder spoke to earlier, but I am a recent immigrant to the Pacific Northwest, this beautiful territory from the stolen lands in Colorado, whe...↓

In June, six months into the pandemic, and then on July 2nd, the FDA published dozens of names of companies providing methanol as a hand sanitizer, a deadly poison, which causes permanent blindness and death. The climate crisis is another form of poison. It is in process now in ways that are all too obvious, damaging and killing people all around the world. It is imperative that when you hear the word methanol, you think poison. When you hear about climate, you think about the crisis of death that we are living with now.

The Department of Ecology has set a standard in the past and must live up to that standard now in denying this project. I will supplement my comments in writing. Thank you again for your work.
No attachments

Comment From: David Goldberg

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Yes, this is David Goldberg of Vancouver, Washington. The SEIS says it is not possible to predict the advent of newer cleaner sources of energy to replace methanol and other fossil fuels, or to speculate on whether the building of this refinery will ...↓

Northwest Innovation Works told regulators that the methanol produce would be used for plastics while telling investors it'll be used as fuel. This [inaudible] me to conclude that 100% of methanol will be burned as fuel. The SEIS states that the state emissions will be mitigated without backing it up with any details on how this mitigation will be achieved. The SEIS also relies on lower emission rates of British Columbia instead of the more accurate top-down recordings of sensors on airplanes. The SEIS treats methanol like a bridge fuel, it will replace dirtier forms of fuel until we find an overarching solution to global warming.

Fracked oil was supposed to be a bridge fuel, but as a result of this new American source of energy, oil supply surged, bringing the price of gas down. As a result, Americans bought more pickups and SUV instead of cars. They also drove more miles. Frack--
No attachments

Comment From: Gordon Hinkle

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Thank you very much. Hi, my name is Gordon Hinkle and I grew up in nearby Camas, Washington. I wanted to say thank you to the Department of Ecology and ask them to please finish this important work. Please issue the permit for this project to proceed...↓

The independent Department of Ecology report has already confirmed that the project will result in massive, significant, huge global benefits, millions of tons of greenhouse gas reductions every year over what would happen without this project. Why in the world are we giving this not in my backyard mentality by so many in the opposition? I say, create the job, do it better here in the US than this production would be anywhere else, and we will meet the standards and have better mitigation than any other place in the world. Please approve this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Bridges

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Mike Bridges and I'm a lifelong resident of Cowlitz County. I will keep my comments brief and try not to repeat myself since I have previously gave testimony for the record and I want to be respectful of this process. No matter how you loo...↓

I know during these hearings we have heard from project opponents, but as someone that is involved in my community, I have the privilege of working with business, labor, elected leaders, and many nonprofit organizations throughout the community. I can assure you that we have very strong majority support for this project in Cowlitz County, because it's a win for the environment, it's a win for the local economy while setting a high environmental standard and example for the rest of the US and the world.

I'd like to thank the Department of Ecology and all who participated in this process, including Northwest Innovations for this project and for us locally while helping to reduce global GHGs. Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Isaac Kastama

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Thank you. I believe it's important that we apply rigorous climate test on new projects under consideration state. Ultimately, it's important that if that test shows that it's a good project, that it produces a net benefit would be intellectually con...↓

This facility will produce the cleanest methanol in the world. As we've seen from global analysis that have looked at the challenges of achieving deep decarbonization, this is a stubborn sector to achieve emission reductions. What we have before us is a solution. It's a solution that does put us on a path to deep decarbonization to Paris Accord targets, recognizing that this is a sector that over time is very hard to reduce emissions, but this is the best improvement that we have. It can become cleaner with sequestration and biofuels. That's an opportunity for Washington to continue to lead.

The results of this EIS can actually improve over time, and that is something that needs to be recognized. I hope that Ecology follows through and proves this permit. Let's get this built. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Marren Jenkins

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hello. I'm Marin Jenkins. I live here in Kalama. I am so thankful that we have Department of Ecology to monitor every industry that wants to work in our communities and our states because I remember the days when industry for jobs could pollute the a...↓

They saw the pollution and they said they have solutions. They are the people that said, "Cars don't have to be polluting so much," and catalytic converters were found. What I want to say is where is the point of origin of this proposed plant? It's the oil fields of Canada, who sold their product to the Chinese. The Chinese buy for whatever purposes as an investment.

If the Chinese made it as an investment, then their investment can be used and built here in the US or Canada with where we have more stringent air quality restrictions because we have Departments of Ecology. They don't have them in those foreign countries. I'm really counting the Departments of Ecology throughout the US to rein those in. If the Chinese need to do something with their investment, how about returning their investment to pay off the cost of the degradation from the COVID or the Chinese flu, whichever way you want to put it.

The Chinese do not have to be build out by the Department of Ecology, or America, or American life. This manufacturing that they want to put on is in the most dense parts up and down the Columbia River. This is where the population is. This isn't in my backyard, this is in my front yard, and I know-
No attachments

Comment From: Julia Mottet

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi. My name is Julia Motet. I live in Longview, Washington. The proponents of the methanol refinery would have you believe that the refinery would decrease the amount of methanol derived from coal-based methods, thus creating a net reduction of green...↓

Most certainly, they would simply add the methanol to all their other fuel stocks and coal would continue to be burned at the same rate in China. Displacement is wishful thinking at best and false logic and deceptive propaganda at worst. When you consider all upstream emissions of this fracked gas project is every bit as bad as coal, the very source that NWIW claims to be replacing, this refinery would be a very significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. We cannot mitigate our way out of the damage it would do to our planet. The damage would be immediate and ongoing.

Any so-called mitigation such as planting trees that take decades to grow would be too little too late. Only after updating the FEIF to take into account all upstream emissions can the Department of Ecology make an informed decision. No decrease in China's use of coal-derived methanol should be assumed in the final FEIF due to the aforementioned reasons of no promise and no enforcement. Methanol is a commodity and once it is manufactured and sold, the seller has no control over how or what is its use. I'm also very concerned about additional tanker traffic on the Columbia River and what it would do to our salmon and other native fish.

Finally, I think this refinery is an explosion hazard and too near families with children. All we need is a good earthquake and any safeguards put in place to prevent the methanol from coming in contact with oxygen will be breached.
No attachments

Comment From: Kimberly Parks

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, my name's Kimberly Parks. I've been a resident of both Oregon and Washington and considered both states to my home. I want to thank Ecology for their due diligence in vetting this project and taking the time to hear from the people in Cowlitz Cou...↓

This isn't about single-use plastics like water bottles, this is about items we use every day like the devices we are using on this call and the PPE our medical people are using to save lives and battle COVID. Items that are essential, so where is the balance? Where is the science? The science is right in front of us. The data that Ecology is providing us. I support this project because it's going to take many different angles and solutions to get us to net-zero GHG by 2030. If this project by end of it NWIW is going to help get us there, I'm for it. It's going to bring an alternative to coal, I'm for it. It's going to bring local jobs to Kalama, I'm for it.

If this cleaner way forward will help produce greener materials for us that we demand like wind turbines and other important equipment that American benefits from, I'm for it. All industries are going to have to do their part in being part of the solution. I like for all of us to see the science for the positive and work together to keep this project green, clean, and setting standards with the world to see it as possible. United we stand, divided we fall. The world is counting on us to lead. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Rachel Hogan

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hello, this is Rachel Hogan my phone. I am a resident in Washington State on the unseeded land of the Duwamish and Coast Salish people. Regarding Ecology's economic models, these assumptions about the future of fossil fuel use and global methanol mar...↓

They were at $250,000 a day stuck out there at sea trying to find a place to store it, they were the storage. If you haven't seen those images, check it out. Once quite recently, a barrel of oil in Canada fetched about the same price as a beer there. In some cases, they paid to have people just take the oil so they wouldn't have to shut off the wells.

During this pandemic, the same extractive industry CEOs received millions in massive coronavirus bailouts from the federal government, while our economic systems are in failure, while our families are struggling to meet our basic needs.

I reiterate the comment that in your draft EIS, methanol production and projection is based on static and not the dynamic analysis which is needed since not just our awareness is changing so quickly but the reality is. As a key element in your presentation, something like methanol market is increasing its capacity to meet the demand, that's a business argument, a seller's argument made by desperate entities. Surely not through a lens of ecology, the definition of which is the branch of biology that deals with the relations of organisms to one another, and to their physical surroundings.

When we talk about fish habitat, degradation of soil, earthquake risk, on and on, air, water, food sources, social justice, all these things like cancer and health, we're talking about ecology to Ecology. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Leonard

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, I'm Linda Leonard, I am Kirk Leonard's wife. We are residents of Kalama. I thank you for giving the public the opportunity to make comments. Industry is a major

contributor to climate change. The more fossil fuels are extracted and burned, the mor...↓

The proposed methanol refinery in Kalama would increase greenhouse gas emissions with Washington State by almost one million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year. Our climate future is at stake with this project. We will be handcuffed to this dirty fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 40 years.

It seems Kalama has everything to lose from this venture, and Northwest Innovation Works LLC, the new company backed by the Chinese government will reap the rewards. What a price the citizens of this area will pay. Please deny the shoreline permit and thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Ivan

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Mark Ivan and I live in near Kalama. Many of my neighbors are fishermen, but not many fish are being caught these days. In my quest to bring facts to the table, I read many peer-reviewed research papers on the aquatic biodiversity of our o...↓

As of August 12th, all sockeye, chinook, pink chum, and chum salmon fisheries are below projections with some areas completely closed to commercial fishing. This could happen to us and probably will. I reviewed the 2019 and 2020 Washington Coho Forecast Summary published by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The forecast and actual returns for hatchery and natural coho salmon went from a little over two million in 2019 to just under one million forecasted in 2020, less than half. Runs will likely be just about 50% of the 10-year average. Every production unit is forecasting significantly fewer natural fish.

Although this is a snapshot and only represents 1 of the 19 species, the running 10-year average indicates nearly all species of salmon and steelhead are in decline. Many species will be on the edge of extinction by 2050 as a result of climate change, and here we are still considering the approval of a shoreline permit that will speed up global warming. I'm shocked, what are we thinking? I hope you see the SCIS for what it is. It's a scheme that under reports GHGs, sells the local jobs now for a climate emergency in the future that cannot be avoided anyway. Therefore, it is unacceptable outcome.

If this plan is approved, the port decline will be there ring in the bull's nose waiting to be pulled a sign of discretion. Please deny the shoreline project.
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Horst

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
 My name is Linda Horst at Newcastle. I find it unsettling that even though Ecology found NWIW's 2018 mitigation proposal inadequate, this 2020 version has not been significantly improved. Misleading and concerning, and its reliance on speculati...↓

No mitigation will stop the pollution and environmental degradation inflicted upon Washington's current and future generations by this refinery. Also disgusting is the much height net green project mantra. If this refinery is the environmental panacea in Northwest Clinton NWIW claims it to be, why is every Northwest environmental organization opposed to it?

As a 30-year area resident and lifetime Washingtonian, this refinery hits painfully close to home. If built, my family and hundreds of thousands of people like us will be forced to endure the myriad negative impacts of this dangerous polluting behemoth for the rest of our lives.

As Governor Inslee said, "We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and the last generation that can do something about it. Now is the time to act." Our governor is right. Stop the madness, deny the permit. Thank you very much for the time.
No attachments

Comment From: Audrey Not Provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Hi, my name is Audrey and I'm a high school junior. I'm currently living in Kalama and I'm less than a mile away from their project site. I'm very concerned for our environment and I'm actively engaged in environmental awareness clubs and movements i...↓

In the meantime, while we continue to study this, climate change keeps happening and the science shows that every year we delay this project is another year we allow more carbon to be added to our planet. We must act now in order to address climate change. This project is an important step to doing that. Additionally, thank you to the Department of Ecology for the extremely thorough report. Climate change is real and change requires bold and meaningful action. Even this more conservative study sets a clear picture for the benefits for this project on both a statewide basis and globally.

Opponents of this project have slow progress and delay positive impacts by denying science. If Ecology's best estimate is to be believed, then the four-year delay caused by opponents of this project has the effect of adding a cumulative of a total of 24 million tons of GHGs into the atmosphere. I believe Washington state can and should set the highest standards and lead other states, our nation, and other nations. To the Department of Ecology, please approve this project as a great example to drive those high standards.
No attachments

Comment From: 350PDX (Janine O'Rourke)

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Thank you to the Department of Ecology for holding these hearings. My name is Dineen O'Rourke and I'm the campaign manager for 350PDX, a grassroots organization working for climate justice in Portland, Oregon, and beyond. On behalf of over 8,000 supp...↓

The SCIS is full of flawed arguments, false choices, low-balled estimates of emissions, and industry talking points. It's disappointing. The core argument that methanol could displace dirtier energy presents a false choice among all bad options, and fails to consider whether cleaner energy technologies may dramatically displace the need to use methanol for transportation fuels. NWIW will also use up to 320 million cubic feet of gas per day, and it will drive additional fracking and methane leakage across the continent.

Given these uncertainties, Ecology should base its decision making on the assured dramatic pollution from fracking gas, producing and refining methanol, and burning or using methanol to make plastics. The rest is largely speculation. It is downright embarrassing that while this region is on fire, about thousands of people have entirely lost their homes and while millions of us breathed in the worst air quality in the world for over a week, Ecology is even considering these speculative claims to build new fossil fuel infrastructure. The climate crisis is here.

Building this refinery would be breaking Washington's own climate goals and moving us in the exact opposite direction. Ecology, do the right thing and deny the shorelines permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Not provided Not provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Nick's emissions analysis shows that this is a good deal because the project emits fewer outrageous numbers of tons of greenhouse gas compared to even more outrageous coal sources, but to get there, we've got to assume the doomsday scenario, that for...↓

Two, in the next 40 years, we can, with certainty, predict Chinese manufacturing, trade, and environmental policy, tech development, and global commodity markets. Three, the next 40 years no coal-based competitors will produce methanol because they feel the Kalama plan and operation they'll fold their tents knowing methanol consumption will be a fixed amount. It is so divisive to this community for Ecology to promote this project as one that reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The fact is the low-cost methanol that applicant sells into the global market will affect demand, will affect price, and will affect supply.

Actually, it's going to incentivize other methanol plant production. They won't at all displace coal, but instead will displace renewable energy sources, and you're low-balling the amount of methane that will be released. The bottom-up method of measuring methane relies wholly upon the gas industry granting permission to measure where they want us to measure. There's zero independent verification. We're talking 40 years of this production to distribution gas highway. Blowouts will occur. They're inevitable. Just one gas well in Belmont, Ohio in 2018 blew up and spewed more methane in the air in 20 days than Europe did in an entire year.

Bottom-up measuring completely depending on gas industry-- Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Teresa Purcell

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Teresa Purcell and I was born and raised in Cowlitz County, and moved away for 26 years, and moved back 13 years ago. I have been astounded at the despair of the county and the fact that we haven't been able to build anything in 30 years. ...↓

I don't hear looking for investments in creating jobs while we're actually tackling the climate crisis. I don't hear excitement about the fact that this project has actually committed to zero liquid discharge and ultra-low emission technology, which sets a new industrial standard for Southwest Washington where we can become an innovation zone, where the things that we do here can become creating the products of the future that are created with clean energy.

The conversation about using and creating a market for renewable natural gas, which is something that we actually do want to see happen, and also looking at the fact that we're running out of time and saying no to things that actually make a meaningful difference is not a solution. Please, I ask you, and I thank the Department of Ecology for their thoughtful work, but I ask you to move forward with this project and support it. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Not provided Not provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Thank you. My friend Bill Brake worked in the petroleum and gas industries for about 35 years, used to testify as an expert witness, and he was aware of this facility which was under discussion before he died. One of the things that he pointed out is...↓

This is an experimental design and it is hazardous in the extreme, and I do not believe people have been considering the added greenhouse dangers of accidents that could so easily happen with an untried facility. There is, I understand, a similar one in Australia, but this would be no. Anyway, I want to point out that as good as the promotion work sounds, methanol is a far more effective greenhouse gas, it's 86 times as bad as carbon dioxide in the short term, and, friends, all we have is the short term. As far as jobs, the industry does not have our best interests at heart. They're going to bring in people from Texas and Oklahoma. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Not provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Thomas, I'm a lifelong Washingtonian. When faced with facts, wise people listen, they evolve, they show an openness to science. The value of science is that it doesn't care about our politics or opinions, it just tells us what works. Six y...↓

I've heard several well-intentioned people during these hearings express their opinions, and it is clear that those opinions are deeply held, but even the strongest held opinion is no match for facts and science. Here's an example. I've heard some people expressing opinion that China's use of coal will unquestionably decline as a direct result of the country signing the Paris climate accords. While I do wish that would be the case, the fact is that China is expanding its coal plant capacity right now at the fastest rate since 2015.

According to survey data published this June by the Global Energy Monitor and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, the only way to enact the goals established in the Paris climate accord is to look at facts like these, use rigorous and comprehensive scientific analysis like we find in the draft FSEIF, and when that science gives us an opportunity to reduce global GHGs by over six million metric tons annually, we have to say yes. To not do so is to do miserable harm to our planet, and that's not speculative or hypothetical even if it challenges somebody's strongly held belief. To be clear, the status quo isn't working. The only thing we can do is trust back to the science which the draft FSEIF accurately does.
No attachments

Comment From: Alicia Not provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Yes. My name is Alicia and I'm a high school sophomore. I'm currently living in Kalama which is less than a mile away from the project site. I'm very concerned for environment and I'm actively engaged in environmental awareness clubs and movements in...↓

This is true under even the lowest ranks of [inaudible] presented in colleges. According to those reports best estimates, NWIW would produce a global net reduction in greenhouse gases of over six million metric tons per year, approximately twice the amount of greenhouse gases the entire city of Seattle produces annually.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Not provided

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Brian and I have a couple of people here who want to say that we want to have access to clean materials. One, two. We want clean material. Those are my kids who are tired of their toys being made of coal from China and would like to have a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Johnson

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
My name is Jim Johnson, I've lived in Woodland area with my wife and raised our kids here. I've been here 54 years, time moves when you're having fun. That's where we are. I want to say that environment is important for us in our family. All our thre...↓

I want to say also that we have a number of people that we associate with in the local area, and we have a lot of favoritisms for the project and the opportunities that bring us, and I think it has assets that a lot of people want to pass by jobs, clean air in the future. I think that inaction on making this a goal is we got to get it and get it going soon. I thank you for your time. Goodbye.
No attachments

Comment From: Elaine Fischer

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Chuck Graver

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Hoa P

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Jacqueline Jeffers

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Sue Thompson

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Shelly Ackerman

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO WAY to Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Cathleen Burns

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Wasgatt

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Janet Marx

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Shirlee Tan

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Please: Let's not have a methanol refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Carla Moschetti

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Snouffer

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Cheryl Wheeler

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Julia Masura

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Betti Johnson

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: Please: Let's not have a methanol refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Marie Long

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Ruth Kram

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Dell Goldsmith

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Brunton

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Kimberly Seater

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Sentesy

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: John Keiser

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Talmon Glidden

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Scharin

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Miranda Schmitz

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Allison Fradkin

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Teresa McFarland

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: lorraine foster

9/22/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]