Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Nick Engelfried

9/22/20 @ 1:15 PM
Dear Washington Department of Ecology,

After attending today's webinar on the Kalama methanol facility, I believe the logic used in the EIS to calculate the global lifecycle carbon footprint of this project to be fundamentally flawed. We cannot assume...↓

I urge you to consider why it is that Chinese companies would buy imported methanol from the U.S. in the first place? Clearly, they would only do so if it is a cheaper option than purchasing methanol made closer to home. If U.S.-imported methanol is unavailable, using the product will become more expensive and less attractive, changing the economic calculus of whether it makes for companies to engage in activity that emits greenhouse gases. A product that is readily available on the international market is much more likely to be consumed than one which few countries are producing, and this applies to methanol. By adding to the number of new facilities dumping methanol on the market, we can expect Washington will contribute to more global methanol consumption and increased carbon emissions.

Furthermore, I question whether it is at all possible to calculate how the Kalama methanol facility will impact the decisions of governments and major corporations decades from now, during a time when the world is undergoing a transition to clean energy. Energy markets are changing so fast that assumptions made today may not hold true five years from now, let alone ten, thirty, or forty years into the future. Major oil companies like Shell and BP are planning for a post-oil future. Entire nations, including Asian countries like South Korea, are undertaking efforts to transform their economies in order to move beyond fossil fuels. It is certainly possible, and arguably likely, that China's economy will undergo a similar transformation sometime in the next few decades as renewable energy becomes cheaper and the costs from burning fossil fuels become ever clearer. Just recently, the Chinese government indicated it is considering significantly increasing its renewable energy targets for the next five years.

As countries are hit by more and more extreme weather events and other "natural" disasters linked to climate change, it can be expected that they will ramp up investments in green technology to a degree that would seem unimaginable today. Given the likelihood of this scenario, we cannot assume the demand for methanol produced at the Kalama facility will exist ten years from now or that it will be met by another project if this facility is not built. More likely, the plant will become a stranded asset making a product for a market that no longer exists.

What does seem convincing in the EIS are the numbers showing that here in Washington, carbon emissions will go up if the Kalama facility is built. While we cannot say with any degree of certainty how our actions will or will not affect market players in China, we can reduce our own carbon emissions and set a positive example for the rest of the world. In calculating the carbon footprint of the Kalama project, I urge DOE to focus on this reality rather than making speculative assumptions that "prove" producing more fossil fuels will somehow result in fewer carbon emissions.

Thank you for considering this comment,

Nick Engelfried
1205 N. State Street
Bellingham, WA 98225

No attachments

Comment From: Julie Goebel

9/22/20 @ 1:14 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: Daniel Gassenberg

9/22/20 @ 1:10 PM
My name is Dan Gassenberg. I live in Richland Wa. I am a 25 year member of the Boilermakers union local 242.
I am 100 percent in support of the proposed Methanol project in Kalama Wa. The construction of this project will provide many good paying jobs...↓
I ask the Department of Ecology to approve this permit. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Emily Wing

9/22/20 @ 1:03 PM
I STRONGLY oppose the development of a natural gas-to-menthol production plant. Our planet is on the very brink of environmental collapse, as we have felt keenly these past few weeks in Seattle. It is long past time to move on from harmful and pollut...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Liam Doucet

9/22/20 @ 12:56 PM
My name is Liam Doucet, I am 18 years old and here on behalf of myself & my family who live in the city Portland, Oregon. That said I do hold a volunteer position at Historic Pearson Air Field in the city of Vancouver Washington.

I am here because I s...↓

The suggestion that I can offer to you is to look at how much the study is missing key scientific information which shows how much of a danger to the environment that the refinery will pose. Including the energy required just to keep the refinery in operation & the emissions that will release. Especially the emissions released gas fracking. No new jobs will come out of the refinery instead positions will open to already existing employees. Any new jobs that will be created will last for only two years per hired group of employees. This refinery is not "progress" toward a better America, if anything it is slowing progress to the America we need. A clean, non wasteful, & non destructive America that doesn't rely on harmful plastics & dangerous fuels, and respects the land it was built on.

Thank you for listening to my testimony, and I hope you decide against building this refinery on this beautiful land belonging to wonderful human beings. To those approving this refinery I encourage you to take account of every single emission released, contamination of land, & disaster that will be related to the refinery whether direct or indirect. You'd be surprised how much crucial information has been left out of this study. Attempting to replace chemical refineries in the People's Republic of China with other chemical refineries here in the United States of America does not solve climate change, it only increase & changes the source of it.

No attachments

Comment From: Beth Levin

9/22/20 @ 12:55 PM
I oppose the refinery. The factory will kill jobs in tourism and agriculture because it will increase pollution which increases climate change. Climate change and global warming cause pandemics and increased wildfires here on the west coast. Burning ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Meredith Long

9/22/20 @ 12:44 PM
I am writing to the Department of Ecology to ask that you deny the permit for the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export facility to be sited in Kalama, WA.

This facility, like others which refine methanol, will require large amounts of energy to oper...↓

The Chinese can say anything they want about mitigation but their plans are so vague that there will be no way for our government to verify that they are not meeting their obligations to mitigate the pollution this refinery will bring.

The fires this year should wake up anyone who does not believe climate change is already happening. We cannot afford the continuous use of fossile fuels that this plant would use to be the source of power and manufacturing for plastics.

I want my grandchildren and great grandchildren to have a clean environment. I strongly urge you to deny this project for good!

Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Blake

9/22/20 @ 12:36 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: Ruth Kendall

9/22/20 @ 12:30 PM
My name is Ruth Kendall. I am a member of the Longview City Council. I think that the NWIW is an important opportunity that will provide a much needed economic boost to our community.

I am also a retired chemical engineer. I had the good fortune to...↓

I am also very concerned about our environment. We live in a beautiful area that we need to protect. I am glad to live in the state of Washington that has stringent environmental laws designed to ensure we do this. NWIW has demonstrated its commitment to meeting and exceeding these expectations.

I feel strongly that the NWIW project would be good for our community. It will provide much needed jobs. The project will continue a tradition of industry for area while protecting our environment. I urge you to allow this facility to be built.
No attachments

Comment From: Caleb Warden

9/22/20 @ 12:11 PM
Having spent my whole life here in the PNW, I know just how valuable our beautiful lands are. From the mountains, to the deserts, to the oceans, to the forests, we certainly have an abundance of natural beauty worth fighting to the death to protect f...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Markus Boos

9/22/20 @ 12:11 PM
My name is Markus Boos, and I am a pediatrician and scientist in Washington. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Department of Ecology and provide my thoughts on Northwest Innovation Works' proposed fracked gas-to-methanol refinery.

Simply put...↓

As a physician, I would like to address the health effects that would result from construction of this refinery. What the Environmental Impact Statement does not directly address are the indirect costs that will occur secondary to this refinery's adverse effects on human health locally.

In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a detailed report summarizing the devastating effects of human-driven climate change secondary to the combustion of fossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gases. These consequences include both economic and health impacts from natural disasters, sea level rise and the effects of extreme heat on changing ecosystems that will be unable to support human life. To mitigate these catastrophic impacts, the IPCC demands that we reach and sustain net zero greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible. Fundamentally, the permitting and building of this refinery runs contrary to that goal and no amount of greenwashed messaging about "carbon emission savings" associated with this project can contradict this fact.

We are experiencing the health effects of unabated greenhouse gas release today, and these will only worsen exponentially with time. Deaths from heat stroke, natural disasters including hurricanes, floods and wildfires, and heat-sensitive infections such as Vibrio are already increasing in our backyards, and worldwide. As a pediatrician, I also recognize the local, longitudinal health effects of pollution and climate change secondary to greenhouse gas emissions from refineries such as the one in question, which include a greater incidence and severity of atopic dermatitis, asthma and other respiratory illnesses secondary to polluted air (which is compounded by climate change-driven mega wildfires that we are currently experiencing).

I also witness first hand the persistent, detrimental mental health effects on those who experience natural disasters or scarcity as a result of these emissions and subsequent climate change. We know that, unfortunately, all of these consequences disproportionately affect children and the elderly, leading to a worsened quality of life and increased healthcare costs over an individual's lifetime. These enormous costs will ultimately fall on our woefully unprepared healthcare system and they MUST be considered in any impact assessment.

I implore the state to deny the permit for the construction of Northwest Innovation Works' proposed fracked gas-to-methanol refinery. Our health, our lives and our children's future depend on making decisions that transition us away from fossil fuels and towards a renewable energy future.

Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: David Radtke

9/22/20 @ 12:01 PM
My name is David Radtke. I am a union member of IBEW local 48. I am a journeyman electrician, rural resident and have lived in the greater Portland area my whole life. We work on many solar, wind and hydro projects in Washington and Oregon. I underst...↓

Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Dorethea Simone

9/22/20 @ 11:58 AM
I am a Retired Registered Nurse and a Grandmother and am writing this on this First day of Autumn, the strangest Fall in years. We have signs and symptoms of Climate Changes on display all across the USA from fires to floods and record breaking tempe...↓
Methanol is poison so we do not need more of it in our environment.
No attachments

Comment From: Neil Smith

9/22/20 @ 11:41 AM
I am a climate analyst and risk management expert for the DoD. This is not a valid environmental assessment and focuses our resources on furthering greenhouse gas investment rather than the development of renewable energy sources and ecologically so...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Vikki Anonymous

9/22/20 @ 11:38 AM
My name is Vikki and I am a new resident of Kalama and Cowlitz county. I am asking the Department of Ecology to reject this project.
I am greatly disheartened to see that state and county officials clearly have no interest in protecting the residents ...↓

NW Innovation Works is a dubious company that is primarily backed by the Chinese Government and, according to documents obtained by OPB, has been telling different stories to different interest groups. While it has been telling Washington officials that this plant would mainly produce plastics, it has been telling Chinese investors that it will play a large role in feeding China's insatiable fuel appetite. Company stakeholders are lying to U.S. officials and fully intend to use this plant primarily for burning fuel, making this environmental assessment invalid.

Another issue is that the current pipelines that transport methane gas from Whatcom County lack the capacity to supply the plant. This means that an entirely new pipeline would need to be built along the length of I5, requiring the use of Eminent Domain to remove citizens from their homes and significantly increasing the risk of methane leaks. According to a study done by the Environmental Defense Fund, a methane leak rate of even 3% would result in significant climactic damage. There are no reliable studies that show that any methanol company has been successful in limiting these leaks and even the current DEQ study has estimated a leakage rate of at least 3% or about 9 million cubic feet of methane per day.

Furthermore, this project is a dud and will not lead to long-term job growth or stimulus. Countless economists and studies have shown that there is a glut of fossil fuels on the market and so many of them are struggling to be profitable that they must rely on tax-payer subsidies. NW Innovation is no different and has already applied for a $2 Billion loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy. By the time this plant comes online, it will be losing money, leaving U.S. Taxpayers with the bill. Fracking and gas is on its way out, we should not be part of a dying and destructive industry.

Finally, Methanol is a highly toxic, flammable, and volatile compound. It is not only capable of causing an explosion that would destroy the town of Kalama, but loose Methanol can also cause toxic gas vapor clouds that can travel with the wind. Causing nausea, vomiting, ocular injury, and muscle spasms. As massive wildfires become more common in this state, do we really want to add methanol fuel to the fire?

No attachments

Comment From: Thi Doan

9/22/20 @ 11:35 AM
I am 100% opposed to this Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility due to the massive negative impact on the climate, and not to mention the local environmental damage and pollution.
No attachments

Comment From: Tess Roberts

9/22/20 @ 11:27 AM
If you call yourselves an innovations company, then try doing something innovative, creative, or new. plastic from petroleum is so yesterday. Fucking do something better with your money and resources. Something that you will be able to proudly tell y...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jesse Chapman

9/22/20 @ 11:25 AM
Washington DOE should reject Northwest Innovation Works' (NWIW) proposal to build and operate the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery in Kalama.

NWIW misled your agency, and the public, about the purpose and impacts of this refinery. I am...↓

The risk to the people and climate of Washington is simply too great. Please keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution. I am counting on you to do the right thing and stop this unnecessary fossil fuel export project.

Sincerely,
Jesse Chapman
No attachments

Comment From: Shannon Milhaupt

9/22/20 @ 11:10 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: State Representative from Dist... (Alex Ybarra)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> My name is Alex Ybarra. I'm a state representative from District 13, which is North Central Washington. Most importantly, I'm an advisor for the energy strategy Advisory Committee, which is tasked with meeting all of the 100% clean bills mea...↓

At the end of the day, the goals will be met. If this plant goes up, the goals will be met no matter if the plant is up or not, but we will achieve those climate goals that have been set in legislature. Another thing that I'd like to also talk about is forest fires. I live in eastern Washington and every fire that comes across, most of them in the Cascades come directly to my hometown of Quincy, Washington.

We had smoke for a week and a half before there was any smoke in the Seattle area at all because the fires come to us. If you talk to the folks that live in Kittitas County, Yakima county in the fire areas, it's not due to climate change, it's due to forest management. We had $65 million set aside to do more forest management which was not passed by a portion of the legislature so there was no forest management to happen. It's forest management that needs to happen to stop the forest fires, not climate change. We're doing something about climate change with the 100% clean bills.
No attachments

Comment From: Althauser Rayan Abbarno Attorn... (Peter Abbarno)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> My name is Peter Abbarno. I'm a small business owner, Attorney, mayor pro tem in the city of Centralia in Lewis County. But most importantly, I'm a father of two young school-aged children. I'm in favor of the methanol facility because of th...↓

I have no doubt that high schools and community colleges will be creating curriculum and programs that complement this type of facility who will need employees with trade vocational training, as well as education in the science and math mathematics. The methanol facility will be huge factor in reducing the unemployment rate in Southwest Washington, which has over nine percent in Cowlitz County, and over nine percent here in Lewis. In addition, ecologies and analysis predicts that the facility will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by about six million tons. That is assuming a large amount of methanol would be used as fuel rather than the intended use without factoring in future technological improvements and additional mitigation factors.

This type of displacement is a positive step towards reducing greenhouse gases globally. Washingtonians want their kayaks, tents, cars, and computers so why not contribute it to contribute to their production here and produce it in a way that will reduce global GHG? The alternative is that those products will be produced solely in other countries without any emission regulations. Actually, this facility is contributing more to GHG emissions than acting on the facility, which would help reduce global GHG and create local jobs. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Daphne White-Hall

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Daphne White-Hall, and I'm a native Washingtonian. I currently live in Lewis County. I'm a young professional and a student. I am very concerned about our economy and our environment, which is why I'm in total support of the Kalama project...↓

However, that is not the case with the Kalama project. Building the project will help a post-COVID-19 economy recover by providing over 1,000 jobs and 30 to $40 million in new taxes. That is outstanding. In addition, it will reduce global greenhouse gases by six million tons. As global demand for methanol increases, we need to have the project here in Washington State with the environmental regulations that we have using natural gas rather than Iran or Russia using coal without the same standards of environmental regulations.

We need to put this good science to work while benefiting our communities. Our families need real jobs and our region and State need real investment. Our economic problems were tough before and are getting worse with the COVID-19 crisis. We need to take action right now. I encourage the Department of Ecology to permit this project without delay. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Markus Boos

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you. My name is Markus Boos. I'm a pediatrician and a scientist in King County. Simply put, I cannot speak strongly enough against the building of this refinery and I implore Washington State to deny the permit for its construction. Based on th...↓

As a physician, I'd like to address the health effects that would result from construction of this refinery. What the environmental impact statement does not directly address are the indirect costs it will occur secondary to the refineries adverse effects on human health locally. In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a detailed report summarizing the devastating effects of human-driven climate change secondary to the combustion of fossil fuels, and the release of greenhouse gases. These consequences include economic and health impacts in natural disasters, sea-level rise, and the effects of extreme heat on changing ecosystems that won't be unable to support human life. To mitigate these impacts, the IPCC demands that we reach and sustain net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Fundamentally the permitting and building of this finery runs contrary to that goal and no amounts of greenwashed messaging about, "Carbon emissions savings" associated with this project can contradict that.

We are experiencing health effects of unabated greenhouse gas release today, and that will worsen only with time. That's from heatstroke, floods, wildfires, heat-sensitive infections are occurring in our backyards and worldwide. As a pediatrician, I recognize the local longitudinal health effects of pollution and climate change secondary to greenhouse gas emissions from refineries such as the one in question, which include a greater incidence and severity of atopic dermatitis, asthma, other respiratory illnesses, which are compounded by the wildfires we are experiencing.

I also witnessed firsthand the detrimental health effects and mental health effects as well. We know that all the consequences disproportionately affect children, and these enormous costs will ultimately fall on our woefully unprepared healthcare system and must be considered in any impact assessment. I reject the permit for this.
No attachments

Comment From: Caleb Ceravolo

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Caleb Ceravolo, I'm a 15-year-old from Ridgefield. The pipeline that is part of the committee today would pump frat gas to export to Northwest Innovations Work, a Chinese company. This pipeline would go through the land that will be seized...↓

The pipeline also leaks flammable greenhouse gas into the area, which the company might say won't happen, but there's a gas and you can't stop a gas from leaking in such a large project longterm. Also, the Trump administration brought down requirements from keeping these leaks from happening. This is deadly for the people whose property this pipeline is forcibly put through on a local level and causes climate change on a global scale.

Also, the wells this pipeline would be pulling from will leak even when the company isn't using them or when the company eventually finishes pulling from them. Even if they're filled with concrete, which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, this becomes a temporary solution because the concrete will erode eventually in 40 to 60 years, when the people who run this company are dead and don't have to deal with the consequences their actions caused.

This will become a problem that my generation has to deal with. We don't even want the pipeline in the first place. In summary, they are claiming you have to choose methanol over coal because of the lesser of two evils, but instead, you can choose no equals. You can't solve climate change by adding more fossil fuels. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Caroline Ceravolo

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name is Caroline Ceravolo and I'm a 16-year-old from Ridgefield, Washington. Yesterday the wildfire smoke again reached our house, making our air unhealthy to breathe. It's better than last week, I guess, when we were thankful that the air qua...↓

I know I'm only 16, but I know that adding methane to our atmosphere is not how to reduce greenhouse gases. You reduce greenhouse gas emissions by pulling fossil fuels out of our economy, not by building an additional fossil fuel facility, to say otherwise is magical thinking. If you allow for this facility, you are helping climate change, you are rooting for it.

When I am the age of our president, it will be the year 2076. By then we will be way past all the deadlines of getting rid of fossil fuels from our economy. Will you still be alive? What areas in the United States will be habitable considering the preponderance of drought, wildfire, flooding, hurricanes, sea-level rise, and storms so intense that we have only seen in Hollywood movies? Where will be livable for me? Because as bad as 2020 has seemed, this will be considered the good old days.

Our atmosphere hasn't even warmed to the degree it will from all the greenhouse gases currently living in our atmosphere. This is what you're leaving kids like me with. I have no position of power, but you do. Sometimes it's hard to do the right thing. I'm sure if you reject the permit for the methanol refinery, you'll get sued, you can make people mad, but at least you should be able to sleep at night. At least you will send my generation the message that you do understand science and that you do see us. You'll be giving us a chance to clean up the messes left by your generation and those ahead of you, because if you allow this methanol refinery to operate, you are burying my future. Thank you for hearing my testimony.
No attachments

Comment From: Phillip Englund

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Philip England. I'm part of Sunrise Selfless Washington, in Vancouver, Washington. As we know, the climate crisis we're in is now undeniable. Every year, it keeps getting hotter and hotter, and we keep breaking heat records to the point wh...↓

A methanol refinery is not the way to do that. All this talk of market conditions, the global market and these graphs, that's a capitalist show game, it's imaginary, it's a mirage. There's no [inaudible], that just because we put up a refinery in Kalama China isn't going to go," Okay, well, they put up one, well, let's shut down a couple of ours", it doesn't work like that. Then we're going to have all refinery going, they're going to have their refinery going, the only thing this does is put millions of tons of carbon into the air.

This is mitigation measures that they say they're going to do are not only insufficient, we don't need mitigation. This is not a step in the right direction, this is not good for the climate in any way, shape, or form. We need not to have this at all. In the strongest term's possible, I urge the department of ecology to deny this permit. This is our future we're fighting for, these are our lives we're fighting for, and that is pretty frigging serious. Thank you so much. I wrap up.
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Leed

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
The proposed methanol refinery would produce millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year for 40 years. 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution per year is inconsistent with Washington's climate goals and with protecting Washington shorelines....↓

The SCIS concludes that greenhouse gas impacts can be mitigated. It relies on Northwest Innovation Works flood speculative analysis to argue that methanol could displace dirtier energy. Rather than engaging in a highly speculative market analysis, ecology should focus on the known pollution that will come from the facility. Nobody knows what worldwide energy markets will do over the next 40 years, but we have reasonably accurate estimates of the carbon pollution the refinery will create. Ecology should not assume that future energy needs must be met by fossil fuels.

The SCIS market analysis presents a false choice between bad options, all of them massive polluters, none of which will solve our climate crisis. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Tina Barrows

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Tina Barrows. I live in Vancouver, Washington. It breaks my heart to hear that there's 15 and 16-year-olds on this testimony asking for us to not fuck up their lives. I have to agree with them and ask to oppose the building of this facilit...↓

Scientifically looking at climate change, we know it's induced by global warming and we will have a huge biodiversity loss and unstable weather patterns, which will eventually disturb the earth's ability to sustain humans. I am a single divorced woman with cats, my only worry is who's going to feed the cats when the shit goes down. I'm asking all of you people on the panel who make the decisions. I know you're doing your job, I know you have all the facts, but I presume you also have children. You might have grandchildren. I asked you for their sake.

Since I have time left, also what hasn't been addressed yet, which I also feel is important, is that building more fossil fuel infrastructure destroys the land, it hurts indigenous people, the most vulnerable populations that we have, and it's just wrong. We need to go forward with clean energy sources or with reductions in our consumption, which is my personal opinion. It's a small decision to make whether Washington builds a facility, but it's going to be on a global scale a large factor, so I'm asking to choose wisely. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hello, I'm Don Seinke, my wife will follow me. I'm a retired physics teacher. In response to all those in favor of the project, we are being given false choices between two negatives, between two unacceptable pathways. Your children's future wi...↓

The emissions from making paper bags are no better. The building trades don't have the right to change this part of the world forever so that you can have a two-year job. To ecology, I say, in your final EIS, please answer these questions. Is this proposal consistent with a sense of urgency and the latest IPCC report? Is this proposal consistent with the Paris climate accord which China signed? [inaudible] clean air rule requires polluters like this on the paper mills on long [inaudible] to reduce emissions 5% every three years, how will this project do that? Will pipeline lakes being monitored and fixed promptly? Exactly how will accompany mitigate their emissions and will their plan mitigate their in-state emissions the first year?

When given a range of impacts, why did you choose the least harmful option instead of the worst-case scenario? The models that EPA and others provide for estimating emissions are notorious for low balling. Will you include methane leaks from abandoned wells? Include the emissions from burning plastic. Most of the plastic that we think we recycle actually gets burned. Include those displacements for EVs by this project and the emissions from trucks working in the fracking fields. Now from my wife Alona, thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Alona Steinke

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Alona Seinke. I'm a retired RN from Clark County and a member of the Healthy Climate team with Physicians for Social Responsibility. What do these places have in common? Pine Ridge, South Dakota. Camden, New Jersey. Immokalee, Florida. Wel...↓

Methanol plants produce waste that poison the air, exacerbating and increasing the rates of asthma. Chronic respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. This leads to lost wages, education interrupted, and increased hospitalization and healthcare costs. How would that be mitigated? Cowlitz County already has a high rate of asthma. The county's death rate for chronic lower respiratory disease is 54% higher than statewide.

According to the Community Needs Index scores, the rates of poverty and poor health, in general, are much higher here than in the state or nation. Kalama is seen as an easy mark for the exaggerated promise of jobs. Please deny this project, do not offer up Kalama for exploitation in the name of profit. Do not allow it to become another sacrifice. The people of Kalama are not disposable. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Diana Winther

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hello, my name is Diana Winther. I'm a resident of Cowlitz County and a supporter of the Northwest Innovation Works Facility in Kalama. I'm also an attorney by trade and I believe in focusing on facts and analysis above feelings when it comes to maki...↓

It is proof that this facility will create a net reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 6 billion metric tons a year. If opponents of this project brought this to me as a case, I would turn it away. Not because I'm a climate denier, I would simply point out that they had already won. It demanded a cleaner project, they got it. They asked for further study, they got it. If it were my job to advocate for a cleaner tomorrow, I would point to NWIW and demand that any new facilities meet or exceed the bar is set.

This project has proof that concerned citizens can effectively campaign for change and they should be proud of that accomplishment, but from the testimony I've heard throughout this process, it sounds like project opponents are simply in the business of saying no. It sounds like they don't believe in the necessity of plastic for medical equipment, like ventilators. That they don't realize that olefins are required to build the wind turbines and the electric vehicles of the green economy we should all be working towards.

Project opponents also seem to ignore the fact that the community of climate exists because of a balanced of industry and environment. We have paper mills and chemical factories and a steel manufacturing plant all within a few miles of each other along the Columbia River. These facilities offer real careers, including benefits that can support a family and provide for a dignified retirement. Unlike the low-wage service jobs that others have suggested are good enough. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Lacey Breton

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
I urge you to deny this permit for the methanol refinery, and here's why. Look, folks, we just lived through two weeks, only two weeks of toxic air and we could see it. We can smell it. We knew it was there. None of us could leave our houses unless i...↓

I've had experience working with community colleges and developing and maintaining their education programs. A program in Cowlitz County at the local University here is unsustainable, both in a steady stream of qualified candidates and in funding. Who's going to train these, "Local employees" for permanent jobs? For those of us who are from this area, I live in Kalama. For those of you rather who support this project, I certainly don't, where are we going to go? Who's going to help us when there's an accident. Not if, but when, because anyone who promises -and we should all know this as adults- anyone who promises that there's not going to be any accidents, he's literally lying because, how can they know? They can't.

I was talking to Rosemary a couple of weeks ago in the midst of the election. I asked her why she was supporting this project and she said she wanted to show that Cowlitz County can handle large and complex problems like this. I had to say, "Rosemary, why do you think they came here when they failed elsewhere? It's because they're looking for politicians who are inexperienced in this kind of project and wouldn't know any better." China has lied and misled about the end use of this project, and that should be a red flag to us all.

Look, I would like a high paying job too close to my house, but I'm not going to ask for it at the expense of the health of my neighbors. I care about you too much to support this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Jamie Weingarten

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Jamie Weingarten, I'm a Kalama County resident. I like to think that I was involved in the Sovereign Citizens Movement, really believe in President Trump, and everything he's doing to fight against China and the Chinese influence overseas. I ne...↓

I just really want to make that testimony heard, and that as true-blooded Americans and believers in this country, we're standing together with all these wonderful folks that are calling in from out of state. I don't typically agree with them, but I'm going to have to join up with them on that. I thank you and I hope that you do what is right, what you know is right, and what we don't know is right here. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Bob Carroll

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Bob Carroll. I'm a member of IBEW Local 48 in Southwest Washington. I'm a resident of Vancouver, Washington. I'm fully in support of this project, and I hope that you will okay the permits to get this project going. The mitigation that will be done i...↓

This is American made product that will be used to make the plastics that we all use. I'd rather have them made with lower emissions and made out of coal. Thank you very much for the work you've been doing. I encourage you to permit this project and let's get it going. It will also provide a number of jobs, but not only that it's going to provide careers. Because there are going to be apprentices that work on this job that we'll go to having 35 or 40-year careers in the construction trades. Thank you very much. Have a good day, and please permit this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Washington State Labor Council (Larry Brown)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Larry Brown. I'm President of the Washington State Labor Council. I'm here in support of the Kalama Manufacturing and Maritime Export Facility. This facility will help reduce global greenhouse gases for products that will be produced elsewhere ...↓

One of the problems that our state has is the uneven benefit of the economy, that [inaudible] project that is going to work well for our rural areas of the state, providing jobs, providing for economic activity, provide for local governments and schools. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to testify tonight and urge your support. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Aedan McCall

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> I would like to say I oppose the construction of the Kalama Methanol Refinery because the project's goal of converting frac gas to methanol in order to export as fuel or for plastic, doesn't serve the interest of people living in and around ...↓

With the analysis that almost a million tons of methane would be released each year throughout the fracking and conversion process, air and water quality would worsen, exacerbating the existing issues that living near a freeway with coal and oil trains traveling through consistently has created. Based on this information, I ask that a refinery ought not be built. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: David Radtke

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> My name's David Radtke. I'm a union member of IBEW Local 48. I'm a Journeyman Electrician. I'm a rural resident and I've lived in the greater Portland area my whole life. We were working on a lot of different projects, schools solar projects...↓

This facility will meet and exceed requirements for clean operation. The state of Washington is going to create something like a thousand construction jobs over a three-year period, 200 full-time jobs, 500 indirect jobs in the local community, much-needed tax revenue, and it's going to be done in a responsible way. I think it's time to move this project forward and I'm hopeful it can be a model for the future of construction in this country. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Christopher McElroy

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Chris McElroy. I am a 23-year-old electrical engineer. I just moved to Redmond, Washington five weeks ago. In large part, I moved here because it's a beautiful natural area and it provides a lot of wonderful spaces for hiking and climbing....↓

the air became so toxic that I feared going outside for almost 10 days.

This is disgusting and embarrassing, and that we have a duty to act. I believe that the current SCIS is flawed because it is based on models that go 40 years out, but still includes significant methanol use decades from now. We don't know what an ethanol use will exist in the year 2060, but this would mean locking a bet that almost nothing will change in the next 40 years.

This is ludicrous goes, against our state goals and sets a terrible example for the rest of the country and for the whole world. The dramatic reminders of climate change this summer are already inspiring dramatic legal action to restrict fossil fuel use around the world and that's likely to just continue and continue accelerating. The bare minimums given by the IPCC report in 2018 require reducing the minimums for fossil fuel use to less than 50% of what it is now in the next 10 years and basically 0% of what it is now in the next 30 years.

These considerations are not included in the SCIS. This represents either blindness to the sociopolitical changes that are clearly coming or a completely disingenuous report. Assuming that methanol use will continue to occur elsewhere at roughly the same rate in the future invalidates this addition to the EIS. I am calling on the department of ecology to reject them methanol refinery. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Claire Richards

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Claire Richards and I live in Spokane Washington. I'm a nurse scientist, a professor of nursing and a member of the Washington physicians for social responsibility. I am also a mother of a four-year-old. My son was born in Seattle and we a...↓

My son has only known one summer that was free of wildfire smoke. This last year in Spokane, the smoke reached unprecedented levels of hazardous air quality. We did not go outside for a week. Even with three high quality filters indoors, we could still smell the smoke inside. Even staying inside, I felt so crummy that I worried I was sick with COVID. Many people don't even have filters at all or were forced to work outside, and this is a major issue of health equity.

Many other low and middle income countries in the world are unfairly suffering even worse impacts that we are. What kind of world did I bring my son into in which we need to live in a bunker for him to be safe? Why don't the lives of children all over the world matter too? The recurrent wildfire smoke has caused me significant anxiety, restlessness, and despair about the future.

All I can conclude is that children and those who love them are simply expendable to our state's institutions and leaders. If they can only continue to extract and process fossil fuels, what is causing the world to become unlivable? The Lancet countdown concluded that the life of every child born today will be profoundly affected by climate change with populations around the world, increasingly facing extremes of weather, food and water insecurity.

Without accelerated intervention, this new era will come to define the health of people at every stage of their lives. When we look at what the science says about climate impacts, we know that wildfires will increase. It's a fairy tale to describe a staggering increase and create greenhouse gas emissions as a decrease in emissions or a flattening of a curve only because it's being compared to a steep and unrelenting carbon permissions. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia River Keeper

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Dan Serez and I'm the conservation director with Columbia Riverkeeper. Over the 40 year lifespan of the proposal, the project will cause the emission of roughly 184 million tons of CO2. That's on the low end. If the methane leakage rate is...↓

Burning all or most of the methanol for fuel is a likely scenario clearly expressed in NWIW's investment overview for potential investors in the project in 2018 and 2019 NWIW spent five years attempting to mislead the public and regulators about the purpose and impact of this project. Only when a potential investor leaked NWIW's real plans, did we learn that the company fully intended to promote methanol as a fuel.

Unbelievably, despite having told this story to potential investors and NWIW still denies it's fuel burning plants. The company even denies these plans despite having announced a partnership with a company that develops methanol burning ships. NWIW asked us to believe the following, it will build the world's largest methanol refinery, promote the use of methanol for fuel to investors, partner with a company that makes methanol burning ships, use these ships at the NWIW refinery, and never see any of the methanol from the NWIW refinery used for fuel. This is absurd on its face.

Ecology should not reward this ham-handed duplicity with a permit. Northwest Innovation Works invites Washington to knowingly and significantly increased greenhouse gas emissions based on the assumption that others will do the same. Yet Washington has stated its intention to work towards reducing emissions and meeting a goal of limiting warming to two degrees Celsius or less.

>> Daniel, I'm going to have to ask you to provide the rest of your comments in writing. You've reached your two minutes mark.
No attachments

Comment From: Earth Ministry (Frank Turner)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
I'm Frank Turner from Olympia. I'm speaking as a member of earth ministry and I'm asking you to deny the shoreline permit for the methanol plant because of climate change considerations. I recognize that the plant means tax revenue and jobs for Kalam...↓

My objections to the proposed methanol plant go way beyond the risk to the shoreline of the Columbia. The plant will use natural gas from hydraulically fractured wells. These leak methane into the atmosphere. They will continue to leak methane after they are abandoned. These leaks will be our responsibility for centuries. Capping these abandoned wells will not prevent methane from moving through the fractured rocks to other uncapped wells or to groundwater. Why should we do anything to support fracking?

At the other end of this complicated industrial process with the products is producing, plastics. We're just becoming aware of just how big a problem this is. Tons of discarded plastic will be our responsibility too. Like the Governor, I cannot in good conscience support a project that will cause so much ecological damage. Our neighbors in Kalama will benefit equally if the land can be used for more eco-friendly projects such as a solar panel manufacturer. Let's move on to something else. Please use your influence to stop this project for us. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Harriet Cooke

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Harriet Cook. I'm a retired physician with two children and my first grandchild on the way. That prospect terrifies me in this time of environmental degradation and advancing climate crisis. I live in Oregon, but climate change has erased ...↓

Washington must hold the line and reject Northwest Innovation Works' proposal to build and operate the proposed refinery. We've heard testimony about the misleading claims and accounting of the projects upstream and downstream and climate pollution. I've heard that olefin plastics are essential for the products we deem necessary for a lower-carbon way of life.

We can find alternatives and build safe markets. This will be less likely if we maintain this toxic status quo. Just because there's a market for something, doesn't mean we should continue to support that market. From narcotics to fossil fuels, it's time to change our market. We need our engineers and construction industry to develop renewable energy projects and biodegradable products that do not contribute to life threatening pollution from methane and carbon to plastics and toxic chemicals.

We need cradle to grave responsibility in our industries. Have you seen the documentary Who Killed the Electric Vehicle? The issues with alternatives are political. It's our job to say no, we cannot keep building fossil fuel infrastructure and address the catastrophic climate change.

The recent overwhelming fires and hazardous air we all suffered should remind us how immediate our problem is, for the community of Kalama for our children and grandchildren and for our climate and forests and oceans and famine, we need to change how we do things. We need ecology to do its part and keep Washington on track to meet its climate goals. May you have the courage to stop this dangerous project.
No attachments

Comment From: Emily Chang

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name is Emily Chen. I live in Olympia. I'm a mother of two adult children and was a new immigrant 13 years ago. I worked for a popular school district and was a [inaudible] faculty of CWU biology department teaching environmental study in high...↓

I support this project in two aspect. First, USA has the highest proficiency in technology and high standard regulation in maintaining housing environment. Instead of letting other countries pollute the global environment, we should act to solve the global pollution problem by lowering global greenhouse gas emissions. This project is exactly to do that.

Secondly, looking around our economic surroundings, especially under the impact of COVID. We need a company like this to support our local economy. Instead of passively rejecting all development, we need a plan to wisely use our natural resources for the benefit of our common good. I believe this project will just do that for our community.

I'm in support of the Kalama project. I appreciate the review done by the Department of Ecology. I believe right now, it's time for us to act and support the department to permit this project to proceed. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Heidi Cody

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Heidi Cody and I live in Vancouver. I'm here tonight because I'm concerned about the state of the planet we're leaving for future generations. I have an eight-year-old daughter. I've been mulling about the value of fear recently, specifica...↓

Better to talk about a goal of 2030 maybe 2050, a more comfortable doable guideline. Here's what I'm afraid of, what if 10 years is actually optimistic to transition to carbon neutral economy. The five days we just spent locked up indoors from forest fires smoke make it obvious we need to act now. We have to stop opting into huge fossil fuel based projects. Instead, we need to opt out of them.

We need to act decisively to protect our future while we still can. We are at risk of burning up. This fracked gas to methanol factory is an opportunity to opt out the colossal amount of toxic GHG emissions from this Kalama plant could cause irreparable harm to our environment. Methanol is notoriously leaky from extraction to transport to delivery and refining. It is 84 times more potent than carbon dioxide. All of this environmental damage, all of this risk, so China can make more plastic or is this so China can burn the methanol?

Northwest innovation works is talked out of both sides of its mouth about this plant's true purpose. There is no reason to trust Northwestern Innovation Works. Here in the Cascadia subduction zone. we are overdue for a huge earthquake. We might not be able to recover from a large-scale accident. I call him the department of ecology to reject this methanol refinery. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Holly Masri

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 My name is Holly Masri and my family has just moved to the Kalama area. I'm hoping to have grandchildren here. I want this place to stay beautiful, to stay healthy and safe. I was absolutely horrified when I heard about this methanol and refine...↓

The mega corporations behind this and the people they've hired to sell it to us keep saying that this project is actually good for us. Good for the climate. They're lying through their teeth. The figures show that no matter how you look at it, this project would be one of the worst polluters in the state and that's at best. By the time you add in all the factors, the facility could produce as much as 9.4 million metric, tons of carbon pollution per year.

The project's backers say that this project is safe, but projects like this always have spills, leaks, and explosion. There will be toxic waste to quietly dispose of, and then we'll find out where they hit it decades later. They say that it won't cost us a thing, but already they're exploiting every tax loophole there is and arranging for the public to pay for most of what they want to do.

I call an ecology to reject this misbegotten nightmare of a project. We are already in deadly danger. All of us are already feeling the effects of all the previous fossil fuel projects, which were supposed to bring good jobs and money to our communities, which were supposed to be safe. I'm reminded of the story about the camel that asks to put its nose inside the tent but if you let them nose in, the whole camel is sure to follow. This is not a friendly camel, no matter how big his smile and not friendly not safe. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Satiacum

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Elizabeth Sataico. I'm a full blooded [inaudible] married to a [inaudible] Robert Sataicoand I oppose the methanol plant going up down South. That is South of me. Tacoma refused this methanol plant a few years ago, unanimously. We stood ag...↓

They're trying wherever they can to get a methanol plant in the state of Washington. I refuse to give up and I'm going to continue making my stand opposing the methanol plant. Please, please stand with me and oppose the methanol plant going up in the state of Washington. We are too beautiful of a state. We have too many resources that can be ruined by this. I would like to thank the board for me, trying for the third time to have my say. Thank you. Good night.
No attachments

Comment From: Jane Smiley

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
In honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I thought I should get off my bottom and get involved. Now I would like to offer a quote of Carl Sagan. Anything you're interested in or want to do, is not going to happen if you cannot breathe the air or drink the wa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Marian Fish

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
this is Maryann Fish. I would like for my husband Rick Rappaport, to be able to follow me.

>> [inaudible]>> I'm a retired chiropractic physician residing in Portland, and I am opposed to the proposed Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export ...↓

The Shoreline Management Act states, the SMA establishes the concept of preferred shoreline uses. These uses are consistent with controlling pollution, preventing damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon the use of Washington shorelines.

How can this use possibly be consistent with the mission of the Shoreline Act itself? Words matter. This use stands in complete opposition to the goals ecology set forth in its website that Washington is a national leader in cutting greenhouse gas emissions to prevent climate change. Ecology stands proud to protect, preserve and enhance Washington's environment for current and future generations.

Again, words matter. As far as mitigation is concerned, I don't see how you can speculate about future energy decisions in foreign energy markets. No one can successfully predict the stock market day to day, much less than 14,600 days of this project's length that applicant's insists will be high demand for its product. By the way, they're making fuel like they told our investors are plastics. They lied to you.

>> Maryann, your two minutes are up, it's okay to pass the call onto Rick, but we need to keep everything into two minutes, and additional comments can be submitted in writing.
No attachments

Comment From: Rick Rappaport

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Thank you. I want to touch on two topics that are constant refrain from our proponents, One, we need jobs. It's good for our family, it's good for our economy, good for our spiritual health. The underlying implication, environmental that's the ...↓

We have a common interest in human survival and sustainable livelihoods. An unattributable quote. If God had intended some people to fight just for the environment and others fight just for the economy would have made some people who could live without money and others who could live without water and air. There are not two groups of people here. We all work, we all need a livelihood, we all need a livable planet. We don't address both. We starve together while we're waiting to fry together.

Two, most of the proponents have latched on to the Nick's charts and explanations showing just how much better this is going to be than using coal. It's a hard argument to counter. They're right.

The project would have lower emissions, but comparing two huge greenhouse gas emitting projects to each other, can't be a way to evaluate it unless you have unassailable information that no one in their right mind would claim to have that plastic from fossil fuels is here to stay for the next 40 years, and China will never ever build another coal fire plant producing methanol if this one is built.

Testimony of unemployed trade union workers, tears in everyone's hearts. Stories of climate catastrophe, tears at everyone's hearts. It's not Ecology's job to find jobs for construction trades. That's for the legislature. It's their job to figure out how to support renewable energy projects. Yours is more limited.

Your job is to protect the environment for future generations as stated in your mission statement. Viewing this project is a standalone one and not making these assumptions, the project surely fails by the millions of tons of greenhouse gases it will emit.
No attachments

Comment From: Janelle Rich

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Good evening, my name is Janelle Rich. I am a resident of Centralia, Washington. I'm asking the Department of Ecology to reject this project and permit. While we are trying to move beyond coal, natural gas is not our next sustainable answer. We are i...↓

Fracking required for natural gas refineries is not our safest or cleanest answer to address climate crisis. Methane escapes the atmosphere during the fracking process at underestimated levels, it is a powerful greenhouse gas. There are albeit rare chances that fracking can contaminate our waters. There's also no debate that the fracking process causes earthquakes through the disposal of wastewater back into the grounds.

We don't need to be involved in shipping our natural gases to China while our local environment suffers. That's creating the circle of the same damage and not breaking the cycle. Natural gas refineries are not an unmitigated evil however, it is not our best option to seriously address the climate crisis. We need to invest in renewable energy sources and within that there are the jobs that the opposing side claims they need so badly. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Janet Kirkland

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Janet Kirkland and I'm a proud Oregonian, parent, psychologist, and concerned citizen. I've come tonight to speak for those who can't speak for themselves, the children of tomorrow, the orcas, the salmon, and the earth that we've been gift...↓

This project will be a huge carbon polluter, emitting an estimated 4.6 million tons of climate pollution or more every year for 40 years. It would be one of the top polluters in Washington. It disregards Washington's climate related statutes and goals. The oil change international think tank says more natural gas is a climate disaster. There is no room for new fossil fuel development in the Paris Accord carbon budget.

Renewable Energy is the way of the future. By rejecting the Kalama methanol refinery project, we will be making the ethical choice that best serves future generations. They deserve a planet that is livable with clean air, clean water and a healthy ecosystem. I thank the Washington Department of Ecology for the opportunity to testify and for their stated mission to protect, preserve and enhance the environment for current and future generations. I urge you to reject the project permit and fulfill your stated mission. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you Department of Ecology for allowing me to testify today. My name is Jasmine Zimmer Stuckey. I want to thank the outstanding residents of Kalama and the people across the Pacific Northwest who are shining a light to expose the dangers of Nort...↓

First, I want to say that this project is one in a long string of dirty fossil fuel projects that have threatened the Columbia River. Tonight I hear the same people tuning in to repeat the company line that this project achieves the liminal goal of burning an obscene amount of fossil fuels will also miraculously combating climate change.

They said it about the Millennium coal project, they said it about the [inaudible]>> oil terminal project, and now we hear it again today. It wasn't true then and it isn't true today. Despite Northwest Innovation Works its own claims to investors and supporters. Methanol is not liquid sunshine. It's fracked gas transported by pipeline refined into methanol and shipped to China and used for whatever the industry deems most profitable at the moment.

The only way we are guaranteed to reduce climate emissions is to use our resources wisely and judiciously not allow the construction of new fossil fuel projects that will operate for 40 years or more in our region. Northwest Innovation Works, just like every other fossil fuel company that has targeted the Columbia River in the past decade is selling Kalama a bill of goods and Ecology's supplemental EIS plays right into their hands.

Your study relies on speculative mitigation and an unenforceable market analysis to paper over the impacts of this dirty climate-wrecking proposal. The only way to mitigate this disaster and keep Washington on track to meet its climate goals is to say no to Northwest Innovation Works and protects the Columbia River. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia River Keeper (Kate Murphy)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name's Kate Murphy, and I'm an organizer with Columbia Riverkeeper. This analysis spends far too much ink attempting to paper over the pollution impacts by speculating on even worse pollution ideas, such as making methanol from coal and then givin...↓

The analysis assumes a business as usual approach, barreling headlong into climate disaster when we need bold action to address the climate crisis by rejecting this potential polluter in Kalama. Let's be clear, neither this project nor making methanol from coal are consistent with a low carbon future. Not only can we do better than this, we must do better.

The SCIS is no place for fantasies, and we will not accept magical thinking as a justification for locking us into decades of harmful fossil fuels when better alternatives are already available. There is no evidence that coal-fired methanol producers would shut down in the midst of an increased demand for their product.

What we do have evidence of is that this refinery would be a massive polluter, would require the majority of the gas supply for the Pacific Northwest region and puts our communities and our environment at risk for the profits of international corporate interests.

We have a better vision than this. If building this disastrous project is the best you can imagine for our future for our shared ecology, if you cannot envision the innovation, the drive the dedication to something better, if people in your position are not forward-thinking enough, bold enough, brave enough to move toward a better vision for what we are all capable of, then you will be failing your mission.

May I remind you Ecology is Washington's Environmental Protection Agency. Your mission is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington's land, air, and water for current and future generations. We are counting on you to do the right thing. Join us in envisioning a healthier, cleaner future. This starts with denying the world's largest fracked gas to methanol refinery from being built and Kalama Washington. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Lux

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hello, my name is Kevin Lux. I'm a resident of Vancouver, Washington and a proud electrician working very hard every day in a long view for a brighter future for all of us. As a 34-year-old, I am very concerned for the lack of scientific literacy at ...↓

This kind of thinking comes with what psychologists label as groupthink and confirmation bias. These people mean well, and they believe they understand things but without doing the hard work of real study. Being faced with real science doesn't faze them. If anything, they grow deeper in their beliefs. They stick around with only the people who think like them. They cling to things that they already agree with.

They don't exercise skepticism or healthy doubt. This is scary. To quote the great Neil deGrasse Tyson, "The good thing about sciences that is true whether you believe it." I'm not an expert in the science of emissions, not on the macro level or the micro level and I ask each person listening now, are you an expert in this field? Are you at the level of those working for all of us at the Department of Ecology? Here's some real talk.

The expert scientists in the field-specific to this project have analyzed the data not feelings, and their science is clear. Mother Earth needs this project for her health, for our health. If this permit is rejected, on what evidence-based grounds would that be? Rejection of the permit could only be in rejection of the work of the Department of Ecology because of these experts, and the work that they have done in science, I will follow this data and support this project 100%. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Marianna Grossman

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you for having this hearing. My name is Mariana Grossman. I live in Portland, Oregon. I oppose this plant and agree with the concerns others have expressed about the climate and pollution costs of this refinery. I'm also troubled by the unneces...↓

One example of a community that shifted from fossil fuels to locally produced bio and renewable energy is [inaudible] in northeastern Austria. They had lost their jobs and were very fossil fuel dependent and because they decided to invest in bio and renewable energy, they now have high-quality jobs and clean energy production, a technology research center.

They even had to build a hotel to support visitors coming to study their transformation, and 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 jobs by investing in all of our futures and rejecting a fossil fuel disaster. Thank you.


No attachments

Comment From: Mara Bridges

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hi, my name is Mara bridges. I have lived in [inaudible] County all my life. I am a sophomore at Kelso High School. In my spare time, I'm usually fishing, hunting, hiking, or working outside. When I graduate, I plan on working for IBW as an ele...↓

I have been listening to people on this call that are saying that this is a choice between jobs and the environment, but I do not believe that's the case. I think we need to encourage projects like this that are working so hard to protect our environment and keep us safe. To not build this facility, would only make our climate worse. Thank you, and have a great rest of your evening.
No attachments

Comment From: Meccah Boynton-Brown

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Mecca. I have very big concerns about the impacts and health consequences on the people in Landon Kalama, the surrounding cities and counties, the States, our waterways, and the air where the proposed methanol refinery and any future dirty...↓

Over 10 years ago, my husband was on the Deepwater horizon oil rig when it exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. I want to believe that everyone in this country knows about this tragic environmental and ecological disaster, but surprisingly, they do not. BP, Transocean and Halliburton were responsible for their gross negligence and willful misconduct. They continue to profit in the billions despite their record for irresponsibility.

Almost two years ago, my parents lost their home and every treasured possession in the paradise California fires due to the admitted negligence of PG&E. How many are now relocated, homeless and facing health issues? PG&E filed for voluntary bankruptcy protection and anticipation for the impact of billions of dollars in liability claims for one of California's deadliest wildfires.

PG&E now has more than 50 billion in liabilities, and we know that it will not make the people in the land whole again. This too was preventable. For years, I've sat on legal hearings, government meetings, and going to Washington DC to watch my husband testify to the Senate about the problems with energy industries and the impact. It doesn't take a genius to know that greed is the prominent factor.

Fossil fuel companies will spew deceptive narratives, including promises to ensure responsible emissions and economic contributions that they really can't calculate. They promise jobs, which decline year to year and tax revenues that are usually far from accurate. There are daily implications of pollution and damage, but I'm concerned for the large-scale incidents of human miscalculations that permanently scar our lungs and our landscape.

>> Mecca, we'll need you to provide the rest of your comments in writing
No attachments

Comment From: Isaac Kastama

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name is Isaac. I'm a resident of West Seattle. Toward the end, it's hard to find an argument that has not already been made, but I would offer that the assumptions that were applied to this facility in the report are nothing to take lightly. E...↓

The department disregarded the state's facility plan to use methanol solely for materials and evaluated the use of methanol as fuel. The results of this stress test of the carbon reduction bonafides the facility are actually quite stunning. Every scenario of the clamor facility results in lower emissions than other production pathways and a net benefit in terms of global greenhouse gases.

None of these findings consider the increasing use of biofuels, RNG and sequestration technologies. They are likely to become viable over the lifetime of this project. Displacement theory as applied in this report is entirely appropriate, it is a frequently utilized and broadly accepted means of assessing climate impacts in everything from land use of biofuels, low carbon fuel standards.

Bottom line, this project has passed the climate

test and should be approved. Our impact at global climate change and its influence on forest fires, is not about what we do within our borders. Much like Washington has led with disruptive innovation in software, aerospace, and airports. It's through exporting our goods and intellectual property we create impact. We have a unique opportunity to produce the least carbon-intensive methanol in the world, a major disruption to the global materials market. Let's seize it. Please approve this permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Mirabi Peart

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hello, my name is Mirabi Piet. I live in Portland, Oregon. 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 human...↓

Without Kalama case in this SSEIS, is a straw man 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. It's an outright nonsensical evasion of the climate crisis at hand. It is a blatant greenwashing by the Chinese Government Corporation Northwest Innovation Works. Insisting that 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 change and pollution and use more frack gas and all Washington's gas-fired power plants combined. Any mitigation for environmental impacts and emissions would at best be a tiny band-aid on a gaping wound.

Economic impacts for the next 40 years stated in this study failed to attempt to look at economic impacts of climate change and climate disasters over the coming decades. Please, 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. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Nichole Snyder

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
I'm the mother of a toddler and a Washington State resident. I reject this proposed methanol factory. It will create more greenhouse gas emissions, not lower them. It will have adverse health effects on the local community, and it will have adverse h...↓

There will be accidents, if not at the plants, then on the pipelines or on the ships moving the product. Corporations would rather pay fines than create safe and responsible practices to protect people and the environment. We need to be listening to our youth and reject this facility that will contribute and a huge increase in global emissions. Can you look into your children's eyes and tell them that you did everything you could to ensure that they have a healthy future? Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Olga Levaniouk

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Olga Luvanyoc. I live in Seattle and have lived here for 20 years now. I'm calling on the Department of Ecology to reject the methanol refinery. I think that to go forward with this project now at the moment we're in, is very short term th...↓

When I left the Soviet Union several years ago, I was hoping that should I ever have children, they would have a safer future in this country- than in my native land. Now, my son is a teenager and I see the future of all the kids of his generation being destroyed by the climate disaster we are already living through. They need less pollution, not more. The kids know it, they know who is doing it and where it is happening. This state and this region is facing a moment of truth. What kind of region will it be?

Will we be amongst the innovators, places that search for ways to mitigate the effect of climate disaster and leave without, destroying the ecosystem we depend on? Or will we continue to embrace fossil fuels, until the fossil economy collapses and we go down with it. I don't think you'll will get to a livable future by saying, let us pollute because if we don't someone else will and they might pollute even more.This is not an environmental win, this reasoning is a way to keep polluting forever, because there will always be someone else doing it.

We do not know what China will do. We do not know how much plastic will be produced. Let us focus on what can be done here. I don't think it will serve Washington well to be known as the region of hypocrisy. Whereas the Governor campaigns on climate, even those department of ecology, approves a new massive source of greenhouse emissions. Above all, it will not serve as well to feed the pollution equivalent to more than a million cars per year into the air. This project will not be for the benefit of the people of the State and the people everywhere.

>> Thank you Olga, If you have any additional comments, we'll ask you to submit those in writing to us and I'll go over that information at the end of the hearing. 
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Kullberg

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you for this opportunity to testify in opposition to the proposed methanol refinery. My name is Patricia Kohlberg. I am a retired physician and public health official and a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest. I recently spent a week con...↓

This analysis represents nothing more than business as usual. The analysis makes a number of unsupportable claims, including highly speculative assumptions about market trends. Worse, it forecloses on the very opportunities we have to save our way of life in the Pacific Northwest. First to assume that at most 40% of the methanol will be marketed as fuel is a fantasy. Northwest Innovation Works will market their methanol in whatever way they can to turn a profit, even if that means 100% of their product is used as fuel.

To assume that the market for methanol will continue to grow unabated assumes that we will never have another pandemic. That there will be global economic stability and that the regulatory environment or remain unchanged. Current reality suggests that none of these are likely scenarios. Third and most egregious of all is the total lack of consideration for true alternatives to the climate destroying fossil fuels. Coal-based production of plastics in China should not be our benchmark. Anything better than coal is not the policy that will spare the planet. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Rachael Hogan

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hello, hi, my name's Rachel Hogan. Thank you for taking our feedback and comments here. I really sympathize with Emeka and I would like to thank her for the testimony telling us about her husband working on Deep Horizon and family in paradise fire. U...↓

Until you've actually had that happen in your experience, not just on a fishing trip somewhere else in another state, but where you live. You don't really know what it is you're talking about, in a real sense, it's an idea. I just want to mention that as far as we're talking about making what is the word? Mitigation. for climate impacts and other things and promises about zero emissions on the shorelines and all this stuff. As just people who know how to be around a river at all. By the way, the Kalama River and Columbia River are so gorgeous.

You know that you don't even pee 200 feet from a river, things go into the river, tt's the way that things work. Any industry on the edge of the river is going to end up in the river. That's just natural. Not everybody understands how water works, but that's reasoning, that's rational. The Exxon Valdez when I was witness to the effects of that, and when I was there for what was called cleanup. Their cleanup didn't really exist the way the TV showed it. There were a lot of workers paid to stand around. I didn't even get to what I was saying. Anyway, thank you for your time and deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Erwin

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name is Robert Irwin and I work in Cowlitz County. My wife and I are raising our four-month-old son, and I'm a lifelong resident of the Pacific Northwest. I'm an electrical apprentice and union member with IBEW Local, 48 but today I speak only...↓

Considering the significant amount of international money pumped into this project, it is prudent I think for the department of ecology to request an independent environmental review, perhaps by Washington State University. The greenhouse gas mitigation proposed also has no teeth contractually. The people and governments of the city of Kalama and Cowlitz County won't be able to hold this company to their bad faith promises when the time comes to offset the significant greenhouse gas emissions.

That doesn't even cover the fact that the so-called zero liquid discharge technology touted in this report hasn't been proven. The standards required of our greatest river, the Columbia River also deserve a significant review. It doesn't guarantee zero wastewater discharge into the Columbia River in spite of its name.

The study doesn't address the pending mandate by the Chinese government to require fuel for cars and trucks to contain 15% methanol. It overlooks this while making optimistic predictions of other Chinese actions in the future. That deserves further scrutiny for the sake of my son and millions of other children. I think it's prudent to find this report irresponsible, and we need to reconsider the haphazard assessments for our future. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Anderson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hi, thank you. Hi, my name is Sarah. I am a proud Oregonian, a mother to a young son, and a wife of a member of Operating Engineers, Local 701. I fully support the Kalama project, because it will bring apprenticeship opportunities and family-wa...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Scott Anderson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hello, my name is Scott Anderson. I'm a proud union member of Operating Engineers, Local 701 and I think this project should be approved. This project provides the best technology and cleanest way to produce the products that we all use every d...↓

While demanding that by these products being produced overseas without safety standards, union labor and environmental regulations. We need these products and this project offers a clean, safe, pro-worker way to create local jobs. I live in a small town and I have been affected directly by these fires. The people on here have been saying that these fires are due to global warming, but our community has chased looters in people starting fires for political reasons.

I've seen this small town come from a booming logging community, to a community that has to travel to big cities for work. I agree that we need to make sure that this project is regulated and safe. I also agree that there's jobs helping support families, and without jobs climate will also be affected like my small town. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Cowlitz Wahkiakum Central Labo... (Tara McElligott)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Thank you. I appreciate your time, and the department of ecology's work on this SSEIS. My name is Tara McElligott, and I'm a 32 year member of Cowlitz County. I'm also the president of the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Central Labor Council and rank and fi...↓

For right now, I'm going to be speaking on behalf of the Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Central Labor Council, and on a resolution that we passed for this project. The Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Central Labor Council understands there's a significant value in growing local opportunities for careers that are capable of supporting a family for both the members represented by affiliated building trades unions and the community as a whole. The loss of industrial and manufacturing businesses along with substantial decreases in pulp and paper industry has left Cowlitz County and the surrounding areas with lack of living wage jobs.

Those losses and decreases have resulted in considerable reduction in the available tax revenue required to support schools, parks, law enforcement and other essential services. Basically, what I'm saying is we were in supportive of this project, this not only directly affects us as chemical workers, but also my entire family. My family are all Building Trades, IBEW members, and my current partner is starting the apprenticeship with IBEW. We want this work, we want these jobs. Thank you for taking your time for this hearing, thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Tom Luce

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Tom Lewis. I'm a lifelong Washingtonian. What I've learned throughout these hearings, is that everyone is in agreement on one thing, the status quo today isn't working when it comes to confronting climate change. If we don't do things diff...↓

As anyone who spends time on these issues knows, the air we breathe doesn't begin or end at Washington State borders. We witnessed evidence of that in the last few days with this terrible smoky air. It's a lesson on why we have to look at the net effect of projects on our global environment, especially when it comes to carbon. Which is what project opponents argued when they went to court to get the analysis, we are now commenting upon.

I heard a few people reference the Paris Climate Accords earlier in this hearing. As anyone who reads that report knows, one of its biggest specific priorities is reducing our reliance on Chinese coal production. The analysis we consider today literally shows us a path to doing exactly that. Unfortunately, during the four years, this project has been delayed. China has continued to permit and construct even more coal-based facilities as several surveys have shown.

That's more evidence that we have to do something differently to make things better. To those who support delayed in opposing this project further, please know your actions however well-intended, are adding over 6 million metric, tons of GHGs into our atmosphere every year. If you believe in making decisions based on science over politics and if you believe we have a responsibility to make the world better, including Washington State, then you should support this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Emma Luce

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hello. My name is Emma Lewis and I live in Kitsap County, I just turned 12. I attend sixth grade at my local middle school and I dance in my free time. I am concerned about what my world will look like 10, 20, 30 years in the future, especially...↓

What I hope for my future is that people are willing to adjust their opinions and beliefs when confronted with three independent reports, all of which are based in real science and all of which say building this project will reduce global greenhouse gases. I am in full support of the Kalama project and think the department should give this project permission to continue. Thank you to the department of ecology for putting the data and the science first and many thanks for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Wesley Allen

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Thanks so much for bringing us together and listening to our comments tonight. My name is Wesley and though I don't live in Kalama, I live on the Kalama [inaudible]. Our communities depends so much on this river as does our planet. I ask that e...↓

[inaudible] Alternative to greenhouse gas emission, pollute the air and create earthquake hazards in our community. It would also renege on Washington State's climate goals. Can't we measure this project by what's possible, what's meaningful and what's needed for a thriving Kalama and a sustainable future? Stating that methanol is better than coal orients us to pass inadequacies, but it doesn't help us imagine the future. It might be better to lose an arm than a leg, but that doesn't mean that either is good.

Ecology should focus on the real world known pollution that will come from methanol refinery. Rather than end up NWIW's silly displacement argument. Washington must keep its promise to be a leader in keeping global warming under two degrees [inaudible] further entrench ourselves in fossil fuels. Please reject this project, please reject the shorelines permit. Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: William Glover

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> Hello, my name is Mark Keeley. I'm speaking for my father William Glover, he's 94, and I'll start right now.

>> Thank you.

>> NWIW says, if they get the shoreline permit, 60% will be used for plastics and 40% will be used as fuel. ...↓

This is NWIW's way of avoiding EFSEC oversight. If the shorelines permit gets approved, the foot gets in the door and we get screwed. Let's not forget NWIW's recently amended the dock use agreement with a port Kalama stating that NWIW promises methanol would not ever be used fuel. They flip-flop like a dying salmon, reject this petrochemical disaster. Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Mandy Lill

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Mandy Lille and I am a proud resident of Kalama, who lives just a mile away from the proposed site and I support the methanol facility 100%. Some of the reasons I support this project is, I will list now, jobs. 1,000 construction jobs to l...↓

It also provides something we need, methanol is in so many things we use every day. It was used to make your carpet, you're siding, your flooring, furniture, pet products, the containers your makeup comes in. Your computers and cell phones that you're all using right now to hear this hearing, your kayaks, reusable water bottles, clothing. What about the paddles that may save your life someday at the hospital? If I listed everything, my information here would be endless. Then there's taxes, this plant will bring a huge boost to our area. If this was already built, our new schools they're building right now would be paid for with no new taxing on the residents.

It brings much provided funding to our fire department. People keep asking why we can't do some other green project for environments such as wind energy. Wind energy is a great idea, and I've continued to embrace that but remember those blades take methanol to build. Not to mention they have a lifespan of 20 years, but some are replaced just after 10 years due to wanting larger and stronger designs, and they're filling up our landfills at an unprecedented rate. Methanol is simply supply and demand, so please, let's build this project and thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Yadrick

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Michael Yadrick. I live in Tacoma, Washington where a proposal to build the world's largest methanol plant died in 2016, so I urge you to reject this petrochemical proposal for Kalama. I'd like to believe the Department of Ecology's job is...↓

The company's proposals to build more gas and methanol facilities at the Port of Kalama and also in Oregon remain alive. Despite in May 2019, Governor Inslee announced, "I cannot in good conscience support continued construction of a liquefied natural gas plant into Tacoma or a methanol production facility in Kalama." After, he signed a bill to ban hydraulic fracking for oil and natural gas within Washington State. There is no way to make fracking safe for oil and natural gases source.

While climate-changing methane leaks through pipe and compressor infrastructure that crisscrosses our region. We should not be the end of the pipe for petrochemical infrastructure. We should not accept becoming the next sacrificed zone so we can ship fuel to China. So they can make more plastics that end up back here in the Northwest via ship or bioccumulated in salmon that bring it back to the Columbia River. perhaps for us to ingest.

Plastic pollution equates to waste colonialism. One of the greatest environmental justice issues of our time on top of the climate chaos this gas factory helps create. I reject this proposal on behalf of people who cannot be here, I encourage you to do so as well on behalf of future generations. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sierra Club (Sept Gomez)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name is Seth and I'm an organizer with the [inaudible]. I was born in 1991, which is the year after the Second World climate conference at the UN calling for a global treaty. I've lived through year after year of inaction. At first we thought ...↓

I'm going to be turning 30 next year, and I've lived through 30 years of government inaction, selling out my future. I see my younger peers in Generation Z, facing this realization so much younger than I had to. I want to acknowledge that climate trauma is real. That it's hard for us to tell you over and over again that we just want to be able to live. It's painful to grow up where we know where the status quo is getting us and we see politicians bought by corporations continue to protect it.

The economic analysis assumes the inactions from other countries and then uses that to rationalize in more fossil fuels. No one is buying this argument. Don't base your decision on the assumption that other countries won't regulate their fossil fuels, it's really unfair. We need to trust each other, and we need to act. End climate action stalemate by acting first and deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Bob Kaminski

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hi, my name is Bob Kaminski, I live in Seattle, I work as a mechanic. I read through the environmental impact statement. I think it's just based on this false assumption that the Chinese Government or whoever runs the facilities in China is goi...↓

Even on the opening of a newer facility elsewhere. If anything, they just keep it running so as to pump more our more and more raw materials. I think that's all totally false information and it's not really scientific. It's just a bluff in my opinion. I think it has no place actually in a scientific hypothesis of any of this other project, because like I said, it's not scientific, it's just political. Please I ask you to deny the project. We can focus on putting up new plants for our workers in industries that don't destroy our environment, and also don't put workers at risk of major explosions and industrial accidents. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Phil Brooke

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Phil Brook. I'm a small business owner and one of the founders of the Lewis County Water Alliance. I appreciate the opportunity tonight to comment in opposition to the proposed refinery. Northwest Innovation Works has spent literally milli...↓

Please take this greenwashing with a grain of salt. Realize it was crafted with a single goal of easing your consciousness just enough into believing there may be some benefit to handing over control of our water safety and our environment. To someone who has never built or operated anything much less the largest frack gas refinery in North America. The proposed refinery should rise or fall on its actual merits, rather than how many millions of dollars are spent to disguise it as either environmentally friendly or conceal its risks. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Therese Livella

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hi, thank you for taking my comment. I live Montesano, Washington. I have listened to and made comments regarding Northwest Innovation Works for six years. It is very hard to find and make a point that has not already been made and I know that ...↓

In my 20's I swore I would never have a cell phone, why would I ever need one of those? I learned about the Oklahoma City bombing from a guy who was surfing the internet. That was how I learned what the internet even was. No one knows what the next 40 years will hold. I think it is quite reasonable to say that our plastic pollution will not decrease if we do not start making decisions to make it so. Claiming that greenhouse gas emissions will improve with a fracked gas to methanol plant just does not even make sense, and belittles the trauma that so many of us feel for the destruction of our planet.

In response to those who lament the loss of logging and paper mills in the area. The reason for that is very simple, you cut them all down. Humans have done a terrible job managing our natural resources in the name of jobs, profit and power, it is time to do better. We can make products out of other more sustainable resources.

Until we put a stop to the construction of new fossil fuel projects, we will never open the door for new and innovative technology. I encourage you to deny this project because it has nothing but bad news for our neighborhood. Those of us that live in the area have invested more than this $2 billion facility, we combined are a greater force. I would encourage you to stand up and help us protect our investment. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Hill

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 I'm trying to pull up, my comms having a little bit of technical difficulty. Waited till the last because I feel everyone else has been so articulate, and so wonderful, and informative in sharing their opinions. I just wanted to contribute and ...↓

I've listened to hours of testimony and appeal. I've heard proponents of the project attempt to blame, put guilt, insincerity and hypocrisy and ignorance upon the opponents of the project. For causing not just future, but past years, pollution from China's much dirtier coal factories. Let me ask this, have the coal factories in China signed agreements that they will close when they receive Kalama's methanol? Were these agreements attached in order to support the science behind the charts and the SSEIS? What about the pollution and dangers of tanker accidents? What about the many miles of pipeline bringing in dangerous fracked gas?

Which company is going to build it one with no past violations or accidents, does one even exist? People of Kalama and its environs and the indigenous people whose land and lives this will most affect are the ones we should listen to and stand behind. Speculative and doubtful global benefit should not be upon the backs of the local community, entire Pacific Northwest. The imminent and potential long-lasting dangers are not worth the economic benefits to the community in Washington. The truth is that the vast economic benefit will be to the foreign developer. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Wallace

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you. I'm reviewing the Department of Ecology has taken over this project on the second SEIS and [inaudible] specifically the upstream, life cycle climate emissions of the project. So far, I have seen all kinds of statistics on the tracking, the...↓

To get back to my point, multiple studies have been done on this fuel. It's only 40% of the product, as the total project is predicted to have 60% plastics. I've heard everybody say we all use plastic, and we do, but what type of plastics is this plant going to contribute to? Has there ever been a study-- I couldn't find anything stated in any study pertaining to this proposal. Has there been a study that brings into effect the disintegration process of plastic no matter what kind it is? How is that affecting what's in our food chain? It's poison. If you can't--

>> Gary, we're going to have to ask you to summarize your comments and provide the rest of them in writing. You've gone over the two minutes
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Wallace

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you. I'm going to make a comment. I'm a former [inaudible] and I have somewhat of a different viewpoint on wildfires and forest management and climate change. Climate change doesn't mean that just the forest was mismanaged. It means the wind di...↓

Climate change doesn't mean that we have to all be [inaudible] before we all accept it. Climate change, it moves the weather around. We don't have range of forests, so the legislature doesn't have the backbone it takes to pass the funding that otherwise would mitigate potentially some of the impacts of massive forest fires. We got to look at the big picture, connect all the dots. It isn't just this project. However, this project-

>> All right, Gary, you explained ahead and got it to the two minutes. We ask that you provide your additional comments in writing, and I'll go over that at the end of the hearing. 
No attachments

Comment From: Charlotte Linton

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Charlotte Linton. I live in Seattle. I'm here today to ask the Department of Ecology to reject this project. As a mother of a two-year-old daughter, I'm extremely concerned about the impacts of climate change in our planet and our future. ...↓

You mentioned in the analysis that the emissions for methanol production will be higher if the Kalama facility is not built, but this is purely speculation. In a changing world, it's impossible to predict the demand for methanol and over the next 40 years. Rather than trying to guess how methanol may be produced elsewhere, we should concentrate on what's happening in our own state. This level of pollution is totally inconsistent with Washington's climate goals. We need to be leading the way in the transition to a clean energy future, not investing more fossil fuel infrastructure.

The environmental impact statement mentions that Northwest Innovation Works intends to fully mitigate the impacts of the project. However, this will be accomplished through a voluntary mitigation framework for which there are very sparse details. With no plans for specific projects or measures they intend to take, how are you going to hold them accountable? With so much at stake for our communities and our environment, we cannot simply trust that this corporation will be true to their word. If we wanted to >> curb the effects of climate change, we need to start with our own state and our own communities. By rejecting this project, the Department of Ecology has the power to make a huge, positive impact for the next generation of Washingtonians, help us to protect, preserve, and enhance our environment. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Neal Anderson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
I've heard several people make the argument that we should build this because it would be better for the climate, but if we don't build a massively polluting refinery here, someone else might build one that's even worse. It seems like a pretty weak a...↓

Now, we're talking about building a brand new one with a 40-year lifespan, which means we're already planning to fail. Going forward with this project means giving up on trying to secure a livable future for our children. It means telling the next generation that they'll have to live with ever-worsening disasters because we lack the imagination to do anything other than build more fossil fuel refineries, and try to convince ourselves we're making improvements. It means telling them that we valued our short term economic interests over their futures.

Making a huge investment in a new fossil fuel project at this point would mean we've given up and accepted that we won't solve climate change in time, and so we've decided that we may as well profit from it. But we can do better than that. We can reject the fossil fuel industries of the past and start building a truly clean future in Washington. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Cathryn Chudy

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Ecology did the right thing when expecting NWIW to provide accurate and truthful answers to relevant questions on the proposed facility. The current SSEIS release on September 2nd became necessary when your persistence met the stonewall of a co...↓

A replay of this failure by this company to truthfully factually and adequately answer questions about the proposed facility and Kalama, has, once again, forced you to pursue substantive answers to relevant questions on your own. What you did establish with the second EIS is that upstream, onsite, and downstream emissions will result in an increase, not a decrease and not a removal of climate pollution here in Washington. When the Hail Mary that proponents are grasping in order to make their dubious case with the ecology, involves a diversion from reality by taking us down the yellow brick road to the Oz of speculation and if then, thinking that somehow has been converted into a case for environmental game where there literally factually is not.

Voluntary mitigation may sound reassuring to some, but add on the phrase when feasible, and to the extent, possible, and you have an empty promise that more than likely will disappear into thin air as the profits are pocketed outside of Washington, and our children and grandchildren inherit the climate pollution mess that cannot be wished or mitigated away so easily. You are the guardians of our air, land, and water. You cannot sign off on this proposal masquerading as a climate solution without betraying the trust we and those who come after us, place in you. We urge you to deny the permit and reject this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Joyce Follingstad

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 I am Joyce Follingstad, a Psychologist Nurse, a kayaker from Portland, Oregon, who cares about keeping our rivers clean, keeping our climate from heating up further, and keeping our air and environment pristine for our children and all the citi...↓

I reject this refinery because it would create millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution for its projected 40 years of refining, which will only increase the climate catastrophe that we are already experiencing. I reject this refinery because the methanol that this burned overseas as fuel will come back to us and to Asian citizens in the form of additional air pollution, an estimate of five million tons annually. This is not compatible with the healthy air needed by humans, flora, and fauna. Please do not build this refinery as it does nothing to further the goal of renewable non-polluting energy for the future. That is where we need to place our investments so we can prevent further speeding up of our one and only planet.
No attachments

Comment From: Nick Engelfried

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> Hi, my name is Nick. I live in Bethlehem, Washington. I oppose this methanol plant and fundamentally disagree with the logic of the model we saw during the presentation for calculating global lifecycle greenhouse emissions. We cannot simply ...↓

Oil companies like Shell and BP are planning for a post-oil future. General Electric just announced it will no longer make coal plant parts. China is considering increasing its goals for renewable energy production, and it seems like that has potential to affect assumptions made in the EIS. We should focus not on emissions in China that we can't directly control, projections of wish are based on dubious assumptions about future energy markets and what the Chinese government will or will not do. We need to focus on our own carbon emissions here in Washington, which we can control in which the EIS shows will go up if this plant is built.

In the coming decades, the incentive for countries to move beyond fossil fuels will become even greater as we see increasing numbers of climate-related disasters, like the fires here on the West Coast and as governments respond. Is that reality being factored into the EIS? I don't see how it can be. Again, we should focus on what we can predict and control, which are carbon emissions here in Washington that will unequivocally go up if this plant is built. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Annemarie Dooley MD

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Anne-Marie Julie, and I'm a kidney doctor and a member of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility. I'm speaking tonight because we face multiple crises. The first in March, when I treated COVID patients, many of whom died. Then in ...↓

Yet, inexplicably, I'm having to explain why it's not a good idea to build a greenhouse gas-producing methanol refinery on the banks of the Columbia where I stood last summer with the local community in Kalama. This Refinery will be fed by fracked gas that is toxic from source to delivery. I assume no one listening has seen the effects of methanol exposure on people. I have. It includes blindness, vomiting, and unless I clean the blood of the dialysis machine, death. But somehow we're to believe that carbon-intense methanol refining here is clean because it reduces coal burning in China. It sounds like the same flimflammery that came from Volkswagen when they promoted low-emission diesel engines; it was all an illusion.

To be blunt, the corporation and the paid experts behind this methanol refinery are part of a system of indifference that does not care if refining methanol imposes a cost of methane leaks and air pollution on state residents. Cost including chronic ill health, increased medication use and days lost from work; costs that are never counted because they fall on small and lower-income communities; costs that far outweigh the benefits offered by a small offering of local jobs.

I'm asking the Department of Ecology not to allow this refinery. A facility that would increase greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a future of Northwest skies; yellow with smoke. The Shoreline Permit for this project should be denied. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Rickman

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> My name is Sharon Rickman, and I live in Vancouver, Washington. Building a new fossil fuel infrastructure refining fracked gas is wrong and will negatively impact all of us and future generations. I lived in Western Pennsylvania and witnesse...↓

This EIS statement is misleading and does not address cumulative upstream impacts of all phases of fracking; including emissions of hundreds of trucks bringing in water, trucking out toxic wastewater, operation of compressor stations, and storing poisonous water in open-air evaporation ponds. The health from this toxic fracking chemicals is hazardous to people, air, animals, and land. We need new sustainable clean energy jobs in Washington. Building a new fossil fuel infrastructure using fracked gas will not provide that.

Please do the right thing and reject this proposal and all permits to stop this dangerous project.
No attachments

Comment From: George Raiter

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is George Raiter. I'm a 45-year resident of Cowlitz County. I've served eight years on the Longview City Council, two terms as the Mayor of Longview in the state legislature, and for 12 years...↓

I'm well aware that the social and spiritual health of our community is directly tied to the health of our economy. The approval of this project will both benefit our community and improve the global environment. I believe in some fundamentals; including equal application of the law and the rule of science. The studies you have are mandated by state law and indisputably based on sound science. By granting this permit, Washington can set the highest standard and be a national leader.

The [inaudible] emission technology results in the air emissions being classified as a minor source; similar to a new gas station.

The investment in zero liquid discharge allows no discharge whatsoever into the Columbia River. There's no solid waste generated by the process. Although there will be no rail or truck traffic moving raw material or product, this project will pay millions of dollars annually to the Cowlitz County Road Fund. Global greenhouse gases will be reduced equivalent to twice that emitted annually by the entire City of Seattle. The company has agreed to go further and mitigate local greenhouse gases.

Please do not move the goalpost. Follow the science, follow the law, grant these permits.
No attachments

Comment From: Longview/Kelso Building Trades... (Mike Bridges)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> Good evening. For the record, my name is Mike Bridges. I'm the current President of Longview/Kelso Building Trades Construction Council, and a lifelong resident of Cowlitz County. For over six years, you have heard me and many other local le...↓

I want to go on record that the Building Trades is in support of making mitigation a requirement in the final permitting documents to further secure the positive environmental impacts that it will create. We trust that Ecology will provide the same level of quality oversight for mitigation that they have throughout this year in the permitting process.

Over the years, I've seen a lot of parallels between the work we do as union leaders and the work being done by some of the environmental

groups. You've heard me speak during these hearings while I might not agree with all of the tactics and antics I've seen from the opposition. I know it is a noble cause to fight for the future of our planet and the future of our children, but I think the time for fighting is over. The department of ecology has included everything in this study that those opposed here today have asked for. The project still proves out to be a net benefit for the global environment.

While some of the numbers and variables have changed, we cannot argue the results of the math and the science that have been done to get to where we are now. We have a SCIS that clearly illustrates a huge reduction in global greenhouse gases. I sincerely hope our friends on the opposition side will see the environmental wind that is right here in front of them, the wind that they helped to create. To my friends that still oppose this project, I would urge you to reconsider. There is no one silver bullet that will fix global warming. We must look at things that we can do right now.

To those who still oppose the project based on politics, well, ignoring six years of study and science, I would say your position is disingenuous, to say the least. In closing, I would like to thank the department of ecology for this process and their due diligence to bring this project to the point we are now. We have the ability to make real positive changes while setting a standard for the rest.

>> Michael, thank you so much for your comments. Anything additionally you need to let us know, I ask you to submit in writing
No attachments

Comment From: Vikki Nelson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Vickie and I'm a new resident of Kalama and Cowlitz County. I am asking the Department of Ecology to reject this project. I am greatly disheartened to see that state and county officials clearly have no interest in protecting the residents...↓

Northwest Innovation Works is a dubious company that is primarily backed by the Chinese government, and according to documents obtained by OPB, has been telling different stories to different interest groups. While it has been telling Washington officials that this plant would mainly produce plastic, it has been telling Chinese investors that it will play a large role in feeding China's insatiable fuel appetite. Company stakeholders are lying to US officials and fully intend to use this plant primarily for burning fuel, making this environmental assessment invalid.

Another issue is that the current pipelines that transport methane gas from Whatcom County lack the capacity to supply the plant. This means that an entirely new pipeline would need to be built along the length of I-5, requiring the use of eminent domain to remove citizens from their homes and significantly increasing the risk of methane leaks. According to a study done by the Environmental Defense Fund, a methane leak rate of even 3% would result in significant climactic damage. There are no reliable studies that show that any methanol company has been successful in limiting these leaks. Even the current DEQ study has estimated leakage rate of at least 3%, or about nine million cubic feet of methane per day.

Furthermore, this project is a dud and will not lead to long-term job growth or stimulus. Countless economists and studies have shown that there is a glut of fossil fuels on the market, and so many of them are struggling to be profitable that they must rely on taxpayer subsidies. Northwest Innovation is no different and has already applied for a two-billion-dollar loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy. By the time this plant comes online it will be losing money, leaving US taxpayers with the bill. Fracking in gas is on its way out; we should not be part of a dying and destructive industry.

Finally, methanol is a highly toxic flammable and volatile compound. It is not only capable of causing an explosion that would destroy the town of Kalama, but loose methanol can also cause toxic gas vapor clouds that can travel with the wind.
No attachments

Comment From: Ron Lee

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Ron Lee. I'm an 18-year member of the Operating Engineers Local 701. I'm in support of the project. I appreciate the review done by the Department of Ecology, and I'm concerned about those who want to ignore the science. I believe more tha...↓

Thank you, Department of Ecology. Good work. Please move swiftly.
No attachments

Comment From: Jordan Van Voast

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Jordan Van Voast. I'm a licensed acupuncturist and member of 350 Seattle. I urge you to reject the permit application for the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility, which is based upon a flawed and incomplete analysis of negative...↓

Health experts recommended everyone in Seattle to stay indoors for 11 days. But even with high-quality indoor air filters, many of my clients reported negative effects. How many people living unsheltered died or are still ill from the smoke? Nobody tracks those numbers so we will never know. These fires are a direct consequence of human-caused climate change, and the impacts are always going to be inequitable.

The proposed construction of this facility contradicts Washington State's climate goals and will accelerate the climate emergency. As we enter the Anthropocene, when actions of decision-makers like yourselves will determine whether human civilization will survive another generation or two, I urge you to listen to the cries of Mother Earth. Please act boldly and with conscience to reject this permit. Help Washington State become a true climate leader by exercising leadership while we still have a little time left. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> Good evening, this is Jean Avery, I'm a resident of Vancouver. 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 hon...↓

Several of these natural areas are designated as IBAs, Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas. IBAs are internationally recognized as globally important for the conservation of bird populations. The Washington State Birding Trail includes these IBAs close to Kalama. JB Hansen National Wildlife Refuge, 6,000 acres of Columbia River islands and slews, Chinook County Park and the 1,900 acre Cape Disappointment State Park, Richfield National Wildlife Refuge, 5,000 acres of wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands. Also Vancouver Lake Park and Columbia River lowlands.

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. Thank you, and good evening.
No attachments

Comment From: Marcella Chandler

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Marcella Chandler, and I'm a retired nurse and mother of two sons. I live in downtown Vancouver, Washington just blocks from the Columbia River. The Pacific Northwest and the river have been an important part of my life since I can remembe...↓

We have talked about safety. The refinery would be storing explosive methanol on dredged up sand that has a moderate to high risk of liquifying in an earthquake or exploding in a wildfire, leak, or other accident with the knowledge that there are three schools within the blast zone. We have talked about the impact on our water.

This refinery will use five million gallons of water from the Columbia and Kalama aquifers daily with potentially six tankers per month transporting methanol to China. Spills that will happen deplete water off oxygen potentially creating dead zones beneath them. The refinery will not just affect Kalama, but most of the Columbia River, all the towns, cities, farms, wetlands, forests, and wildlife.

It will also have an effect on the waters and marine life off the Washington and Oregon coast. I can tell you this, if this refinery is built, I will be extremely concerned for the health and safety of my children, our grandchildren, friends, community, and our beautiful region. Northwest Innovation Works has not been honest with us. I ask the Department of Ecology to reject the methanol refinery and deny any shoreline permits for this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Swenson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 My name is Amanda Swinson and I'm an Operating Engineer, Local 701 member. I am the mother of two beautiful little girls and the wife of another operating engineer that works on the Columbia River, maintaining safe travels. I started in the ope...↓

I am in support of the Kalama project, and I appreciate the review done by the Department of Ecology. I am apprehensive about those who are out there that want to ignore the science and I believe more than enough study has been done to continue. I ask and believe that this is the time for the department to permit the project and proceed and move forward with all the benefits it will provide. Thank you, Department of Ecology. Good work, and please move forward swiftly.
No attachments

Comment From: Amy Tejcka

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Amy Tesca. I live in Woodland, Washington about 12 miles downwind of the proposed methanol refinery in Kalama. I am begging you, please do not allow Northwest Innovation Works to build a methanol refinery in our backyard. We have wildfires...↓

What happens to us if the East wind decides to blow fire into Kalama? Why would anyone consider building such a monstrosity in such a densely populated area? Why would we risk our beloved Columbia River so key to the entire Pacific Northwest economy and way of life? What about the real possibility of a Cascadia mega earthquake? What about five million gallons of water the plant will be drawing daily from our local aquifer? What about our sadly dwindling salmon and steelhead runs?

Property values are likely to tank locally, including my own here in Washington if this plant is approved. Folks are going to love the unsightly Clunes of hazardous vapor clouds billowing up higher than those blown from Mount st. Helens eruption in 1980. Who wants to live near that? This proposal is absolutely ludicrous. It's so dangerous.

What are we building it for, more plastic? We don't need more plastic in the world. We need less, and we don't need a methanol refinery in Southwest Washington. My grandchildren are five and seven years old. Please protect their health and safety. It's their air and water we're talking about here. You are the Washington State Department of Ecology. It's your job to protect us. Please do not grant this permit. Thank you for listening.
No attachments

Comment From: Ann Waendelin

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
I'm Anna Vendilin. I live in Camas, Washington, and I'm speaking in opposition of permitting the Kalama methanol refinery. I wholeheartedly support the reasoning of the prior speakers in opposition of this project.

I simply want to add, we in the West...↓
No attachments

Comment From: April Matzenbachar

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 Hi. I'm a registered nurse. I've lived all over the nation. We fought fracking in Colorado as well because what I learned about fracking is even though this company is saying that they're going to have zero water pollution, from the studies I'v...↓

Of course, with this being a high earthquake zone, there's no guarantee that all that pollutant won't come out into the local waterways and air and just really toxify people. Of course, they would lose their houses, not to mention their health. I wanted to say to the people that are in the oil and gas industry, that I do appreciate that you do need a good-paying job, but now's the time when our country we have to evolve, we have to change and support more green industries that get our energy from other sources, perhaps carbon sequestration, alternative plastics.

In closing, I would like to finish this with a Native American comment. We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes the land, whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy, and when he has conquered it he moves on. He leaves his father's graves and his children birthright is forgotten. Thank you. Bye.
No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Bowersox-Johnson

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Brandon Bauersox Johnson. I have been a Washingtonian for four years and before that was an Elected City Council member for eight years in Urbana, Illinois, where I grew up. I'm not just a policymaker, also a father, and I don't want my so...↓

That's simply absurd on its face. The idea that we should build a new fracked gas methanol refinery and lock-in pollution for 40 more years because somehow if we don't someone else will, that's absurd. That's a race to the bottom and it is planning to fail as the earlier speaker said. That displacement is a dangerous myth. It's obvious to anybody, we can't solve climate change by expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and investments. Furthermore, we can't predict as the market analysis does that in the next 40 years, there won't be cleaner technologies that might make plastics or fuel.

By investing now in fossil fuels, we're actually slowing those investments that need to go into cleaner sources for plastics or fuels, those investments in cleaner energy or green jobs to help the workers and communities switch to a cleaner greener economy. Please remove this displacement theory, put that myth to rest. Instead, please give a full accounting of this plant without the displacement and a path for Washington to meet its carbon budget. Please stand with the science, the native tribes, and the youth, the 15-year-olds on this call. Throw out that displacement theory and deny this. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Campbell

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
my name is Brandon Campbell. I'm a war veteran out of the United States Air Force. I'm a small business owner. My company is in Vancouver. I live about six months out of the year on the Kalama River and I'm a lifelong Pacific Northwest center absent ...↓

There's nothing backing up this company and the assumptions that are inherent to it as to the reductions in greenhouse fuels that will necessarily increase these pollutants in Southwest Washington in our backyard. China seems to have a problem with their air quality and we should be supporting China in bettering their local air quality and not to the detriment of our own. These Chinese methanol demands and requests for providing materials necessary to produce plastics can be built in China. They have the technology to build these plants in China. We don't need to be supporting fracking in Clark County and in Cowlitz County in Southwest Washington.

We don't need to be subsidizing our air quality or the Chinese air quality with our own. The Southwest Washington is built on fishing and hunting and also production. I support logging. I support manufacturers but I don't support Chinese air quality being benefited by a detriment to our own. Let's keep tight lines, go out there and fish and that's all I got to say.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]