Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Mark Anonymous

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Mark [inaudible]. My wife and I live here in Kalama. We oppose this project. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the SSEIS. One of the long-term social and economic costs is the KMMEF and other fossil fuel projects are approved. We...↓

We're at a tipping point, and a slower rate of fossil fuel consumption is not going to push all the global warming. We must stop it now. We're living with the effects of fossil fuels consumed as far back as 100 years ago. The last time the earth warmed this rapidly was 56 million years ago. The framework for the economic analysis presented in section 3.4.5 of the SSEIS is flawed. It is focused only on the GHG emissions alternatives. It doesn't address their negative economic impacts on climate change, only the positive ones. It fails to address the following economic costs none of which can be considered positive environmental impacts.

The cost of fighting wildfires and subsequent disaster relief, the cost of lost timber and harvest as a result of wildfires, decreasing timber harvest as a result of hotter and drier weather, loss of commercial fishing revenue, directly or indirectly as a result of decreasing salmon, steelhead and shellfish harvest. State and federal disaster money is committed to, due to the extreme weather events and fishery disasters, repairs to public roads and utilities as a result of extreme weather events. I can go on.

>> Mark, I'm going to have to ask you to summarize your comments in writing and we'll go over that information at the end of the hearing.
No attachments

Comment From: Carrie Parks

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Carrie Parks. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver who knows that 2020 is not an unusual year. This is the beginning of a new normal being caused by a fossil fuel industry which has spent years squelching cleaner technologies. The local tr...↓

Northwest Innovation Works and their supporters are cherry-picking the science they want, which is bad science. To tell us that we're ignoring science is ridiculous. You've heard from lots of legitimate scientists talking about the real facts in these hearings. You can observe the pandemics, fires, floods, hurricanes, droughts, and other effects with your own eyes.

The world scientists are almost unanimous in warning us that climate change is killing our planet, and us with it. We have to stop polluting. You're talking about it being a positive impact on the environment, polluting a little bit less than some other plant that may or may not be there. That's just ridiculous and insulting.

Dumping another million tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year for 40 years is not going to get us where we need to go. The factory will provide good jobs to the local community. That's a lot of what I hear people saying, but you are ignoring all the jobs you are killing, agriculture, tourism, restaurants, the local campground, fishing, hiking, the jobs destroyed by fires, floods, hurricanes, and ocean acidification. Those are jobs too. Those are also people that need to support their families. The choice that Kalama has is not between this plant and no jobs-

>> Carrie, we're going to have to ask you to summarize your comments. We'll go over that information at the end of the hearing.
No attachments

Comment From: Ituna Environmental Club (Ryan Welch)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
 My name is Ryan Welch. I'm the President of Skyview High School's Chapter of the Ituna Environmental Club. It's now the largest youth-led environmental activism group in Southwest Washington. It's with an eye on the future of my generation, and...↓

Ecology's analysis has improved since the initial report, but it remains far too speculative. In addition to the uncertainty shown right up front in the sensitivity analysis, there is a huge unanswered question in the form of burning methane. Northwest Innovation Works originally stated that none of the methanol that their fracked gas facility produced would be burned for power. Now they've quietly flip-flopped, but they haven't provided a solid figure for how much might be burned. We can't afford any increase in co2 emission and the fact that we still don't know what the increase would be is damning. Now, in reading the EIS, it seems like the entire argument revolves around the world having two possible sources of energy, Columbia methanol, or worse sources environmentally, and this is a dangerous false dichotomy. We don't have to accept a future that's powered by fossil fuels.

If the supporters of Columbia methanol truly stand by it because of procedure environmental benefits, then why not go one step further? We can replace methanol in any form with renewable energy sources. Really that is the only choice we have now to avert climate collapse. This is not a complicated decision. It boils down to this. Will Ecology stand up for the health and well-being of Washingtonians or will they bend to the wishes of those who consistently mislead state regulators?

The climate crisis filled our skies with smoke not even a week ago. This project would only accelerate environmental damage to the stage. We're in a climate emergency, which means that half measures won't cut it. We demand a clean future, not a cleaner future. Ecology must reject Northwest Innovation Works' proposal. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Liam Doucet

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Liam Doucet. I am 18 years old and here on behalf of myself and my family who live in the city of Portland, Oregon. That said, I do hold a volunteer position at Historic Pearson Airfield in the city of Vancouver, Washington. I am here beca...↓

A vibrant ecosystem of animals and people both along the Columbia and even way up North, as far as the sailors see rely on the Columbia River to bring salmon, which is now at risk of extinction because of the lower Snake River dams. A methanol refinery built will end up sealing a deadly fate for all salmon either before or when the leak happens. Yes, I do mean when not if. Looking at the history of methanol plants and frankly, all chemical plants in this country, negligence, and abuse seems to be a common factor when a disaster happens.

Unfortunately, not every single worker at this facility will be competent enough to make sure all systems work properly. If I learned anything from what happened 36 years ago in the city of Bhopal, India it's that failing safety systems is a classic blunder that happens with almost all American-owned refineries. At least 16,000 civilians were claimed dead the night an American chemical refinery operated by American workers released toxic vapor into the skies of India when its neglected fail-safe broke. The people of the nations native to Kalama would be the very first ones to be hit by any spill or vapor release which will severely injure and kill thousands of them and eventually even kill or seriously injure a large American population only 30 minutes from the proposed refinery which my family and I are part of.

Despite the country I was born in supporting the finest military in the world, I doubt that they're willing to hand out any kind of modern treatment or protective gear to those who would be affected. To whoever is responsible for the creation of this refinery, there's no doubt that you won't provide for those people affected. You decided to build the largest refinery on earth next to these people and didn't even ask them which says a lot about how much--

>> Hi, Liam, you're going to have to provide the rest of your comments in writing and we'll go ahead and go over that information at the end of the hearing.
No attachments

Comment From: State Representative 20th Dist... (Ed Orcutt)

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
>> I'm Ed Orcutt. I'm a State Representative here on the 20th district. I'm also a resident of the Kalama Community and live just a few miles from where this plant would be built. I'm giving testimony in favor of building the plant, and it's fo...↓

It's been mentioned about the catastrophic wildfires that we've had here. Those have released a huge amount of carbon into the atmosphere and what's even worse, is we've lost the carbon sequestration ability of those forests. That makes it all that much more important that we do these incremental steps to replace what has been lost. Not only is there more carbon in the atmosphere because of the fires, but it's no longer sequestering carbon.

I believe we need to do this to get the benefit in the time that it's going to take to get those forests recovered and sequestering the carbon that they've released, and other carbon it's going to take 40 years, 50 years for some of those, that's over 300 million tons of carbon that will not get sequestered if we do not build the plant. If we are in a climate emergency, we must be taking every step we can and doing it as soon as we can. To me, that says we need to build the plant and we need to build it as quickly as possible. Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Reuter

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hello, my name is Mike Reuter. I am speaking here as an individual and not as the Mayor of Kalama. I have serious concerns that Northwest Innovation Works is not going to be here long enough to be accountable for long term concrete emissions mitigati...↓

My question is, is this really a Chinese-backed company or a group of speculators trying to find enough money to survive after British Petroleum pulled out as their biggest partner? How can the CARES Act loans were given to Pan-Pacific Energy and not for Northwest Innovation Works? If the port and the county really believe that Northwest Innovation Works will abide by the commitments for greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA should be the ones who will be responsible as Northwest Innovation Works is not able to comply with its requirements. If every environmental group doesn't fall for the claims that this company has promised, how can the Department of Ecology do so? Thank you very much
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Scott

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Thank you so much. My comment consists of this. Please just don't do this. I agree with all of the succinct, wonderful comments against it. I'm simply a mom here in Richfield, near Kalama. I support Jay Inslee voting against it. If it's not good for ...↓

Just don't let this happen, I beg of you. I have no problem using pure emotion and beg you not to let this happen. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Elizabeth Theil

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Mary Elizabeth Thiel, and I'm a Kalama, Washington resident. Last year, my husband and I became new parents and we're excited to raise our daughter in this community where the people are friendly and hardworking. This area allows us to be ...↓

Many of these activities utilize materials that are made from synthetics not to mention the clothes we currently wear, the technology I'm using to speak with you now, and the PPE we are currently required for our safety. Stating that we need to move away from plastics is hypocritical at best as I know other items such as car seats, hospital equipment, piping and or tires, just as much as the rest of us do. The materials needed to manufacture these items comes from China and other parts of the world that is out of view from our watchful eye.

We are presented now with an opportunity I cannot ignore to make a positive impact in our world to reduce GHGs. Just as the smoke from our fires in our region spread around the world so does the pollution created from the production methods currently used around the world. I support Northwest Innovation Works and their project. Their project puts the town of Kalama and the State of Washington in a position to be a leader in creating cleaner resources with technology that is groundbreaking while creating a cleaner world.

If Northwest Innovation Works project hadn't been delayed these past four years, and when the Department of Ecology's best estimate should be believed we could have saved the world a projected 24 million tons of GHGs. I commend the Department of Ecology for their hard work competing their independent SEIS, which also proves North Innovation Works mission. Here I am now pleading with you to pass this permit to allow Northwest Innovation Works to start building this project.

We are tired of waiting and are ready to make a change that can be felt around the world while supporting our community. My husband and I want to leave our daughter a world that is better than it is now. One that not only has cleaner air but it's full of hope and opportunity.
No attachments

Comment From: Zach Theil

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
My name is Zach Thiel and I am a Kalama resident as well. I am a husband and a father and strongly consider myself an avid outdoorsman. Adding to what my wife said, I would also like to voice my support for the Northwest Innovation Works project and ...↓

Climate change is real, and we need a meaningful action. In addition to the positive climate impacts this project proposes, we cannot ignore the positive impacts this company will bring to our economy and our community. I implore you, please approve the permits for this project. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Michelle Trickey

9/22/20 @ 11:00 AM
Hi, my name's Michelle Trickey. I'm here from Seattle though I have family all over the country and I absolutely represent people affected really far from here. One thing that you should know about me is that I work for Amazon, so I'm not anti-corpor...↓

It's true that when you just look at the point of burning methanol is cleaner than burning carbon dioxide, but that completely doesn't look at the upstream leakage, which this report estimates at a far lower number than most other reports, to a point where we're taking conservatism to an absurd level. That means that we're underestimating the carbon equivalent impact of the methanol refinery by about tenfold. That really perturbs me as a person who works in corporate America and knows that our decisions need to be based on the best available data and that we shouldn't be stuck on what we were looking at five years or 10 years ago and need to be looking at the most updated information.

I care a huge amount about climate change as do most people. Two of my friends are having babies this week. The new mom is not far from my future as well, but this is not the right way to do it. If this is the best path forward that we have to offer our children, I really despair. I just like to let the Department of Ecology know that I thank you so much, but please do not accept this facility. Please adjust the methanol leakage rates.
No attachments

Comment From: Jef Gunn

9/22/20 @ 10:57 AM
I am from the region. My father and his family grew up on Mount Saint Helens near Spirit Lake, and later in Kelso and Longview. I was born in Seattle, and now live in Portland. I travel through Kalama frequently. We are blue collar working stock. My ...↓

However, there's more going on here in this project than jobs. There is also the need to protect home, to take care of home for our communities all across the geography of this proposed project. The conditions we enjoy on this planet–temperate atmosphere, oxygen, water, vegetation, animals–are not common. This planet is unique and rare! This Great Northwest region is uniquely special. Not just because it's home, but because it's beautiful and abundant. I am a carpenter, not a scientist, so I'm not going to pretend fluency with the technical data. I see as well as you do the staggering projected atmospheric and aquatic pollution that is bound to happen as a result of a project of this scale dealing with fracked gas and methanol. I say it's bound to happen because I'm a carpenter. Whatever is built will eventually fail. Period. These projects fail all the time. Catastrophically. And the SSEIS has already called out multiple issues that have not been adequately addressed.

It will not fail only in Kalama, but along the fracked gas pipeline, all the way back its source in Canada. I have a stake in this there, too as my mother's family are in BC and Alberta. And it will fail all along the shipping route to China and into cars there or plastics there. Even without failure, massive pollution will follow the trail. Enough is enough.

I know, and you know too, that fossil fuels have, in just two centuries, created wealth for some, ease of life for many through many important inventions, and at the same time destroyed life on this planet. Death and deadly weather are part of the legacy of fossil fuels. They simply go hand in hand. That's not going away unless we change course now. NOW.

The world has been hearing the warnings since the early 50s, for my whole lifespan. We have to learn. There are new technologies already in existence to lead us into a clean sustainable future. These new technologies also will create jobs. Let's put our efforts and money into these new sustainable technologies that will usher in a new era of clean prosperity for all. Lots of work making the way for a dependable future.

Jef Gunn
No attachments

Comment From: David Berger

9/22/20 @ 10:29 AM
Thanks for you opportunity to comment. Please deny the shorelines permit for the Kalama manufacturing and export facility. The environmental consequences of increased green house gases, potential fracking impacts, possible increased plastic productio...↓
I live in the gorge, and recently saw a train cause a fire on the Oregon train tracks. These likely fires coupled with highly volatile trains containing fracked gas are terrifying.
In addition, I have seen large amounts of micro-plastics on what used to be pristine ocean beaches. The potential for this facility to cause an increase of toxic plastic in the food chain is another reason to deny this permit.
Thanks again for the chance to comment.
David Berger

No attachments

Comment From: Kristyn MacPhail

9/22/20 @ 10:24 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: Catherine Spofford

9/22/20 @ 9:56 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Alice Shapiro

9/22/20 @ 9:52 AM
There are many reasons to oppose the Kalama methanol plant. You know that methanol is a potent greenhouse gas. We are in the midst of a climate crisis and extreme drought in Washington as well as Oregon, where I live, as do my two young granddaught...↓
Attachments:
Download
Download

Comment From: anna waendelin

9/22/20 @ 9:52 AM
I submit my opposition to the Kalama Methanol Refinery. We in the West are keenly aware of the effects of global warming and we do not need another 12 million tons of carbon pollution, as this refinery is projected to emit. What is needed is to pr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Auer

9/22/20 @ 9:25 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: Meccah Boynton-Brown

9/22/20 @ 9:20 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Timothy Baer

9/22/20 @ 8:50 AM
Hello,  

I appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts and position on this issue, even while I despair of the efficacy of the action.

Please deny this application for construction. I love my life in rural King County, WA. I bel...↓

When we base our decisions on what the other guy (China) might do, we're on shaky ground. Clean up your own backyard, and then ask the neighbors if they will join you. Do not pretend that you are waiting for the other guy to act first, or that it's hopeless because he never will. 

While humans may have an inherent bias toward negative stories, we can choose to tell each other positive stories, and work toward the reality we long for. After all, we are the ones creating all of this, together. Which side will you support? One argument seems to favor the status quo, the other is more visionary. One is powerless; the other works toward a better future.

I've heard that there are three types of falsehood: fibs, lies and (the most egregious) statistics. By your own admission the current studies are (at best) very speculative. You can just as easily create a study opposing as supporting this plant. Add upstream and downstream emissions, for example. There are many other factors to consider.

Fundamentally, the current conclusions are clearly based on untrue assumptions. e.g.: "We cannot quickly change the way we've always done things in the past." Really? Is that your experience of the worldwide response to the current pandemic? We actually CAN make wide, sweeping changes. Worldwide. We CAN stop using so much plastics and methanol, for example.

What's missing is willpower. And leadership. WA Department of Ecology can do better; can live up to its mandate. Please show the type of leadership that the overwhelming majority of humans around the world are pleading for their leaders to take. Do it for humanity (if the non-human world doesn't figure into the equation.)

It troubles me to see the disenfranchised being used as pawns in a media war waged on all of us (By the fossil-fuel industry!) to support this abomination of a plan. The plight of families who have lost their livelihood is not lost on me. Change is inevitable, though, and narrow self-interest will not serve the self in the long run.

Deny the permit!

Thank you,

--Tim Baer

No attachments

Comment From: Brenda Michaels

9/22/20 @ 7:59 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: Nichole Snyder

9/22/20 @ 7:42 AM
The Kalama Manufacturing plant would be a climate disaster. After our state just spent a week and a half being covered in wildfire smoke that left our air unhealthy to breathe are we really considering opening a plant that is meant to convert natural...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mariana Sanchez

9/22/20 @ 7:36 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: Jimmy Peterson

9/22/20 @ 7:20 AM
I would like to see this project begin construction. It would allow for a new source safe reusable and sustainable energy source to be used to further our society. This project would open a large number of jobs in the construction of the project.

Than...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dennis C

9/22/20 @ 7:08 AM
The absurd notion that this refinery would actually reduce global GHG emissions hinges on the highly speculative prediction that it would displace less clean burning methanol production facilities and assumes that the methanol market will continue to...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dave Hale

9/22/20 @ 7:05 AM
My comment on the KMMEF DSSEIS:

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important decision making process.
My name is Dave Hale. I live in Silver Creek, WA and I'm a retired biologist. In my ...↓
I would like to address the issue of our GHGs in the state of Washington and the contribution that the Kalama methanol refinery would have on those emissions.
Having reviewed the DSSEIS it is clear that Ecology has done a fairly good job of analyzing the life cycle of contributions of the project and also of the current alternative processes. I realize the difficulty of attempting to determine by projection, from sources of information with varying and sometimes conflicting data, the contributions of GHGs resulting from the development, extraction and transport of natural gas. This is also very difficult when analyzing the downstream use contributions, especially in a foreign county where we have sometimes questionable information and no control over how the product of this project will be used.
It is clear that the argument, used by NWIW, of displacement of more carbon intense processes over in China is highly speculative and dependent on a number of factors that rely on social, economic and developmental uncertainties. Looking at the results of the DSSEIS in this area, it's clear to me that the displacement theory would be OK if it actually resulted in offsetting dirtier forms of plastic and/or fuel production and use. Sadly, the analysis seems to rely on increasing use of fossil fuels and lacks the comparison of alternative methods of energy production (renewables). I believe that Ecology has, as part of the analysis, the need to compare and contrast the results when a greater proportion of the transport and electric energy may come from solar, wind and other low carbon power generation. China is rapidly developing electric car technology and has been using a greater portion of their solar panel production in country. I realize that renewable power production increases are also in the realm of speculation as well. Therefore, I will consider that KMMEF methanol could, under higher oil prices and greater restrictions on coal processes in Asia, displace some dirtier methanol processes like naphtha and coal. That's speculative; China is investing in new coal power plants and not just within China.
That leaves us with the Kalama NWIW site which will potentially produce, on average, approximately 1M T CO2e GHGs per year for 40 years, locally, and 5M T CO2e GHGs, for 40 years, globally. That represents a net increase in carbon produced in state (and globally) as a result of a proposed business. This doesn't fit with our current goals to reduce our carbon footprint or to protect our air and water. Further, mitigation is questionable with no definite plans to localize carbon sequestering or prevent additive effects of air pollution of the lower Columbia River airshed. With consideration of the additional risks to our important Columbia River ecosystem, human health impacts that can't be mitigated, and use of resources (natural gas, water, and electricity from a grid that relies on fossil fuels for make-up power when hydro is insufficient), Washington State can expect to bear the brunt of the negatives of this project with little benefits.
My work in natural resource conservation was aimed at repair, enhancement and protection; not posing new risks.
Please deny the Shorelines Permit for KMMEF.

Thank you,

Dave Hale, Silver Creek, WA98585

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/22/20 @ 6:43 AM

The Kalama refinery would have a huge environmental "footprint"-- if that term can be used to refer to pipelines and ocean routes.

-- The map on page 41 shows pipeline routes that would supply fracked gas to Kalama: 600 miles from British Columbia, pl...↓

-- On page 48 is a color map of the world, with a red line showing the marine route from Kalama to China. As proposed, large tankers would transit 5,000 nautical miles from Kalama to China. Product would be unloaded, and the tankers would return empty to Kalama. This 10,000-mile round trip would be completed approximately once a week. (The SSEIS estimates 36 to 72 shipments per year; see page C-4).

Although the SSEIS includes plans to mitigate emissions within Washington, it is less clear

(a) if there will be any mitigation outside of the state and

(b) if there will be mitigation for non-emissions, such as marine fuel.

In conclusion:

1, The enormous reach of this project -- across the continent and across the globe -- would be hugely impactful, even beyond the stated GHG emissions.

2. The SSEIS fails to provide a complete, multi-dimensional plan for mitigation.

3. The scope of this project seems far beyond the regulatory purview of one state's Dept. of Ecology.

The Climate Clock is ticking. Please deny this project.

(Presented as oral testimony on Tuesday morning, 9/22/2020, with this revision: Neil's slide confirms zero mitigation out of state.)
No attachments

Comment From: Greg Hoffman

9/22/20 @ 6:34 AM
"We are facing a man made disaster of global scale, our greatest threat in thousands of year: climate change," said David Attenborough at the UN Climate Change Summit. "If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of ...↓

WHAT OTHER APOCALYPTIC WARNING DO WE NEED TO HEAR? COULD THERE BE A MORE PERILOUS MESSAGE?

The proposed methanol refinery in Kalama would pollute as much as 1.2 million cars and use millions of gallons of water from the Columbia River each day, polluting the air with cancer causing toxins.

Department of Ecology and other local decision-makes, YOU MUST BE LEADERS IN OUR FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE. Like it or not, the continuation of civilizations and the natural world upon which we depend is partially in your hands.

This is not a dress rehearsal. Wield your influence and be the North West climate change champions we need you to be and put an end to the methanol refinery NOW!
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Kramer

9/22/20 @ 6:29 AM
I am against the Kalama Methanol Plant. Keep dirty emissions and fuel out of our beautiful state. Global warming is a serious threat. Protect Washington state and future generations from this dirty project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Jim Byrne

9/22/20 @ 6:26 AM
I do not want a methanol plant anywhere in the Pacific Northwest. Last week SW Washington suffered the worst air quality in the world and tropical storms ravaged the south east. Some claim climate change is a hoax, but I believe it is real; and the...↓

I have been a WDFW fish biologist for 28 years and have monitored climate change locally. It is accelerating annually, with this summer being a clear (or smokey) indicator that the time for action has ended. It is time for action. Methane gas is 20 times more dangerous for the climate than CO2. This project is fraught with methane gas leak potential, from the initial fracking process in Canada, through the transit process to Kalama. It is not even a WA or US company that benefits, but a Chinees company whose previous positions are contradictory.

This is not good for the Pacific northwest. Do not permit this plant. Thank you.

Jim Byrne
No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Kalister

9/22/20 @ 6:25 AM
Re: Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS.
Climate change is real and it's here now ... showing the impacts in the PNW with unprecedented 60 mph winds this month that spread wildfires across areas that have not histor...↓
No attachments

Comment From: George Vaughan

9/22/20 @ 6:16 AM
Having kept myself informed by reading updates and the latest Dept. of Ecology report, my opinion continues to oppose the building of the Kalama Methanol Plant. My main objections are: 1. it is counter-productive to our efforts at reducing Greenhous...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Corey Gedrose

9/22/20 @ 6:15 AM
I hope we can all agree we desire to live and raise our families in a safe, healthy environment. Our family home in Prescott is one of the closest to the proposed refinery, just 1/2 mile directly across the river. We will no longer feel safe in our h...↓

As if earthquake, fire and mass shooting lock down drills aren't enough to frighten our children, we will now have to introduce chemical plant explosion drills into our homes and schools. Can you imagine the ear-piercing tsunami-like blaring warning sirens and having to quickly shelter in place after donning air masks and sealing all the doors and windows after an accident releases toxic, flammable chemicals into the air? According to an independent analysis conducted by the Northwest Citizen Science Initiative, the entire downtown and all 3 Kalama schools are within the glass-shattering "blast zone". I don't know if our home would still be standing after such an explosion.

It is unbelievable to me that people in positions of local leadership and authority think this methanol plant is a good thing. We all should have the right to breathe clean, healthy air and feel safe in our community. We cannot let the quality of our life and environment be determined by those who care more about profits than the people in their very own neighborhood. Please protect our health and safety and say no to the world's largest methanol refinery in our backyard.

No attachments

Comment From: Karlyn Gedrose

9/22/20 @ 6:05 AM
Five years ago, my husband, Greg and I purchased what we considered to be our "dream property" in Prescott, Oregon along the Columbia river. We were married on the beach in front of our home last summer.�You can see Steelscape and the proposed...↓

Greg and I found out about the refinery plan a few years ago. We would NEVER have purchased here had we known. NOT ONCE have Prescott residents ever been directly contacted to let us know what's going on. Living just 1/2 mile, we are probably more vulnerable to health and safety risks than anyone in Kalama! There have never been any direct mailers or signs to let us know we are living in the blast zone. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MANDATORY INFORMATION COMMUNICATED AT THE VERY BEGINNING STAGES. Consequently, we were denied the opportunity to engage in the initial public hearings and comment periods.

NW Innovation Works did not effectively communicate to residents when a similar plan was in place for the Port of Tacoma. When they learned about it, residents there pleaded their case and won - no methanol plant is being built there and it should not be built in Kalama either!

This is untested, "new" technology proposed by a company that has no experience building methanol plants! It would be bad enough to allow a knowledgeable company with many years of experience - at least they might have learned a few safety tips over the years...but to allow a brand new FOREIGN-BASED company to come in using us as guinea pigs? Really? How can you possibly even consider building this hazardous facility when so many lives are at risk? ����������

Methanol is HIGHLY TOXIC TO HUMANS AND ANIMALS. It is most dangerous when ingested but inhalation of high concentrations of vapor and absorption through the skin are just as bad for producing toxic effects. The risk for cancer and other illnesses to those of us living in Prescott will surely increase.

We understand the desire for more jobs brought into the local Kalama area, but for Prescott residents, we gain NOTHING. A recent study found property values decreased up to 11% after an industrial plant opened.�Another study indicates that air pollution has a significant negative loss on home prices within a 2 mile radius of a refinery. By law we now have to disclose our knowledge if we want to sell. Would you buy a home in the blast zone directly facing a dangerous, noisy, toxic, eyesore like this?

Prescott is home to young children and the elderly, the most vulnerable to health risks resulting from air pollution. Prescott Beach is a popular county park providing exceptional fishing, windsurfing and recreational opportunities. The methanol refinery with it's 245' flare stack, vapor plumes reaching 2 1/2 miles high, new dock for tankers and 72 million gallons of on-site methanol storage would degrade the quality of Prescott Beach. Prescott citizens do not support sacrificing the health, livability, and economic future of our community to a dangerous fossil fuel export project. We ask you to advocate for our community and do everything in your power to deny the permit.

Department of Ecology, how are you going to live with yourself if you approve this, knowing the potential risks, and then there is an earthquake or some other catastrophic accident? NW Innovation Works can implement all the safety precautions they want in constructing and running this monster, but they CANNOT PREVENT HUMAN ERROR, the cause of many refinery "accidents."

Gerard Hawkins, CEO of GBK Enterprises summarizes in his presentation entitled "Methanol Plant Experiences In The Last Twenty Years" states: "If it can go wrong, it will... Apparent safe systems can fail."

Please reject the permit for building the world's largest methanol plant in our front yard.

Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Ruth Pettis

9/22/20 @ 5:50 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: Debra Lee Keim

9/22/20 @ 5:30 AM
I do not support extending a permit for the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility. With all the extreme climate events we are experiencing now and predicted for our future, I find it devastatingly short sighted to proceed with this facility...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lori Sarancik

9/22/20 @ 5:25 AM
I am a resident of Longview, WA, and I appreciate the opportunity to leave my comments on this project. First of all, I live inside the city limits of Longview, and, as such, would not be able to visually see the new facility. It would not impact my ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Joel Caldwell

9/22/20 @ 4:54 AM
My name is Joel Caldwell of Toledo washington. I am writing to ask Ecology to please deny the project. 6 months ago my wife and I had our first child. Now the entire west coast seems to be burning in relations to the amount of carbon we have put in t...↓
For future generations we must scale back emissions and halt climate change. please deny NWIW's refinery in Kalama!

Thank you,

Joel Caldwell
No attachments

Comment From: Rebekah Gaxiola

9/22/20 @ 4:54 AM
Director Watson and Department of Ecology,

Please reject the proposal to build and operate the gas-to-methanol refinery in Kalama. The negative ecological impacts of this refinery are far-reaching and it's irresponsible to move forward with this proje...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Cynthia Jones

9/22/20 @ 4:48 AM
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to comment. I am calling on the Department of Ecology to reject the methanol refinery.

My name is Cynthia Jones. While I grew up in Colorado, I have lived in Edmonds, Washington for the last 30 years. I ...↓

One of the main causes of climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. If we wish to address climate change, we cannot continue to burn fossil fuels, including methanol.

The proposed methanol refinery would create millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, and would lock us in to doing so for the next 40 years.

We cannot be distracted thinking mitigation will solve the problem. Nor can we believe that the only way to proceed is to continue to pollution-emitting plants. While we need to think globally, we need to act locally. I am not comfortable with increasing pollution in my state with the hope of decreasing pollution across the globe.

I treasure clean air and the opportunity to spend time in the great outdoors. I urge you to join me in working to protect our climate by facilitating the move away from fossil fuels. The Kalama Methanol plant will increase the burning of fossil fuels, increase the level of pollution in our state, and make it close to impossible to achieve Washington state climate goals. I urge the Department of Ecology to reject the methanol refinery.

Thank you.
Cynthia Jones
No attachments

Comment From: Sydney Brahmavar

9/22/20 @ 4:42 AM
The idea that a methanol plant is being considered in the "progressive" state of Washington is abhorrent. At a time when we need to be forward thinking and stop destroying our planet with disastrous greenhouses gases, the environmental impacts of thi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: RICHARD STERN

9/22/20 @ 4:21 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: carolyn atkinson

9/22/20 @ 4:18 AM
My name is Carolyn Atkinson and I work at an elementary school in Seattle. I am a young person who struggles with climate-related terror.

My students understand that they are growing up in a world in crisis. I prepared these comments under the smoke o...↓
My students are anxious. Can you imagine the despair and powerlessness of being 10 years old and knowing that we have only 10 years left to course correct? The most terrifying impacts of climate change are projected to hit us well within my lifetime. Before the end of the century, CO2 levels are likely to rise to the point of impairing human cognition. This concern is absent from the EIS.

The Kalama plant is justifying itself with the ridiculous logic that somehow, over the next 40 years, this plant will emit less than hypothetical other plants. This is an absurdity. 2020 shows that significant but long foreseeable economic, ecological, and human system collapses are here. The next 40 years will be so unpredictable that most of my generation has agreed that we won't bother to plan for retirement because of the scale of chaos on our horizon. The EIS is ridiculously optimistic. Assuming "Business as usual" indefinitely is absurdity.

The ecological and political instability that breaks the 40 year speculation of this environmental statement is caused by the climate crisis.
The instability is caused by fossil fuel expansion.
The instability is caused by projects EXACTLY like this one
It is exacerbated by the commitment to dishonesty of all fossil companies INCLUDING Northwest Innovations, which has wasted DOE time with "data" so optimistic and inaccurate that this whole environmental impact process had to be repeated. We don't want to work with careless firms when the stakes are this high. The EIS should accurately account for historical failures of this industry to clean up after itself and prevent leaks.

It is time for those with the responsibility to do the right thing to quit saying "well, just a little bit more". The planet doesn't have a little bit more to give!

Protect, preserve and enhance the environment for current and future generations. I am one of the children of the generation that you were supposed to fix this mess for. We are grown now, and we are angry that the mess is still here for us to clean up. Don't make it bigger. Reject the statement based on incomplete and dishonest data. It is not worth it for temporary construction jobs when there's so much other construction to FIX this mess that needs to be done.
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Wells

9/22/20 @ 4:16 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Megan Cover

9/22/20 @ 4:12 AM
Burning methanol as fuel would generate millions of tons of pollution each year.​ In 2018 and 2019, NWIW informed potential investors that methanol from the planned refinery could be burned as fuel overseas, in sharp contrast to claims NWIW mad...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Claire Butler

9/22/20 @ 4:10 AM
After enduring days of the worst air quality measurements in the world due to west coast wildfires, I cannot imagine a more ill-timed proposal for further deterioration of our shared air quality. Dept of Ecology needs to examine its priorities, at a...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kelly Lindmark

9/22/20 @ 4:04 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: Gunnar Leidel

9/22/20 @ 3:50 AM
I would just like to say that I lived in Centralia for four years and the lack of work that's there in the the amount of work that will come for passing of this facility being built will change lives and make things better there thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Clint Bryson

9/22/20 @ 3:41 AM
I am writing to comment in favor of approving the needed permits for the proposed Northwest Innovation Works Kalama Methanol facility. This project provides an opportunity for tremendous investment in the area while being a part of addressing greenho...↓
Respectfully, Clint Bryson
No attachments

Comment From: jeff wilson

9/22/20 @ 3:36 AM
This is not a perfect project. There is no perfect project. The process to provide employment opportunities has been overshadowed by poor handling of the review process by Ecology. This process has contaminated future project inquiries due to the ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Olivia Hill

9/22/20 @ 3:28 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: Emily Moon

9/22/20 @ 3:26 AM
I strongly oppose Northwest Innovation Works' proposed Kalama methanol facility. As the draft SSEIS shows, the plant would be one of the most significant pollution generators in Washington. The Second EIS's additional analysis lends proof that the mo...↓

I urge the Department of Ecology to deny all permits for this project and to work tirelessly to safeguard our critically sensitive environment.

Thank you,
Emily Moon

No attachments

Comment From: ahnetta fields

9/22/20 @ 3:22 AM
I bought this house in February and I paid a lot of money for it because i wanted a view of the river. If this passes I want the names of the people that passed it and the names of the owners because I will sue for the devaluation of my property bec...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Megan Richie

9/22/20 @ 3:17 AM
I oppose this facility and ask that their permits be denied. This is a risk our community cannot afford. The cost is too high. They would be using an obscene amount of natural gas to produce the plastics our world does not need at a cost our communit...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ethan Pfahl

9/22/20 @ 3:14 AM
I would like to see this project progress and begin construction. It would allow for a safe reusable and sustainable energy source to be used to further our society. This project would also provide many new jobs, for the maintenance and the construct...↓

Thank you for your time
No attachments

Comment From: David DiGiandomenico

9/22/20 @ 3:14 AM
I would like to see this project progress and begin construction. It would allow for a safe reusable and sustainable energy source to be used to further our society. This project would also provide many jobs in the construction of the project.

Thank y...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jennifer DeCent

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Jennifer Dissent and I live here in Collins County in Ariel. I'm a business agent for Laborers International Union of North America, local 335. In my now 15 year career as a laborer, I've had the opportunity to work on environmental crews....↓

A carbon reduction project dedicated to the fight against climate change benefiting our community every step of the way. Thank you for this opportunity to make this comment. I want to end on this note, Washington state can and should set the highest standards and lead other States, our nation and other nations. Please approve this project as a great example to drive those high standards.
No attachments

Comment From: Eileen Fromer

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi. My name is Eileen Fromer, I live in Portland. I'm passionate about the climate crisis and about stopping greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that the department of ecology has an opportunity through its analysis and these hearings to do the right...↓
The under estimated methane leakage from natural gas extraction, transmission along the pipe route and the refinery, and after the methanol leaves the refinery, what then, first it was just going to be used to make plastics, as if plastics are not already an environmental disaster, but at least the methanol wouldn't be burned for fuel. Then they changed their story. So 40% might be burned as fuel yielding 2 million tons of carbon pollution each year, and there's no guarantee that all the methanol won't be burned. We are in a climate crisis, the wildfires are here along with the drought, storms, floods, and displaced people all over the world. It's time to say no, enough is enough. Washington and the department of ecology must live up to their claim and be a leader in addressing the climate crisis.
No attachments

Comment From: Norm Cimon

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
 Yes. So, I'd like to, first of all, point out out that the static market analysis is not very useful. These markets are changing so quickly that a dynamic analysis is really where you want to go. In other words, this is going to be changing ver...↓

What I mean by that is that you can do a probabilistic analysis, that's what people do, and actually get some idea of how much additional methane will be coming out, given that a lot of these wells are simply going to be abandoned. This project, as far as I can tell is not one that is designed to do anything that will benefit the environment. Looking at, and someone said, the two negatives, it's not the way to go.

Right now, Melrose, I think it's Malden, Washington has gone. We've lost any number of towns here in Oregon. The mantra I live by is that short term self-interest is greed, long-term self-interest is morality. I would ask you do, essentially the work of some serious long-term interests and make a moral decision. Make sure that this project does not go forward, we're losing too much at this point. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Luke Henkel

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you so much for the chance to speak and share. I'm Luke Henkel and I work closely with Earth Ministry and on the Care for Creation team at St. James cathedral. I'm living in Seattle, Washington but very invested in opposition to this project. I...↓

Having lived in the Pacific Northwest for much of my adult life, I know what a green area we are, how likely we are to be known all over the world as this progressive place. I've heard a lot of science during this hearing but I just want to take a step back and talk simply. We've heard all of these facts, we've heard all of this data on both sides of the argument of whether or not we'll have this facility and for me, it's just convenient excuse to hide the fact that this is wrong.

We heard from Maddie Smith, who's part of Earth Ministry and she's wanting to say this is a moral reckoning. We're faced this year, 2020 as she said, if nothing else has taught us this year from all the crises we faced, we have the chance now to really pay attention to what all of these crises are teaching us and learn from them. Get it right, learn how to work together, learn how to say no to the things that we know are wrong. Forget all the data, forget all this slides that we're going through and just pay attention to what the indigenous leaders are telling us, to what the simple facts are and they are, this cannot go forward. If we want to have any chance of getting ahead in 2021 and beyond. Thank you so much.
No attachments

Comment From: Earth Ministry (Maddie Smith)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hello, my name is Maddie Smith, and I'm part of an organization called Earth Ministry. We organize people of faith throughout the state of Washington for environmental and climate justice. I'm a Unitarian Universalist and one of my faiths key princip...↓

As a person of faith, it's also clear that if 2020 has taught us anything, is that we are in a time of great moral reckoning. Right now we are all called to be prophetic and envision a future that is different from one shown in a model where climate pollution increases no matter what we do. We know that to create a livable future for future generations, we can't continue with business as usual. I'm a young person, and worry about what the world will look like in the 40 year lifespan of this proposed project. It's clear to me that we can't continue with business as usual, and that we can't assume that other similar projects around the world will be built if this project is not built.

As a person of faith it's also really important to me, that we listen to the indigenous folks who have always lived in this land. The person from the [inaudible] tribe who testified earlier. We have to listen to the folks that have stewarded this land and if they're opposed to this project, we must also be. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Marlene Meyer

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
I'm Marlene Meyer, resident of Washington for over 21 years. I'm here personally to talk about the same things that many people have already brought up, the tribal convents, the Sierra Club. By the way, we do have a trans child who is been loved and ...↓
In respect to the project, I'm also in agreement that we are comparing two negatives, and I really am surprised in the state of Washington, with our progressive ideas about reducing carbon emissions that we are even comparing these two negatives. Currently, I am calling you from California. I am staying in a city that was developed around oil refineries with commitments and promises to help the people in the area and to not be polluted. This is a very sad area I'm living in. It's depressing to see what's happened here. They have the ninth worst polluted beach in the state. What was going on in the history of the building of this with a commitment to clean production for the future? Did they not foresee the future? Did they not plan for it? How can we foresee what's going to be coming up here and there is not a commitment on paper for clean up by this company. Even if there is, how do you clean up thousands of marine life?
No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Good morning. I'm Don Stanky, retired physics teacher. We are being given false choices, either choose this project or choose whatever the market decides. Our colleagues around the world will fight those other projects. They stopped 15 LNG export ter...↓

Our climate system cannot afford either one of those choices. We are close to the point at which global warming will not stop until temperatures have risen five degrees celsius, which would be the end of civilization as we know it. Toyota proposed the Prius in 1988 and it was a good idea at the time, but even a Prius factory built in Kalama today would not be compliant with policy in China now. China told the automakers go all-electric or go home.

China leads the world in wind, solar, and battery-electric buses. They have 400,000 battery-electric buses, and we have what? 400? China's signed the Paris Climate accords. Even if all the speculation in the EIS actually happened, this project would not comply with that agreement. You should not approve a project unless you know all the facts. Don't guess at the methane leaks in the pipeline measure then.

The home base, where the pipeline airplane is in the Pearson airport in Vancouver, attached methane sensors to those plants. Five days ago, Bloomberg reported that gas companies are abandoning their wealth, leaving them to leak forever. Just one of them in California could have emitted 30 tons of methane, and there are millions more like that. Include those facts--

No attachments

Comment From: Cathryn Chudy

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, my name is Cathryn Chudy, and I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver, Washington. For more than 30 years I have worked with suicidal children from all over Washington and Oregon. One thing these kids have in common is that they do not see a future ...↓

There is a struggle going on here between adults who are fighting for a safe and healthy future for their children and grandchildren and adults who are pursuing an outcome that puts that healthy and safe future at risk for no reason other than the pursuit of short term fossil fuel profits at the expense of the long term welfare of our state and our region. We are blessed here in Washington that many of our elected representatives recognize the risks that our children face going forward if fossil fuel businesses usual is allowed to continue unrestrained.

That is why Washington has set aggressive climate goals that limit gas emissions in order to protect us from the harm we are already suffering because of the climate crisis we are in. We are at a crossroads in determining how we will all move forward in achieving Washington's greenhouse gas reduction goals. On one side is the fossil fuel industry trying to persuade us that fracked gas to methanol, to plastic and fuel in China is somehow a pathway to a speculative lower carbon future.

The company that is cleverly attempting to greenwash this pursuit of profits at our expense wants us to ignore the reality that tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year will be dumped into Washington for the next 40 years and it'll magically go away with the voluntary promise to mitigate what is really non-mitigatable. On the other side are the multitudes of we the public, who are showing up and reminding you that speculation is not fact. That voluntary mitigation of polluting greenhouse gases is not good enough ground to stand on when it comes to the health and safety of our environment and the future of our children. The only path to meeting our state's climate goals and ensuring a safe and healthy future for generations to come is to deny this proposal and the shorelines permit. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Matthew Hepner

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hello, my name is Matthew Hefner. I'm the executive director of the Certified Electrical Workers of Washington, and the legislative and Policy Director for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. I want to start by saying thank you to Ec...↓

I'd like to thank NWAW and the environmental stakeholders for creating cutting edge PIS precedent that will resonate throughout the country on mitigation. I'm in support of this project the IBEW, we backed 100% Clean Energy Act. We were the first union to be involved with that, we're the first union to support the low carbon fuel standard, and testify in the legislature as such. It is because we differently support responsible and inclusive environmental policy that we support this project.

If we are serious about transitioning to a clean energy future, that also means clean manufacturing. All things cannon will be used in clean energy products, and a clean energy future products for EBs, for wind turbines. This is a crucial project to get to a clean energy future. Thank you, and please support this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Tempest

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this important and complex topic. My name is Kevin Tempest and I work as the R&D scientist for the Low Carbon Prosperity Institute.

The rapidly dwindling greenhouse gas budget demands resource alloca...↓

Across a wide range of assumptions such as methane leakage, global warming potentials, and methanol end uses, 47 different scenarios forecast a very likely range of 2 million to 9 million net emissions avoided per year and an extremely likely range of 0.25 million to 12 million net avoided emissions per year. That is before consideration of in-state emissions mitigation that is much more ambitious than Ecology's own clean air rule. While Kalama Methanol is likely to remain lower-emitting than prevailing alternatives, confidence diminishes further out in time.

In a sector that Governor Inslee's ambitious evergreen plan found is the costliest to decarbonize, demand for methanol and plastics is forecast to continue to grow through at least mid-century, even under low carbon scenarios that maximize recycling in the circular economy, such as those from the energy transitions commission, and the International Energy Agency. Longer-term prioritization of carbon capture and finite biogas resources are the clear leading candidates to drive emissions towards zero. Combined, these technologies are actually carbon negative. This facility can and should be ready to adapt to these technologies and trends in order to minimize the risk of becoming a net-emission source and increasing the odds of compatibility with the net-zero emissions future.

Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Carrie Parks

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, my name is Carrie Parks. I'm a longtime resident of Vancouver and I love our natural surroundings in this area. I want to talk to the methanol supporters and tell you to wake up and smell the smoke-filled air. Do you want to destroy the livabilit...↓

California is making its buses fully electric by 2040 and putting through 300,000 zero-emission trucks on the road by 2035. Portland is building generators that will make electricity by bobbing up and down in the ocean. Spokane is building an electric sports car and battery factory that will create up to 3,000 jobs. I'd like to direct you all to www.drawdown.org which has a lot of ideas on climate solutions. One is putting small turbines in the river whose blades turn as the water flows past naturally capturing the energy. Such a system could reduce carbon emissions by 1 to 3 gigatons of CO2.

Just retrofitting existing buildings could provide lots of good construction jobs while improving people's lives. Retrofits could cut energy use by 40% and avert tons of greenhouse gas emissions. You could do all of those things here in Kalama instead of a dirty industry.

Since ecology is comparing the effects of carbon emissions from the methanol plant to that from burning coal, it should also include an analysis of emissions from the methanol plant in comparison to sustainable alternatives like these. Look for better cleaner technology and longer-lasting jobs instead of turning your beautiful town into a dirty industrial center. Deny the permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Darlene Johnson

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Okay, Darlene Johnson, and I live in Woodland, Washington, which is about eight miles south of Kalama. I'm a grandmother. I have eight grandkids and another seven, if you count the grandkids of our exchange students. I entirely support this project. ...↓

Also, I hear a lot of people talk about that climate change has caused forest fires. Well, I live in an area where we've had a lot of logging and what really causes forest fires is unmanaged timber, and we need to get back to managing the timber. So, I don't think they can use that as a reason for not allowing this development.

Inaction is really an action. The longer we keep having inaction on supporting this, the longer we go with increasing pollution. I just wholly hope that you approve this project, and especially approve it for my grandkids, all of whom live in Washington. Not too many in Woodland, Washington or Kalama because there aren't as many job opportunities here. They live in Seattle or Gig Harbor. So, I'm just hopeful that this gets approved. I'm also on the board of directors-
No attachments

Comment From: Gary Lindstrom

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Yes, thank you very much. I am Gary Lindstrom, retired Director of Marketing for the Port of Longview and a property owner in Kalama. The proposed methanol refinery is of grave concern because life on this planet is being impacted by global warming. ...↓

I'm disappointed that the Port of Kalama is fostering greenhouse gas emissions by allowing the world's largest frack gas-to-methanol refinery to be built on the shores of the Columbia River for the benefit of China. When Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement to counter global warming, Governor Inslee, along with other Governors, committed to a US Climate Alliance to reduce greenhouse gases. I am committed to this endeavor and fully support whatever we, the State of Washington, can do to keep the planet from warming two degrees Fahrenheit.

The devastation from [sound cut] [inaudible] wildfires is further evidence of climate warming; the challenge for all of us. Ecology's analysis shows that the refinery would produce 184 million metric tons of carbon pollution during the lifetime of the refinery. It is a fact that our lives are insulated from the perils of the sun by a very thin layer of atmosphere. I ask Ecology to find that the refinery's output of greenhouse gases is beyond the threshold and our state's passionate commitment to preserve that thin layer; and that Ecology deny the Shoreline Permit. Thank you very much.
No attachments

Comment From: Scott Strickland

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Scott Strickland, and I'm a Special Project Counsel for the International Union of Operating Engineers. I have many friends and family members who live and work in Washington. I feel that climate change is the number one threat to our econ...↓

I see this project as an example of that. A shift in international finance and productivity to be able to provide family wage jobs for folks, to provide hundreds of millions of dollars of economic benefit and increase taxes, to provide for more regulation, for more technological advances to further drive us towards a better economy for everyone; including all of the ecosystem entirely. I urge the committee to approve this, and would like to see all of the folks that are speaking out against this and every other project; if there is a better alternative point to it.

I've heard about electric cars, I've heard about electricity and other things, but I haven't heard any of the criticisms that are typically lobbied against those because of the cobalt mines and other issues in South Africa and everywhere else. There is an environmental cost to everything we do. It is our responsibility to find a way forward to lessen that to better it for everyone. I thank you and yield the rest of my time.
No attachments

Comment From: Jane Nicolai

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you Department of Ecology for taking my comments. I'm Jane Nikolai, a lifelong resident of Washington State. The dangers, threats, and outcomes of this proposed project are known. The current EIS does not take into honest account of each step i...↓

You are in a position of power that most of us do not have. The decision hanging in the balance is between destruction and well-being, between greed and generosity, between courage and a soul forever disquieted by the knowledge of what you have done. As you are in possession of such power, celebrate life; full, generous, well-fed, wholesome life. You have the ability to make the world a better place; use it. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Janeen Provazek

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi. My name is Janeen Provazek. I've been a resident of Washington State all my life. I live in Tacoma, and volunteer for 350 Tacoma; a non-profit climate organization. I am here because of my grave concern regarding the proposal for this methanol re...↓

This proposed methanol plant would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution, use millions of gallons of water daily from an aquifer connected to the Columbia River, pollute the air with cancer-causing emissions, and pose a serious safety hazard during an earthquake. This is about urgency, scientific evidence, common sense, and not giving in to the immediate gratification of economics.

We are putting ourselves and future generations at serious risk by refusing to change. We need to not ignore the scientists and continue to pollute our air and land and water. We need to focus now on smarter and cleaner and sustainable ways to generate power, fuel, and products. My plea is to the Department of Ecology; please have the courage and awareness and integrity to reject the methanol refinery. Be the hero for us.
No attachments

Comment From: John Flynn

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is John Flynn, and I live in Kalama. In 2008, the Washington State Legislature established limits for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Washington. Those requirements can be found in the Revised Code of Washington, RCW 70.235.020. In its 2...↓

The Department of Ecology issued its Washington State Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report to the legislature in December, 2018. The key findings of this report were; Washington's 2015 total greenhouse gas emissions were 97.4 million metric tons. Washington's 2015 total greenhouse emissions were 7.4 million metric tons higher than the 1990 baseline.

Today, Department of Ecology is considering whether to de-grant or deny a permit for the construction and operation of a fracked gas-to-methanol refinery in Kalama that would add 4.6 million metric tons of greenhouse gases per year. We know that in 2015, we were 7.4 million tons over the 1990 baseline. By adding an additional 4.6 million tons, that would equate to 12.0 million more than 1990.
No attachments

Comment From: Carolyn Anonymous

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Carolyn [inaudible] here.

>> Our grandchildren's lives matter. Governor Inslee's 100% Clean Energy for America Plan is the first major policy announcement in his Climate Mission Agenda; a bold 10-year mobilization to defeat climate change. To al...↓

We don't have decades. Fossil fuels produce large quantities of carbon dioxide when burned, carbon emissions trap heat in the atmosphere which leads to global warming. Extreme weather events like wildfires and hurricanes will only become stronger and more frequent in a warmer world. With heat comes drought and more air pollution; both particularly harmful to children. Governor Inslee strongly agrees with the IPCC; to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, the global community must cut climate pollution in half by 2030. Washington's legislature has set a target to reduce emissions at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2035, and the Department of Ecology has recommended a more ambitious target of 40% below those levels.

Ecology's own website states, "We're proud to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington's environment for current and future generations." Ecology, your decision impacts so much more than Kalama. You have a responsibility to aid in the phasing out of fossil fuel reliance in favor of clean energy-
No attachments

Comment From: Boilermakers Local 242 (Brent Stephens)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Good morning. My name is Brett Stevens, I'm the president and assistant business manager for the Boilermakers local 242. I support this project on many fronts. First, jobs. A thousand construction jobs are expected, 200 permanent and another 500 indi...↓

Secondly, the technology to produce methanol from natural gas is far better than from coal, which is what the Chinese are doing without the regulations that we require. Methanol is not going away, we want them these products, but we want these facilities in someone else's backyard. It's always easier to say no, rather than to work together. To say all we care about is jobs is false, all of our members care about the environment just as much as everyone else. We hunt fish and enjoy the Pacific Northwest, just as much as everyone else who chooses to live here. If we truly care about climate change on a global level, then we must build this facility here simply because we have the strictest regulations and oversight. If not, it will be built somewhere else and the climate on a global level will suffer.
No attachments

Comment From: Bryant Mullin

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you for allowing this. My name is Brian Mullen and I am an inside IVW Construction wireman. I'm going on record in support of this project. I'd like to point out that everybody on this call today has enjoyed things made from the refining of met...↓

I would also like to point out that there is currently a wind project that is being built in Lewis County. I was at a hearing, and there was opposition to this green project, a wind project that had opposition. How can we be against a wind project and against a responsible project. I'd just like to close by thanking everybody for their comments. I am once again in support of this project. Thank you for the time.
No attachments

Comment From: Cathy Spofford

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Okay. Thank you. My name is Cathy Spoford. I live in Portland, Oregon. I have two young granddaughters whose future I'm concerned about. The proposed methanol refinery would be the largest fracked gas to methanol refinery in the world and would impac...↓

The proposed refinery would become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions each year, further contributing to the climate crisis and undermining Washington's greenhouse gas reduction roles. The refinery would consume more gas than any sector of Washington's economy, necessitating a new fracked gas pipeline that may go down the entire length of the state. As we know, gas pipelines leak methanol, which is 80 times more polluting than CO2 and have a history of dangerous explosions. The project will only exacerbate the climate crisis. I urge the Washington Department of Ecology to protect our environment and the future of our children and grandchildren and reject this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper (Daniel Serres)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, my name is Daniel Steris and I'm the Conservation Director with Columbia Riverkeeper. Ecology should set its sights on protecting the future we can live in rather than contributing millions of tons of carbon pollution each year [inaudible] the bi...↓

On this basis, recognizing that the project will produce 4.6 million tons of pollution each year or more, Ecology should deny the project. A central premise of the new EIS is that all of the factors- economic growth, technology, climate policy, trade regulations, et cetera- affecting the production and consumption of methanol will remain fundamentally unchanged for the next 40 years. This prediction about the next four decades is unfounded and almost certainly wrong. None of these factors have remained static over the last 40 years. Pretending that time will stand still for Northwest Innovation Works is illogical, and the displacement theory, which relies on that illogic, is not reliable.

In every case Ecology presents, methanol production dramatically increases from fossil fuels and pollution increases. Ecology's analysis bleakly predicts that coal-based methanol will increase regardless, and the displacement analysis that comes to paper over the pollution from the fracked gas-based methanol coming from Northwest Innovation Works by comparing it only with other fossil-based forms of methanol. The analysis fails to make comparisons for competing cleaner alternatives, such as electric vehicles, which may be displaced by fossil-based methanol being used for fuel. The SSEIS also fails to consider cleaner ways of producing methanol that may develop over the next 40 years. Cleaner forms of methanol production are technologically feasible now and may become commercially feasible during the next 40 years.

Washington must plan for something better. The analysis should involve a case that actually aims for reducing carbon emissions in absolute terms, and works toward limiting global warming in line with Washington's goals towards limiting global warming below two degrees.
No attachments

Comment From: Bill Josh

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you so much for allowing me to speak today. I do support this project. There's a lot of people within our community here in Cowlitz, and within Southwest Washington that do support this project here in Kalama. We've been having this discussion ...↓

The project has taken far too long to get approved. The goalposts have continued to move, not just for this project, but other projects within Southwest Washington. It would be a great economic boon for our community, for our county. It would provide needed tax dollars for us to help provide for crucial services within our community and within the county. It would be a great opportunity for local unions and workers within Cowlitz County, and would provide opportunities for families that will help our economy and help improve the quality of life here in Cowlitz County and Southwest Washington.

Far too often, we are faced with a government and a state bureaucracy that just continues to say no to everything. We have the highest standards of any state, and potentially in the world, to develop and build the project like the Northwest Innovation Works project. If Washington State says no to this, you are essentially going to shut down any and every opportunity for Southwest Washington to create and provide jobs in an industrial manner in the future. If you say no and if they say no, then what else can we do? What else can we build? What project will be good enough? Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Elijah Cetes

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Greetings. My name is Elijah [inaudible]. I live in Portland, Oregon. As a young person, a conservationist, and a fisherman, I strongly oppose this project. Although the risks and impacts to endangered salmon and steelhead runs on the Columbia River ...↓

One likely and dismal future you might have explored is one where global plastic production increases. China continues to produce methanol from coal, while new pipelines are still built to supply Kalama. [sound cut] New plastic facilities open. The plastic industry, which is notoriously a haven for fossil fuel companies clinging to profits, continues to undercut sustainable alternatives to plastic and our oceans continue to be choked with debris. Meanwhile, we in the Pacific Northwest will still see the price of gas in our homes increase, driven up by this project's monopolistic control of our gas supply lines.

Then again, another scenario could be the opposite occurs. At much cost to local East Coast systems and clean water, the facility is [sound cut] built and operates for five years. Then before the coal plants can go down in China, a climate disaster, a pandemic, a wildfire, or a plastic alternative emerges driving down demand for fracked gas while the supply lines become glutted. Eventually, the project closes after a short lifespan. Meanwhile, we are left to clean up the mess and for what?

This is, of course, exactly what we are witnessing with the oil industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. Flotillas of oil storage vessels are currently waiting off our coasts, while-
No attachments

Comment From: Nate Stokes

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Well, thank you. My name is Nate Stokes and I live in Clark County. I'm a Field Rep Supervisor for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 701, and a father of five and a grandfather of one. People have been talking about this global env...↓

I want to make a couple of points since the opposition is stating stats. This project sets a new, high, unprecedented, inspirational standard for development in Washington State. This project has been under review for almost seven years now. This is the third time the government-led process has been undertaken. In the meantime, while we've continued to study this, climate change keeps happening and science shows that every year we delay this project, another year will allow more carbon to be added to our planet.

In addition to global GHG reduction, Northwest Innovation will mitigate for 100% of its in-state emissions, even those not directly tied to its facility. This will create investments renewable natural gas development, saving and improving forest lands and practice driving other innovative GHG-reducing technologies and opportunities locally, regionally, and globally. Washington State can and should be the highest standards-lead other states, our nation, other nations. Please approve this project as a great example to drive those high standards.

We must act now to address the climate change and this project is an important step to do that. I do support this project and thank you Department of Ecology for the good work, and please move swiftly.
No attachments

Comment From: Timothy O'Donnell

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Timothy O'Donnell. I'm from Tacoma, Washington. I've spent many years working in and around the Longview Kalama area. I'm an outdoorsman avidly, a hunter and a fisherman. I'm also a construction electrician. I believe in this project, and ...↓

We're trying to build things and to keep our pensions alive. All of these green jobs in the green economy everybody refers to does not exist. These jobs aren't there, this job is there. We need to build it. We need to keep our pensions strong. We need job replacement. This is a very good job to replace the jobs that we've been losing, especially in the timber area, especially in the Longview Kelso area. I'm wholeheartedly behind this. I thank the state for their commitment in this study. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: DeAnn Fields

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you, Fran. My name is Diane Fields, and I'm a market rep with the Laborer's Union in North America. I've lived in Southwest Washington my whole life. Right now we live in Battleground. I'm here listening to testimony and it sounds like a lot of...↓

We live in a beautiful place and we appreciate that. That's been left behind by the economic opportunity that the rest of the state has experienced. Our communities were founded on innovating, and cutting edge industrial development. This project provides the opportunity for Southwest Washington to return our proud legacy by creating family-wage jobs and making a meaningful contribution to tackling climate change.

If we are to confront climate change, we must invest in new clean ways to manufacture the things we use every day. We can't solve climate change through inaction. We must be led by science, not personal bias. This study from Ecology has answered the question it was asked and should be the final answer. It's time to make progress for both people and the planet.

Also, by listening to people, I've come to the realization that this project is the next step in moving forward in a safe way. Everything moves forward with the production and emissions that are going to be reduced. It's going to reduce emissions. It's incredibly naive for people to believe that we can immediately stop using fossil fuels and methanol. We use these products every day produced by methanol. In closing, I'd like to say that I really urge you to approve this project. Thank you very much for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Uhart

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Mark Euhart and my wife and I live near Kalama and I don't think I'm naive. I have a degree in wildlife biology, a minor in biochemistry, backgrounds in nuclear engineering, computer science and operational research and analysis, I am not ...↓

I certainly hope Ecology will read all the written comments and scrutinize the information in this SSEIS. I read the SSEIS and there are so many bad assumptions, poor application of technical information, and a covert attempt to under-report the upstream operational and downstream emissions. I documented my review and I am submitting multiple comments, referencing all my sources.

This project under cuts GHG because it doesn't mitigate upstream and downstream GHGs outside of the state of Washington. It continues to refer to information in the FSEIS,, such as the 100-year global warming potential instead of the 20-year GWP for fugitive methane. It cherry picks information from fugitive methane research papers, such as [inaudible] and Alvarez paper and others.

It presumes the use of ultra-low emissions, ULE technology that has not been approved by the EPAs for the application of prevention of a significant determination PSD permit for GHG admissions. It purports that ULE will admit 38% less GHGs in CR technology and I found several articles that indicate that the savings is only around 31%. ULE was first used in a power plant in Australia in 1994-
No attachments

Comment From: Kristine Edmark

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
 Hello, my name is Kristine Edmar and I live in Battleground Washington. Thank you very much for the chance to comment and thank you for requiring that the supplemental EIS be redone. I'm very much against the building of the Kalama Methanol Ref...↓

I sent a few specific changes draft in, but the fact is that the present draft reveals that there's still an enormous amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be produced by the refinery. It's also a fact that the refinery would create a demand, which encourages drilling, fracking at a time when it's imperative that we decrease and stop extraction. That increase in fossil fuel extraction would continue 40 years, which is far beyond the time that we have available to prevent climate disaster, which is already happening.

The world is already feeling the consequences of the warming climate. My daughter-in-law's family lost a beloved home this month in a fire in Oregon, but this is really nothing compared to all the devastation that is happening right now to so many people and species, and our atmosphere all around the world. Please deny the shoreline permit on the basis that it's unacceptable unmitigatable greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you so much, Fran. I want to thank Neal for showing the slide that clarifies there'll be 0% mitigation outside of Washington. My name is Jean Avery, I live in Vancouver. The Kalama Refinery would have a huge environmental footprint, if that ter...↓

On page 48 is a color map of the world with a red line showing the marine route from Kalama to China. As proposed, large tankers would transit 5,000 nautical miles from Kalama to China. This 10,000-mile round trip would be completed approximately once a week. Although the SSEIS includes plans to mitigate for emissions within Washington, we have heard that there will be no mitigation for any damage outside the state and will there be any mitigation for non-emission such as marine fuel?

In conclusion, one, the enormous reach of this project across the continent and across the globe would be hugely impactful even beyond the stated GHG emission. Two, the SSEIS fails to provide a complete multi-dimensional plan for mitigation. Three, the scope of this project seems far beyond the regulatory purview of one state's Department of Ecology. The climate clock is ticking, please deny this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Sierra Club (Stephanie Hillman)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Stephanie Hellman. I'm a campaign representative with Sierra Club. I want to thank you for the opportunity to comment today. I really appreciate all the powerful comments that have been given today in opposition to this project. As others ...↓

This analysis offers a false choice here and I really hope that that is recognized. It's disappointing also that a state that is considered to be [inaudible] leader with strong climate goals that recognize our need to drastically cut emissions, that we're considering approving a hugely polluting project because we think it might be better than a slightly more polluting one. We need the Department of Ecology to be a leader here and just say no to this permit. This is not okay. Again, I thank you very much for this opportunity.
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Bonlender

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
>> Hi, my name is Brian Von Lander. Can you hear me okay?

>> We can, thank you.

>> I just want to point out a couple of things. The displacement analysis in this greenhouse gas lifecycle analysis is consistent with how greenhouse...↓

In the case of this project, it very clearly shows that this project is going to reduce a lot of greenhouse gas emissions equal to about them out of the TransAlta Coal plant. I think it's worth pointing out that the market in China is not a mysterious market with regard to their coal to methanol projects that they--coal to methanol to olefins or plastics, which they launched in 2011 and are growing every year. They have about 50 projects from which they make olefins from coal-based methanol. Those are very defined identifiable projects. They have several others on the drawing board. This project will disrupt either those that are on the drawing board or make uneconomical existing coal to methanol to plastics. Right now we have no alternatives to form these materials, to decarbonize these materials. This is going to be a great opportunity to have lower carbon materials and add renewable materials to that mix.
No attachments

Comment From: Keith Weir

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
This is Keith Weir. I'm sorry Eric forwarded me the invite so I may be popping up as Keith Weir or as Eric Vein. My name is Keith Weir.

Yes ma'am. I'd like to thank you all for your consideration and your diligence in looking over this matter. I'm Ke...↓

We work to build more sustainable and equitable futures for not only our families and our members and our unions but society as a whole. Through the laborious process of this dragging on so long, inaction I would say could equal action. Good or bad, however that falls on that, and for this to have dragged on so long, the amount of metric carbon that has been emitted that could have been mitigated in the past several years of this project has been going through review, that's something that should be taken into consideration in my mind's eye as well.

We either act or we don't and our world is warming, our glaciers are melting and we could sit around and toss stones and do nothing about it or we can work together and have a sustainable and equitable peace to address the things in our very own backyard, starting with our state, the community, the state, and our nation, first and foremost, before we worry about the rest of the world, and tying all that in.

With that being said, I'm in favor of this project. Please let it move forward, let it benefit the community, and those folks who deserve it the most. With that, I'll end my comment. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Rachael Hogan

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you for hearing me. I am opposed to this project. I just wanted to respond to a few things that I heard. There was the comment made about environmental costs and what alternatives do we have? If we want to use less because of the way this analy...↓

I just want to also echo the gentleman who talked about we are very amazingly poised to address change in our culture and in our present with not just information we have about climate change but having really been experiencing it in a massive scale in so many fronts. I think there's hope there, there's also this part of me as a parent that knows that we do have this addiction to things like plastic and our kayaks, our plastic and our clothes are plastic and we do have these awful addictions.

I for one, am willing to say no to this drug that we've been mesmerized by, and that we've been fooled into thinking this is about our way. We could do it in an endless way without any repercussions. Now that we see the damage and we're so young in that frame of mind, we really do need to all work together to change that and I think we can. Anyway, I just wanted to put that out there. I also wanted to say that as far as-- oh, I'm running out of time. Well, see you next time. Thanks.
No attachments

Comment From: Peter Ullrey

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you and good afternoon. My name is Peter Alright and I'm an operating engineering and cancer survivor with Local 701. I am in support with the department of Ecology on the construction of this Kalama project. I would like to thank those individ...↓

People that have not done the research, I implore them to find out how positive this will affect their communities, and their natural areas for years to come in that zone. This project has been under review for nearly seven years now and I fully stand with the department of Ecology for the progress that this project will create not only for the local people, the workers, the millions of dollars of revenue it will generate in the local communities further.

Also, for the environment and the surrounding ecologies and I'd also like to add before I go Ecology's analysis shows that the Kalama project will reduce global greenhouse gas emissions every year by an estimated six million tons were this project to go through. Thank you for your time.
No attachments

Comment From: Uriah Chipman

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, my name is Uriah Chipman, I work for the Operating Engineers Local 701. I live in the center of Washington. I am also a cancer survivor. I want to express my support for this project. My union job provides me the opportunity to support my family ...↓

Without my union job, my union family and my community we would be struggling far more than we already are. Union jobs build America and they ensure that all people have the opportunity to succeed and I definitely approve this project. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Diana Gordon

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, I'm Diana Gordon. Northwest Innovation Works wants to build a new methanol refinery here. It will emit at least 4.6 million tons of greenhouse gases every year. They're telling us this methanol will be used to produce olefins necessary to produce...↓

China is trying to move away from coal, owing to poor air quality, so they'll probably not be building any new coal plants. As a result, China will produce most of the plastics using something other than methanol, and will likely use at least 40% of the Kalama methanol for fuel. Fuels release more greenhouse gases than olefin production. The end result will likely be an increase in greenhouse gases.

We cannot say for sure what the Chinese will end up doing with this methanol, but we do know for sure what they'll do here. This refinery will pour many tons of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere; thus, endangering Washington's climate goals and possibly acting as an anchor project for a second pipeline from Canada.

The SSEIS provides a link to several IPCC Reports. One report says that as more and more greenhouse gases are emitted, the ocean's carbon sequestration capacity is reduced. Waters become more acidic and harmful to shellfish and coral reefs, rivers warm and deplete salmon runs. The list goes on and on, and all of it is harmful to the quality of life and the health of everyone in our region. This is the time to say no to this project. Please send a clear message to the fossil fuel industry and the rest of the world; deny this Shoreline Permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Tim Baer

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Yes, thank you for doing this. Although as I sit here, I have no prepared comments, I find myself wondering about the use of this venue. It seems to me that I'm hearing two main arguments; one that favors the status quo and the other is a little bit ...↓

I think that's not true, and I would call on all of us, and specifically upon the Department of Ecology, to live up to the promises that we have been given about a cleaner future. That's where it boils down to for me. We can actually change that behavior. I would use our current pandemic as an indication of how easy that actually is with willpower. Worldwide, we've made some staggering choices that no one would have thought were possible.

I think that we are in an environment where more change like that is going to happen more quickly over the next 40 years.

So the ridiculous studies that we can come up with just remind me of that old fibs, lies, and statistics that says the worst of those statistics. I cede my time. Thank you
No attachments

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper (Kate Murphy)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Kate Murphy, and I'm a Community Organizer with Columbia Riverkeeper. The irony of meeting virtually to protect public health while discussing this potential disaster should not escape anyone. There are many reasons Ecology should deny the...↓

The SEIS states that the impacts can be mitigated, but offers few details on how they will accomplish its stated goal of fully mitigating all of the in-state pollution from the project. Northwest Innovation Works identifies no specific projects or measures that will address the enormous greenhouse gas pollution impacts of the proposed refinery. You are about to make a critical decision about the future, and to accept such vague promises without evidence from a company that has proven itself to be untrustworthy is a massive disservice to the region and a favor to the fossil fuel industry.

In the face of overwhelming opposition to this project, Ecology must require real, detailed information and enforceable plans before assessing that impacts on this scale could be mitigated. Northwest Innovation Works plan for a plan falls far short of the standard. We can all easily envision a scenario in which Northwest Innovation Works builds the plant with a vague, unsure, and voluntary mitigation framework fails to produce the hope for mitigation, or a scenario in which commitments made by Northwest Innovation Works are not honored by future owners of the facility.

These are just a few examples of why Ecology cannot base its decision on a framework that fails to identify any real projects, and that proposes to set up a Northwest Innovation Work-friendly team for oversight. This is a recipe for failed mitigation. You've been tasked with making this decision about our future. We're calling on you to fulfill your role in assessing this project with an objective eye, one that examines the actual evidence before you, and we're counting on you to make a decision based on what we know and not what we can speculate about.

Someday, you'll have to answer to your grandchildren when they asked you what you did to protect the air, the water in their lives. What will you tell them?
No attachments

Comment From: Margie Van Cleve

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hello, my name is Margie Van Cleve. I live in Seattle, Washington. Why does someone from Yakima County care about the proposed Kalama methanol plant? On August 31st, the Evans Canyon Fire started. By evening of September 1st, I could see the glow fro...↓

We planned to go camping in a national forest after Labor Day, but cancelled due to high fire danger. Instead, we rescheduled for the Central Oregon Coast because, hey, it's always beautiful there in September, right? We made it to Newport, Oregon before deciding camping was a bad idea due to the hazardous air quality from the Beachie Creek Fire. Instead, we went to our friend's home in Springfield, Oregon. Within four hours of arriving, we began getting evacuation alerts from Lane County Emergency Preparedness for the Holiday Farm Fire. The next day, we assisted our friend in preparing for evacuation that luckily never came. We looked at the orange sky and watched the ever-present ash fall the entire time we remained in Springfield. I hope I never have to see anything like that again. We were back in Seattle by September 10th, restricted to indoors for the next eight days due to hazardous air quality from smoke and fires.

What does this have to do with proposed Kalama methanol plant? Everything. Governor Inslee called the fires climate fires, not wildfires. Erica Fleishman, Director of the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute, noted this fits into a many-year Western United States pattern of more large fires and more destructive fires. I don't want best wishes or thoughts and prayers about fires. I want action. Action means a decrease in the burning of hydrocarbons and a decrease in emissions from greenhouse gases.

Instead, the proposed Kalama methanol plant increases by a huge amount the burning of hydrocarbons, and increases by millions of tons per year for 40 years, greenhouse gas emissions that will contribute to still more climate change. I urge the Department of Ecology to reject the refinery. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Montgomery

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you. My name is Chris Montgomery I work for the Operating Engineers Local 701. Northwest Innovations Works is setting a brave new standard with its commitment to both the community and the environment. This project will build cleaner and with m...↓

This money can be used further to support the environmental and social progress, which the people who oppose this project don't quite understand. If we do not have an alternative, no progress will be made. I just want everyone on here to understand that this is progress. Those jobs and those families need to be taken care of as well to feed their children to sustain their livelihood. It is important not only are we caring about the environment but caring about families that need these good-paying jobs. Thank you.
No attachments

Comment From: Tom Luce

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Thank you. My name is Tom Loose. I am a lifelong Washington State resident. I want to first start off by thanking Ecology for a report and an analysis that I think is sound rigorous and comprehensive. When you take a look at the project here from whe...↓

To put that in perspective, that's twice the amount of emissions the entire city of Seattle emits annually. I think beyond that, it's important to look at what the delay in permitting this project has caused environmentally. Opponents of this project have slowed progress, sued us in court to get the very study that they now say is too speculative. When you think about it, the four-year delay they've caused in this process has had the effect of adding a cumulative total of 24 million tons of GHGs into the atmosphere.

When you think about it in those terms, no one who claims to be an environmentalist, can really support the claim not to build this project on environmental merits. Their merits are simply not in my backyard NIMBY arguments. I just would urge anyone who opposes this project not to try to deny 1,000 jobs $30 to $40 million in new tax revenue, and a clear defensible reduction in greenhouse gas emissions globally.
No attachments

Comment From: Sierra Club (Victoria Leistman)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hi, my name is Victoria Lissman. I am an organizer at the Sierra Club. I'm also the field director of a regional coalition called power past fracked gas, as well as a member of the Progressive Workers Union. I just want to as we come to the end of th...↓

We can't choose one versus the other and that's a false dichotomy that's being painted here. Sierra Club, we're unionized. We're union staff, we are part of an organization called the Blue-Green Alliance where we work to find solutions together. This project is not one of them. I know that there are tons of pressures and all things that ecology has to weigh in deciding about this permit.

The truth of it is that there aren't going to be able to have these conversations if we continue to perpetuate how dire we know the climate crisis is. We've seen that just so recently but the horrible impacts of the wildfires and it's really sad to see this conversation of what the truth is and what science is. I know that you all at Ecology, understands that this FCIS [inaudible] evaluate the scenarios in which we don't get to two degrees. We need you to make the right decision. Deny this permit, please, for all of us so we can find jobs when we defeat climate change.
No attachments

Comment From: Association of Firefighters, l... (Daniel Ulrich)

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Dan Alrich, I'm the president of the International Association of Firefighters, local 4447. We are the full-time members of the Cowlitz County Fire District number 5, here in Kalama, Was...↓
No attachments

Comment From: RoseMary Siipola

9/22/20 @ 3:00 AM
My name is Rosemary Siipola, and I live in Kalama, Washington. For the past six years. I've been supportive of the Northwest Innovation project, and I have submitted comments to the Department of Ecology. I have a few today. For every year the plant ...↓

Number one; the State of Washington's robust environmental permitting regulations support this project, upholding its high standards and opening the way for additional modern, environmentally-sound projects to be permitted and built in Washington; revitalizing and transitioning our economy, while promoting our state standards for environmentally safe and sound industry. Taking all of this into account, it's time to put people to work in Cowlitz County in the new modern green economy.

As a proud Cowlitz County citizen over the past 37 years, and a member of the Lower Columbia College Foundation Board of Directors, where we assist students who are changing their lives and want to live and work in their communities, I can honestly say that Cowlitz County is ready, willing, and able to meet the opportunities and challenges this new economy will bring to our region. I really ask that the Department of Ecology approve the permit for this project. Thank you very much.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]