Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

4777 Results

Sort:

Comment From: zoey lahey

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Cyndy Adams

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: gina hicks

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Hope Harris

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Paynter

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Sandy Polishuk

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: John Keefe

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
FW: Opposition to Kalama Methanol Plant
No attachments

Comment From: Janet Hedgepath

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Uhart

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Shaun Hubbard

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Dennis Sieler

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Grays Harbor Audubon Society (Janet Strong)

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Port of Longview (Allan Erickson)

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Daniel Hannon

9/27/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Tracy Cole

9/27/20 @ 2:55 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: David Malcolm

9/27/20 @ 11:02 AM
I oppose the Kalama methanol project mainly because the natural gas used comes from fracking which is a highly polluting and dangerous process.
No attachments

Comment From: Amy Hansen

9/27/20 @ 9:41 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: Mark Canright

9/27/20 @ 9:41 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: Patricia Warden

9/27/20 @ 9:23 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 sievert

9/27/20 @ 9:15 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: Thomas Gordon

9/27/20 @ 8:51 AM
2060 is when Xi wants China to be carbon neutral 40 years from now which is the supposed life-time of the Kalama methanol plant.

Meanwhile, NWIW is trying to get the U.S. to loan $2 billion dollars to build this refinery.

So in 2060, does China shut th...↓

Please do not issue permits for this monstrosity for all except NWIW and China.

Thank you.

No attachments

Comment From: Emanuel Jacobowitz

9/27/20 @ 8:43 AM
As a Washington resident and a member of the Faith Action Network and Plant for the Planet, I write to urge the Department not to approve the proposed methanol refinery in Kalama. The Department's SSEIS indicates that Northwest Innnovation Works prom...↓
Furthermore, mitigating in-state impact is simply not good enough. The Department must be aware of the strong, nigh-universal consensus among climate scientists that the world is teetering on a precipice caused by too much carbon dioxide and methane emission. Washington has a responsibility to--at the very least--not add to the problem. We are supposedly a climate leader. Time to live up to that image.
Similarly, the promise that the refined methanol will not be used as fuel, only in plastics production, is ludicrous. Northwest Innovation cannot possibly guarantee that, nor can Washington enforce it.
Lastly, the SSEIS offers the tired old excuse: "if we didn't do it then someone else would," and maybe that person would do it worse. We cannot predict what some hypothetical other person might do. We can, however, control what we ourselves do. We should avoid doing harm. Furthermore, the argument is, bluntly, stupid. Filling a demand does not sate demand. It enhances demand. If we supply more methanol, that will simply lead to increased investment in and reliance upon methanol products, leading to more methanol production elsewhere, by those same hypothetically less careful producers.

Please stop this dangerous project.

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Craig

9/27/20 @ 7:41 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Miriam Margulies

9/27/20 @ 6:06 AM
The proposed NWIW methanol refinery would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years. Ecology should deny the Shorelines permit for the refinery. Ecology's analysis demonstrated that the project would produce 4.6 milli...↓

The SEIS relies on a flawed, speculative analysis to argue that methanol could "displace" dirtier energy. The SEIS speculates on how methanol may compare with future, unsure, alternate sources of pollution in overseas markets. The SEIS makes a false and erroneous comparison with potential future other sources of methanol or olefin production. Rather than engaging in this speculation, Ecology should focus on the real-world, known pollution that will come from the facility rather than NWIW's dubious "displacement" argument.

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 made to local and state regulators that the methanol would only be used to manufacture plastic. Now, Ecology's analysis contemplates 40 percent of the methanol being burned, yielding 2 million tons of carbon pollution each year. Combustion of the full methanol production capacity of the plant would generate 5 million tons of pollution each year.

The Proposed Facility would be devastating to public health

1. Fracking pollutes water systems, and causes physical harm from earthquakes and the devastation of surrounding habitat.
2. The pipeline required to transport fracked gas has a high risk potential for leakage and spills, releasing harmful chemicals into ground and surface water.
3. On-site operation of the facility would pollute the Columbia River and its tributaries with harmful runoff, and contribute to reduced air quality leading to increase instance of asthma and other respiratory illness.

We are in the midst of a global climate crisis, and it is time to stop all fossil fuel expansion.
No attachments

Comment From: Jovohn Hornbuckle

9/27/20 @ 5:00 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: Diane Dick

9/27/20 @ 4:37 AM
2020 09 27 Comment #4

Washington State Department of Ecology
Olympia, Washington

Re: Formal Comments on Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Draft Second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, September 2020

Please deny Kalama Manufact...↓

Greenhouse gas emissions are insufficiently explained in the draft second supplemental environmental impact statement (SSEIS) and the data contains errors and omissions.

From information in the air discharge permit this refinery has the capacity to emit over 1 million metric tons of GHGs every year just on the process site.

While this is the least amount of GHGs the refinery will emit, can even 1 million metric tons be mitigated?

NWIW states they will mitigate all in-state emissions. Priority will be given to projects in Cowlitz County. PLEASE - require specific examples of mitigation projects and their verifiable ability to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.

The only viable way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that I am aware of is by growing trees or crops. According to the EPA greenhouse gas calculator it would take 1,306,000 acres of average forest land to remove 1 million tons of GHG in a year.

Cowlitz may be a large county but it only comprises about 746,000 acres. There is no way on God's green earth NWIW will be able to mitigate a fraction of its total emissions in projects in Cowlitz County or all of Southwest Washington.

Demand accountability for a realistic mitigation plan now because you surely will not get voluntary compliance later. Do not let NWIW be one more company that tries to buy its way out of fouling our environment and turns up the heat on climate change.

Deny shoreline permits for NWIW.

Thank you.

Diane L. Dick
Longview, WA

No attachments

Comment From: Denise Lytle

9/27/20 @ 4:37 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: FOGH (Friends of Grays Harbor) (Arthur Grunbaum)

9/27/20 @ 4:33 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Marian Hayes

9/27/20 @ 2:46 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Derya Ruggles

9/27/20 @ 2:46 AM
With all due respect, I am astonished we are even considering this dangerous, damaging and antithetical to all reason and science proposal!
The proposed NWIW methanol refinery would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 ...↓
Ecology should deny the Shorelines permit for the refinery.
It's Time to Pursue a Truly Low-Carbon Future. Please do not put profits over people and sell-out our healthy future. How much more science and protestation from the people do we need to wake up? Deny this monster before it becomes a nightmare we all cannot wake from. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Derya Ruggles, very concerned community member

No attachments

Comment From: JUDITH HATFIELD

9/27/20 @ 12:57 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Laurie Solomon

9/26/20 @ 10:58 PM
My name is Laurie Solomon. I have been going camping and fishing since I was old enough to walk and talk. I have been an acupuncturist in Clark County since 2001. I have never gone to China; I realized in the 90's that colleagues who go there for Chi...↓

It is not a surprise that companies supported by the Chinese companies, are spending so much to convince citizens and regulators in this country to continue to supply their country with Fracked Gas. Fracked Gas is extremely harmful to the environment, along with pipelines, releasing greenhouse gases, fossil fuel spills and leaks, burning methanol as fuel in China, and the endless stream of single-use plastics.

Another consideration for me is the extreme amount of both Fracked Gas and Electricity predicted to be used by this Methanol Refinery! It seems obvious that the cost of these two commodities would go sky-high for Washington residents because we'd be competing with the Refinery for them! But many seem willing to destroy our peaceful, healthy environment, where fishing has already become less productive due to climate change, to allow transport of extracted gas through certain-to-leak pipelines passing through our state; to allow enormous amounts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to pollute our state's air; and then to voluntarily pay more (due to high demand) for the Natural Gas, Water, and Electricity that we currently pay relatively little to use. It doesn't make any sense. And it seems very unlikely that China would give up some of its coal-powered refineries just because we in Washington decide to allow the construction of the biggest fracked-gas-to-methanol refinery in the world. There are currently wind-generating machines sitting unused in China because the conversion from coal to wind-power is too difficult for each municipality to justify building.

It is heart-breaking to realize that this proposed atrocity on the Mighty Columbia River is all about jobs, port rent receipts, tax revenue, high profits for a foreign developer, and, if truth-be-told, bribes behind-the-scenes. This is not the long-term vision needed for future generations. We, as a human species need to act now to save our planet. Subsidized fossil fuel extraction and usage is devastating this world. Now's the time to make the switch to green, renewable energy. Our state is supposed to be all about that! Cowlitz County's citizens could be put to work building light-rail or a high-speed magnetic-levitation train along the I-5 corridor from Portland to Seattle, for instance! Retraining to build solar power and use the existing pipelines to transport water are other examples of good jobs!

I hope that we can continue to count on Governor Inslee, who claims concern for the Climate Crisis, along with Laura Watson and her Department of Ecology Team, to lead the way by rejecting another Fossil Fuel Disaster. Neither Indigenous Peoples of Canada nor citizens of Kalama should be expected reside in "sacrifice zones."

Thank you for your consideration of my comment.

No attachments

Comment From: Jason Thoennes

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I a...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Carroll

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Carroll

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Ric Chapin

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Gene Ulmer

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Sue Burrus

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Arthur Grunbaum

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Betsey Thoennes

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Jason Thoennes

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
NO Methanol Refinery in Kalama
No attachments

Comment From: Betsey Thoennes

9/26/20 @ 5:00 PM
Dear Director Watson and Department of Ecology,

Please reject Northwest Innovation Work’s proposed methanol refinery in Kalama and deny its Shorelines Permit. I am concerned about climate change and the massive implications of this facility.  I a...↓

The second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Kalama methanol refinery clearly shows that this project is a mistake for Washington. Northwest Innovation Works cannot be trusted to mitigate the impacts of this fracked gas refinery.

Please deny this project.
No attachments

Comment From: Marion Ward

9/26/20 @ 12:21 PM
The most important crisis facing our planet is climate change caused by carbon pollution. It is imperative that carbon-producing sources be phased out throughout the world. The Kalama gas-to-methanol project would "phase-in" a huge carbon producing...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Reuter

9/26/20 @ 10:52 AM

I am speaking here as an individual and not as the Mayor of Kalama.

According to the website -https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_wa/603366951, you can see how many Northwest Innovation Works LLCs there are. There has already been a long history ...↓

Before the Department of Ecology makes recommendations on mitigations, there needs to be something more substantial in place than a signature by one person.

Here are all of the Northwest Innovation Works LLCs

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 97963194
Nov 25th, 2013 to present

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 603479637
Feb 19th, 2015 to present

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 97962691
Nov 25th, 2013 to present

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 603366498
Jan 14th, 2014 to present

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 603366951
Jan 15th, 2014, Administratively Dissolved.

Northwest Innovation Works LLC. Company number 603366954
Jan 15th, 2014 Voluntarily Dissolved
No attachments

Comment From: Kirk Leonard

9/26/20 @ 8:21 AM
As a long time resident of Kalama, I am opposed to Northwest Innovation Works' building the world's largest fracked gas to methanol refinery.

This project would be a disaster for this community and for the environment. The refinery would consume 5 mi...↓

The SSEIS shows the facility would generate 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution each year, making this proposed project one of the largest sources of climate pollution in Washington State.

Speculating this project may displace other fossil fuels is not justification for the known pollution that will harm the citizens and climate.

Please do not approve this permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Blumberg

9/26/20 @ 8:03 AM
How is a methanol plant in Kalama good for the environment? Will increased tanker traffic enhance the current salmon fishery? Will the light pollution from this plant interfere with migratory birds? Unfortunately salmon and birds don't pay taxes ...↓
This plant will do zero for the people who live in Kalama. As of now, extraneous light from the Port of Kalama interferes with enjoyment of a dark sky. There is also enough noise pollution in town from the current rail system and freeway. This plant will do nothing for the citizens of Washington.
China is allegedly our trade enemy, so why are we seating a plant on our fragile ecosystem? We know what environmental champions China is.
No doubt, this plant will be state of the art, blah, blah, blah until the unforseeable catastrophic event happens, then who is left holding the bag? At least we can be happy knowing that we helped create more wall to wall carpeting at the expense of our river and our children's futures.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/26/20 @ 6:51 AM
During the recent hearings, there has been considerable discussion of the SSEIS and its statements and assumptions. I wish to point out three (3) items that I believe are false or misleading assumptions.

1. The SSEIS somehow assumes that Kalama is the...↓

2. Recent news seems to undo NWIW's assumption that China will continue to prioritize coal for the next forty years. In a speech to the U.N. on September 23, 2020, President Xi announced that China would become carbon neutral by 2060. According to the Financial Times, "this could push coal demand in China close to zero." If China reduces coal consumption, then NWIW cannot assert that its methanol is less polluting than the (coal-based) alternative.

3. Some workers and unions welcome NWIW as a rare opportunity for jobs. However, clean-energy jobs are certain to increase in the coming years. Washington's own Governor Inslee paints an optimistic picture in his Freedom From Fossil Fuels Plan. He reminds us that increased investment in renewable energy will create more jobs, including skilled construction jobs. For Kalama and surroundings, this would be a BOTH-AND solution: clean-energy jobs AND pollution-free communities.

I urge the Dept. of Ecology to reject the NWIW project, which is risky and uncertain. Please take a longer view; a lot can change in forty years.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean Avery

9/26/20 @ 6:40 AM

The SSEIS clearly states that NWIW will provide no mitigation outside of Washington state. What about the 1400 miles of pipeline that will be constructed? The map on page 41 shows pipeline routes that would supply fracked gas to Kalama: 600 miles fro...↓

With great humility, it is important to recognize that this entire project -- stretching across the northwestern U.S. and into Canada -- is on tribal lands. How will tribal communities be impacted? Have the tribes been consulted? Indigenous peoples have protected land and water for generations. Tribal "water protectors" continue to wage protests against usurpation of their tribal lands.

If the Dept.of Ecology approves this project, I fear that Ecology will be complicit in unmitigated and controversial construction outside its purview. If there are lawsuits, will the Dept. of Ecology have to expend scarce resources going to court?

For reasons of ethics, fairness, and land protections, the Dept. of Ecology should deny this project.

No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/26/20 @ 6:00 AM
Four questions
As I understand it, Kalama Methanol has no assurances of pipeline capacity. What will happen when demand exceeds capacity, which is likely when the temps drop below 40 degrees F?

Will the Jackson Prairie storage facility be used, and wha...↓

Will a new pipeline be built, and what will be its associated emissions?
Until June of 2020, it was illegal to ship LNG by rail because it was too dangerous. But in June, the Trump administration approved LNG by rail.

It is now easier to put LNG on rail, than it is to get a building permit for a new commercial building with gas. For this reason, the Vancouver City Council has imposed a moratorium on all new bulk fossil fuel facilities.
What will be the ghg assessment for LNG by rail?

No attachments

Comment From: Wayne Winther

9/26/20 @ 4:14 AM
I absolutely oppose building the world's largest methanol refinery here in Kalama. The climate crisis is getting worse every year. I don't see how anyone could be in favor of adding millions of tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere every year, n...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Peter Fels

9/26/20 @ 4:11 AM
PETER FELS
5121 NW FRANKLIN STREET
VANCOUVER WA 98663
TELEPHONE: 360-737-3154 CELL: 360-609-1655
PLFELS@GMAIL.COM

September 25, 2020

Washington Department of Ecology
(submitted via on-line comment portal)

RE: Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility...↓

Dear Ecology:

I oppose the permit application of NWIW for the KMMEF. You should deny the application.

I am an ordinary citizen with two children and two grandchildren and I am very concerned about the future of our earth's environment for their sake. I agree with the IPCC that it is crucial to take immediate steps to reduce GHG emissions. However, the KMMEF if built will greatly increase the total GHGs emitted in Washington (between 786,117 and 1,421,748 million tons annually, SSEIS p. 86), making it much more difficult for us to meet our state GHG reduction goals.

It is your obligation to review the proposed permit under SEPA to assure it meets state goals. The proponents claim they plan to fully mitigate their in-state GHG emissions using yet to be developed methods, but they have no existing method of doing so. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.060, "(m)itigation measures shall be reasonable and capable of being accomplished." Even assuming the technology and availability of mitigation will exist, the overall increase in GHGs will make it more difficult for the state to meet its goals by removing potential mitigation reduction credits from the state market while still adding significantly (among the top 10 Washington emitters) to state GHG emissions and doing nothing to reduce total annual emissions.

You must evaluate a proposal under WAC 197-11-782 for how probable its outcome is Under WAC 197-11-794, an adverse effect may be considered significant even if its chance is not great but if the resulting impact would be severe. In this case, its proponents agree the likely GHG emissions from construction and continued operation of the KMMEF would be great and continue for approximately 40 years. Although the SSEIS argues on balance global GHGs would be reduced, the impact to Washington is so significant and the likelihood of full mitigation so unknown the permit should be denied.

Claims of global reduction of GHGs if KMMEF is built are speculative

The SSEIS states that all worldwide methanol demand will be met with or without KMMEF (SSEIS pp. 54 and 75). It further argues that under the most likely scenario, global emissions from methanol production with KMMEF in place would be 55% less than without (SSEIS p. 76). However, because so many factors considered and conclusions stated by the SSEIS are either uncertain or unsupported, this conclusion fails to meet the definition of "probable" under WAC 197-11-782.

For example, the ESM assumes that methanol from Kalama will replace methanol produced by coal in China to varying degrees (SSEIS p. 52). However, the SSEIS also explains that KMMEF production will replace higher cost methanol in the market (SSEIS p. 52).
The SSEIS does not establish that coal-produced methanol is a higher cost product. It currently is the most profitable Chinese methanol (SSEIS p. 71). In fact, it seems likely that Chinese methanol produced from coal will continue to have a lower cost or be preferred by Chinese buyers due to political factors in the Chinese economy. Because the assumption that KMMEF methanol will replace methanol from Chinese coal is unsupported and contradicted by the evidence, the conclusion that KMMEF methanol will replace Chinese coal-produced methanol does not meet the probability test.

In addition, although the SSEIS states the market in 2019 was capable of producing approximately 50% more methanol than was used*, it also concludes that producers will continue to produce methanol, even at a loss, in order to benefit from expected future profits (SSEIS p. 68). If producers are willing to operate at a loss, they will sell their product at a lower price than KMMEF in order to assure future sales. In that case, KMMEF methanol will not replace other global sources.

Mitigation

KMMEF proposes to fully mitigate all in-state GHG emissions by designing a voluntary mitigation program. While its promises sound good, KMMEF cannot point to any existing method of mitigation nor does it specify exactly how it will be able to mitigate the huge negative environmental impact KMMEF will create on Washington's airshed. Whether it will actually be able to completely offset all GHGs for the full life of the plant and how it will do so remain completely speculative. KMMEF has not demonstrated its mitigation measures are capable of being accomplished as required by RCW 43.21C.060.

Furthermore, assuming mitigation measures such as carbon credits are available in the future, there may be a limited supply. The large amount of credits KMMEF will need will result in fewer credits available for other emitters, meaning there may simply not be enough mitigation measures in Washington to meet the overall need.

Finally, even assuming KMMEF is able to fully mitigate all of its annual emissions, doing so merely returns Washington to the current GHG count but does nothing to meet state goals for GHG reduction.

Conclusion

The SSEIS cites numerous other bases for uncertainty for its conclusions. See, e.g., SSEIS pp. 68, and 105. Under SEPA the outcome of an EIS must be probable. With so many uncertainties, the proponents cannot meet their burden.

Polluters often use the promise of future jobs as an excuse for their climate destroying operations. In this case, NWIW has continued to claim without credible factual support that not only will they create jobs but they will magically reduce worldwide global GHG emissions by substituting "cleaner" methanol for "dirty" methanol. Ecology did not buy the promises made in NWIW's first and second EISes and it should not buy them now.

Washington citizens rely on the Department of Ecology to protect us and our environment from pollution, consistent with state laws. The future livability of our state and our climate depend on every jurisdiction doing its job to reduce global GHG emissions consistent with the IPCC findings.

For the sake of our children and grandchildren I hope you will deny this permit.

Thank you for your consideration,

/s/
Peter Fels

* At one place in the SSEIS global methanol production capacity is listed as 153 MMT (SSEIS p. 50) and at another place 157 MMT (SSEIS p. 68); while global use in 2019 was more than 98 MMT (SSEIS p. 50).

Attachments:

Comment From: Lori McKenna

9/26/20 @ 2:31 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: James Frost

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Joan Davis

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Lee

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don?t allow the world?s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Andre Fortin

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Lynn Fitz-Hugh

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Marilee Dea

9/25/20 @ 5:00 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Linda Wysong

9/25/20 @ 4:20 PM
Dear Department of Ecology,
Please do not allow the world's largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery along the majestic Columbia River impacting Kalama and the whole region. If built, the proposed
Kalama methanol plant would use staggering quantities o...↓

The NW is burning, forests and homes are being destroyed and we can't breathe. Climate change is not some far off myth but our daily reality. I live just across the Columbia River In Oregon. This is impacts all of us.
For the community of Kalama and for our climate, the risk is simply too big. Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution. I am counting on you to do the right thing and stop this dirty, dangerous fossil fuel export project.
Linda Wysong
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Reuter

9/25/20 @ 2:53 PM
I am speaking here as an individual and not as the Mayor of Kalama.

The concerns that I have is that there are two major deciding factors when it comes to tax revenues for the state and county coffers.

One of the major factors in deciding valuations of...↓

The fossil fuels that methanol is made from would play a major part in the future of this refinery. Natural gas, oil, coal, and methanol market prices are all extremely volatile. Prices and the supply and demand for this product would fluctuate daily. The refinery would depend on almost all of these fuel types since Asia will buy methanol from the lowest producer, and they can source the methanol easily from any or all of these feedstocks.

There are other major factors that are not under our control are in Canada, where all of this natural gas is coming from including fracking regulations, tariffs, and other environmental concerns.

The second factor is based on the improved values of the property itself. It decreases substantially every year due to diminishing values.

We need to use this land for a project that produces more than 1.2 permanent jobs per acre after factoring in mitigation for this refinery. We also need to build the facilities here, not in another country, and assemble it when it arrives.

Cowlitz County leadership needs to stop hoping for a large, heavy industrial user or a massive fossil fuel company to save it. The Cowlitz County Economic Council needs to get businesses that would add a more secure economic engine to the county.

The day I knew that the county was in trouble was when the newsletter of a local business magazine said that Cowlitz County is looking forward to three things in the coming years.

1. The coal terminal.
2. The marijuana industry.
3. The methanol refinery.

If you went to any other city or county in the state and said that this is what the county is looking forward to, they would vote you out as fast as humanly possible.
No attachments

Comment From: Paula Overholtzer

9/25/20 @ 2:13 PM
I'm a retired teacher, having taught 30 years in Clark County, and one year in Chongqing, China. Throughout China, the skies are
gray with Industrial Air Pollution. I know all about that!

Before becoming a science enhancement teacher for Battle Groun...↓

Another consideration for me is the extreme amount of both Fracked Gas and Electricity to be used by this Methanol Refinery! It seems probable that the cost of these two commodities would go sky-high for Washington residents because we'd be competing with the Refinery for them! But many seem willing to squander away a peaceful, healthy existence for Peace River's Indigenous population; to allow transport of extracted gas through certain-to-leak pipelines passing through our state; to allow enormous amounts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to pollute our state's air (and this planet-in-crisis); and then to voluntarily pay more (due to high demand) for the Natural Gas, Water, and Electricity that we need for our own current uses. It doesn't make any sense. And it doesn't make any sense that China would give up some of its coal-powered refineries just because, "Those people in Washington decided to allow the construction of the biggest fracked-gas-to-methanol refinery in the world!"

It is heart-breaking to realize that this proposed atrocity on the Mighty Columbia River is all about jobs, port rent receipts, tax revenue, high profits for a foreign developer, and, if truth-be-told, bribes behind-the-scenes. It cannot be worth it. We, as a human species need to act now to save our planet. Subsidized fossil fuel extraction and usage is devastating this world. Now's the time to make the switch to green, renewable energy. Our state is supposed to be all about that! Cowlitz County's citizens could be put to work building light-rail or a high-speed magnetic-levitation train along the I-5 corridor from Portland to Seattle, for instance! Good jobs!

At one rally I attended along the Kalama River, during which kayakers paddled past with signs that read NO FRACKED GAS...... and, by the way, two of my former students were among those activist kayakers!....... I was the person carrying the big sign that read, "Best Governor: Jay Inslee." It had been announced that Governor Inslee had come off-the-fence and proclaimed his disapproval of the Methanol Refinery. I supported him as the "presidential candidate with a strong environmental focus!!"

I hope that we can continue to count on our Governor, who claims concern for the Climate Crisis, along with Laura Watson and her Department of Ecology Team, to lead the way by rejecting another Fossil Fuel Disaster. Neither Indigenous Peoples of Canada nor citizens of Kalama wish to reside in "sacrifice zones."
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Walsh

9/25/20 @ 12:05 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Larry Horst

9/25/20 @ 11:49 AM
Northwest Innovations Works wants to put the health and safety of our community at risk so they can use massive amounts of fracked gas to make methanol that will be exported to China to be burned as fuel and used to make more plastic. I oppose this r...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/25/20 @ 10:54 AM
Regarding Kalama Methanol

The business as usual market conditions you use if the Kalama methanol plant is NOT built does not include two mid-course corrections China has made on emissions policy, after the Kalama methanol plant was proposed.
In 2015 in...↓
On Sept 22, 2020, at the United Nations, China promised to peak earlier than 2030 and be carbon neutral before 2060.
That means if the Kalama methanol plant is NOT built, policy makers in China will be reducing emissions wherever possible. They are not likely to consider single use plastic to be essential and thus not continue business as usual.
Mayors in China are required to reduce emissions and will be looking for ways to do that. (Source: The Question, by Daniel Yergin)
Eliminate or change the speculation about what would happen if Kalama methanol is NOT built.

Source: https://gcaptain.com/china-pledges-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2060/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed: Gcaptain (gCaptain.com)&goal=0_f50174ef03-c7996e9511-169978253&mc_cid=c7996e9511&mc_eid=033cdd1d41

No attachments

Comment From: Gino Ceravolo

9/25/20 @ 10:41 AM
I don't understand how it can be said that adding fossil fuels into the economy will reduce greenhouse gases. Building a new facility with a 40 year life is dooming us with 4 decades of fracking wells polluting people's groundwater with undisclosed ...↓

The Washington Department of Ecology is the last potential roadblock to this catastrophic project. How is it that well over 40 years after global warming was confirmed by scientists that our progressive state might allow a new fossil fuel facility on the shores of our Columbia River? My children look to you to give them hope that they are seen, that you understand the science and existential threat of the Climate Crisis, and that you will stand up for their future.

Thank you,
Gino Ceravolo
No attachments

Comment From: Don Steinke

9/25/20 @ 10:33 AM
Regarding Kalama Methanol. Please respond to these questions in your final SEIS.

1. Is this proposal consistent with the sense of urgency in the latest IPCC report?
2. Is this proposal consistent with the Paris Climate Accords which China signed?
3. In...↓
4. Will pipeline leaks be monitored and fixed promptly?
5. Exactly how will the company mitigate their emissions and will their plan mitigate the instate emissions the first year? It takes years before a planted tree is very effective in capturing CO2.
6. When given a range of impacts, why did you choose the least harmful option, instead of the worst-case scenario?
7. The models that EPA and others provide for estimating emissions are notorious for low-balling. In particular, I'm thinking of the fugitive emissions of methane and the emissions from flaring from the fracking fields, the pipeline gathering area, the compressor stations and the pipeline. How will you compensate for EPA's flawed models?
8. Are you using the 20-year or the 100-year global warming potential for fugitive methane? The next 20 years are the most critical. Why not use the 20-year global warming potential?
9. China has committed to electric buses and cars. The availability of cheap methanol for fuel could displace EVs. Include the emissions impact of that.

No attachments

Comment From: Vicki Johnson

9/25/20 @ 10:20 AM
Washington state has already paid the price for "clean" energy when we allowed Hanford here. Fish populations up and down the Columbia have suffered greatly, some may never return to optimum populations ever again.
This Natural has plant is just anoth...↓
STAY OUT IF WASHINGTON
No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Hansen

9/25/20 @ 9:02 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
elizabeth - hansen
8831 42nd Ave SW Seattle, WA 98136-2520
emhansen74@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Sampson

9/25/20 @ 9:00 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

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

Building ...↓

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Paul Sampson
8458 Tillicum Rd SW Seattle, WA 98136-2417
pdsampson@comcast.net
No attachments

Comment From: Elly Claus-McGahan

9/25/20 @ 8:52 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.

As you know we have a state goal of reducing emissions by 45% below 1990 levels by 2030. It makes no sense to then support a project that will make it even more of a challenge to meet this goal than it already is. Further we need to acknowledge that the world doesn't care where emissions take place, only that they did take place. That's enough to cause the enormous damages we now see from fires, storms, droughts, and freak winds to name only a few aspects. It is not cost effective to support a project like this given the growing tremendous costs we all have to pay to deal with the damages of climate change enhanced natural disasters, both in actual cash out lay and in human terms of things like loss of housing, food shortages and the like. With China also announcing its desire to go carbon neutral, it's not wise for us to instead grow our emissions with plants like these.

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: Linda Horst

9/25/20 @ 8:37 AM
I find it unsettling that even though Ecology found NWIW's 2018 mitigation proposal inadequate, this 2020 version has not been significantly improved. Misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions, this Volunt...↓

Mitigation is how rich fossil fuel companies buy their way out of the harm they cause! No mitigation will stop the pollution and environmental degradation inflicted upon Washington's current and future generations by this refinery.

Also disgusting, is the much hyped 'net green project' mantra. If this refinery is the environmental panacea NWIW claims it to be, why is every NW environmental organization opposed to it?

As a 30-year area resident and life-time Washingtonian, this refinery hits painfully close to home. If built, my family and hundreds of thousands of people like us will be forced to endure the myriad negative impacts of this dangerous, polluting behemoth for THE REST OF OUR LIVES!

As Governor Inslee said years ago, "We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it. Now is the time to act." Our Governor is right. Stop the madness. Deny the permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Kathy Wilmering

9/25/20 @ 8:28 AM
I appreciate that Ecology has consistently worked to keep pollution in our state to a minimum within the framework of legislative approval. I also appreciated that you insisted on a more extensive analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methano...↓

As part of my comment, I want to include the information below in quotation marks. Although I did not write it, it represents my opinion much more clearly than I could write.

"This new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.

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 rule to keep us on track to transition from fossil fuels. We have no more time to waste.
No attachments

Comment From: Ryan Schrader

9/25/20 @ 8:07 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: Lisa Dennison

9/25/20 @ 7:17 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

We are called to be steward of God's creation- not pillagers of it.

Building the world's largest fracked gas...↓

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Ms. Lisa Dennison
7500 11th Ave NW Seattle, WA 98117-4143
lisa2karl@aol.com
No attachments

Comment From: Mike and Rita Mahaffa

9/25/20 @ 7:05 AM
Methane is in many respects a more dangerous planet killer. We strongly oppose increasing the potential proliferation of gas which will hasten making this planet uninhabitable. Classic short term benefit for a few in exchange for poisoning the eart...↓
No attachments

Comment From: scott daly

9/25/20 @ 7:02 AM
I am a Kalama resident Opposed to the Methanol Plant in Kalama for the following reasons:

1. Health – Planned emissions may be below US environmental safety laws, but the overall history of medical science is that the acceptable levels of the pa...↓

2. Safety – Possible explosions due to gas leaks, as well as methanol production, such as has occurred in in Garland TX, 2012, and in Tianjin, China 2015 (killing 173). Proponents of the plant cite these explosions were caused by human error, but the Kalama plant will also be operated by humans, capable of new unforeseen errors. Plus, China's record on chemical factory explosions is poor. They haven't improved since the 2015 explosion, as there were explosions in 2018 in Hebei province (killing 23), and another in Sichuan this year (killing 19). While the US OSHA laws generally result in higher safety than China's, skirting of these laws by companies is not infrequent, often at the top-down directive of upper management and ownership (which will be Chinese for NWIW). Even in the EU, with very stringent safety regulations, there was a recent methanol plant explosion in Norway (Dec 19, 2018). Even if the explosion is contained within the site, which is an argument of the proponents, this area is heavily wooded and the region has been subject to extreme wildfires due to drier summers. Average wind speeds would be enough to cause a fire to spread into the nearby forests, then to the rural homes, and finally to the town of Kalama.

3. Impede new residential development and Aesthetics- Installing a >150' emission tower in a new part of town separated from the existing smaller emission towers will degrade visual environment, and likely start a new sprawl of such emissions towers. It will easily be visible from I-5, as well as many homes in the hills around Kalama river road, and to those on the north and west sides of Green mountain (While I live on the south side of Green Mountain, I do care about impact to my neighbors, and community). Kalama is poised to grow into a tourist and potential business office area, with its relative proximity to the PDX airport, and new attractions such as the McMenamin's Harbor Lodge, the scenic location, and recreational access to the Columbia river. There is a large subdivision being planned for Spencer Creek basin, and the flare stacks will be visible from that neighborhood, and impact the value of those homes, or hinder any interest. Let us continue to move in that direction of residential growth, business offices, tourism and entertainment, as opposed to a chemical factory that will pull us toward the past. Aesthetics are important and affects all local residents' home values.

4. Plastics - Right now in Cowlitz county, plastics recycling has failed, and there is continual evidence and reporting of increasing plastics' pollutions in our oceans, especially in the scientific press. We should not contribute to the plastics industry.

5. Financial – There is no clause in the contact for the factory owners to pay for the dismantling of the factory and tower if the economics don't work out. Given latest situation on tariffs between the Us and China, the financial viability of the plant is nowhere certain. If that happens, we will be left with a rusting eyesore, like are seen throughout the rust belt and creating disincentive for companies to locate offices there.

6. Scale of the factory – This is too huge for Kalama. the plant will consume more water than the entire city of Kalama, and more gas than the major NW cities combined, including Seattle, Portland, and Spokane.

7. Opening the door to further gas production facilities in Cowlitz and Clark counties- The inner mountain states like Utah, Wyoming, etc., do not have port access, and want to use our ports for closest access to the Asian market. Once this pipeline is increased, and branched off to this site, the door is open for many other similar plants as the volume of gas produced in those regions far exceeds their ability to economically transport it by other means (such as via the heavily polluted Gulf of Mexico region). We do not want to end up like that region, which is well known for extremely poor health, and threats to its fishing industry. We shouldnt be sacrificing our health, safety, and quality of life to the needs of the inner mountain states, who through their own poor planning, have economies that are overly dependent on resource extraction. I used to live in Utah and still have friends there, and they are frustrated at the amount of political power the energy extraction companies have over their lives.

No attachments

Comment From: Jean M. Avery

9/25/20 @ 6:56 AM

The NWIW refinery would be harmful to oceans and marine life -- both because of shipping and also because of the plastics produced.

SHIPPING
The marine route from Kalama to China is more than 5,000 nautical miles (p. C-13). Added into the Second SEIS i...↓

PLASTICS
The Second SEIS states that the end uses of methanol would be 40% fuel and 60% olefins. Olefins can be used in plastics, resins, fibers, lubricants, and gels.

According to the Ocean Conservancy, plastics pollute oceans from the surface to the sea floor, affecting all forms of marine life -- from planktons to whales. Studies show that plastic has been found in sea turtles, sea birds, and even fish sampled from restaurants. In addition, there are harmful impacts to local economies if seafood or beaches are spoiled. The best solution is to prevent the plastic production at the source. Plastics are harmful to oceans, marine life, waterbirds, and beaches -- and yet, there is no planned mitigation by NWIW for such environmental damage.

GLOBAL IMPACTS CANNOT BE MITIGATED
In summary, the NWIW refinery could have widespread deleterious effects on oceans globally. If the Dept. of Ecology approves this project, might Washington inadvertently be harming oceans far beyond its borders? This is certainly not consistent with Ecology's stated mission. In fact, such a globally impactful project is likely beyond the purview of one state's Dept. of Ecology.

Please deny the permit for this project.

No attachments

Comment From: Linda Leonard

9/25/20 @ 6:45 AM
Industry is a major contributor to climate change. The more fossil fuels are extracted and burnt, the more earth will be impacted for generations to come.

Scientists have long acknowledged the fingerprints of global warming with the massive wildfires...↓

The proposed methanol refinery in Kalama would increase greenhouse gas emissions within Washington state by almost one million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent a year.

Our climate future is at stake from this project. We will be handcuffed to this dirty fossil fuel infrastructure for the next 40 years.

It seems Kalama has everything to lose from this venture and Northwest Innovation Works' LLC, a new company backed by the Chinese government, will reap the rewards.

What a price the citizens of this area will pay! Please deny the shoreline permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Bill Adams

9/25/20 @ 6:29 AM
This fossil fuel project should not go forward mainly for its dependence on mostly fracked natural gas. There's nothing remotely good about fracking. It's only purpose is to bring more fossil fuels into the world when the world's scientific community...↓

Bill Adams
No attachments

Comment From: Jean M. Avery

9/25/20 @ 6:19 AM

When I originally wrote this on September 15, I was sitting indoors for another day, because of hazardous air quality from the wildfires. I wondered if and when we would be able to enjoy the outdoors again in beautiful Washington state. I kept checki...↓

While on the same website, I also saw an article about a past "Clean Air Month." This article had nostalgic overtones: reminders to reduce our vehicle emissions, ride a bike, not let our cars idle, take the bus, buy a ZEV. Then the article restated Ecology's mission "to protect and enhance the environment today and for future generations."

Under consideration now is a proposal from an international company to build a huge methanol refinery in Kalama and operate it for 40 years. According to an independent study by Sierra Club, the refinery would emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases per year, "equivalent to 2.4 million cars." The refinery would also consume "more fracked gas than the region's biggest cities combined," making it "Washington's largest climate polluter by 2025."

If one project can undermine Washington's efforts to keep our air clean, why should such a project even be considered? I fear that any approval of this project would also undermine Ecology's credibility to represent Washington as "a leader in responding to climate issues" (from "Clean Air Month" blog, May 26, 2018).

I urge the Dept. of Ecology to deny the permits for this project.

No attachments

Comment From: Julia Sokoloff

9/25/20 @ 5:42 AM
Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS

As a longtime resident of Washington, as a physician with a public health background and as a citizen of the world, I need to add my comments on the proposed Kalama Manufacturing ...↓
As a member of the Washington Academy of Family Physicians Public Health Committee, I am very concerned about the air and water discharges that would result from this refinery. The Columbia River Aquifer is very sensitive and could be irreparably damaged.
The proposed methanol refinery would lead to millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, and once built it could not be shut down for the life of the refinery, some 30-40 years. Ecology's own analysis shows that the project would produce 4.6 million tons of carbon pollution each year, or more. This level of pollution is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washington's climate goals, protecting Washington's Shorelines, and charting a path to keep global temperature rise below 2 degrees C.
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 made to local and state regulators that the methanol would only be used to manufacture plastic. Now, Ecology's analysis contemplates 40 percent of the methanol being burned, yielding 2 million tons of carbon pollution each year.
Washington State needs to take a stand and not make a commitment to the fossil fuel industry to allow the industry to use our land and our shoreline to ship methanol overseas under long term contracts.
The risk to our environment in Washington from potential leaks and discharge from the plant damaging our fragile Columbia River Shoreline is not acceptable. Ecology should deny the Shorelines permit for the refinery.
Why should Washington State take the risks to our environment and the health of our population for a small number of jobs, only to provide fuel for pollution in China and elsewhere. The voters of the state of Washington should say that we are not going to sacrifice our health and our environment to further the destruction of our planet. We are seeing the early effects of climate change now, and the effects will be exponentially worse in 10-20 years, but the plant once built will be irreversible. Please let the voices of reason from the citizens of this state be heard before finalizing the Second Supplemental EIS.
Sincerely,
Julia Sokoloff, MD
Family Physician, Kaiser Permanente
WAFP Public Health Committee

No attachments

Comment From: Dennis C

9/25/20 @ 4:57 AM
At best, this SSEIS assumes "business as usual" with zero success in mitigating GHG by replacing fossil fuel energy sources with sustainable energy sources. The Department of Ecology should be doing its best to protect air quality and the climate fr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Glen Anderson

9/25/20 @ 4:37 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

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

HAVEN'T Y...↓

Don't you know that WE MUST RAPIDLY TRANSITION AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS?

Don't you know that METHANE IS HORRIBLY WORSE THAN CARBON DIOXIDE as a greenhouse gas?

I AM APPALLED AND HORRIFIED THAT YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY PROHIBITED THIS EXTREMELY RECKLESS PROJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I DEMAND THAT YOU DO YOUR JOB AND PROTECT OUR ECOLOGY from this horrible abuse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mr. Glen Anderson
5015 15th Ave SE Lacey, WA 98503-2723
glenanderson@integra.net
No attachments

Comment From: George Keefe

9/25/20 @ 4:00 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

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

Building ...↓

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Mr. George Keefe
960 5th Ave S Edmonds, WA 98020-4037
georgewanc@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Cyndra Norman

9/25/20 @ 3:48 AM
I stand in opposition to the KMMEF facility to produce methanol from natural gas. It is clear we need to reduce greenhouse emissions now in order to avoid further destabilizing our climate. Methanol is a known greenhouse gas. Please, for the sake of ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Matthews

9/25/20 @ 3:43 AM
I oppose the construction of the Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility. The consensus on the world's scientists is that stabilization of the earth's climate requires reduction of greenhouse gas emission to net zero in less than a decade. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Natalie Reich

9/25/20 @ 3:25 AM
You have already received boatloads of expert testimony from experts and other concerned citizens. I simply want to add my name to those who are opposed to this behemoth of a fossil fuel project. Given the abundance of evidence that we are alre...↓

Thank you for saying NO to the Kalama Marine Manufacturing and Export Facility currently proposed, and to any future proposals.

Natalie Reich
No attachments

Comment From: Diane Kochendorfer

9/25/20 @ 2:50 AM
Dear WA Department of Ecology,

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

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

Building ...↓

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Diane Kochendorfer
191 S Palmer Dr Port Townsend, WA 98368-9436
dboushek@gmail.com
No attachments

Comment From: Linda Leonard

9/25/20 @ 2:36 AM
Northwest Innovation Works' states it will voluntarily mitigate 100 percent of all in state direct and indirect greenhouse emissions in Washington state. As for being voluntary, offset carbon emissions was the stipulation required for the shoreline ...↓

The SSEIS shows the Voluntary Mitigation Framework has no details on how mitigation will be accomplished.

Footnote 40 on D-2 reads: NWIW is undertaking research how to configure and account for the Voluntary Mitigation Program, including consideration of forming an independent nonprofit arm to administer the funds.

Additional conditions and required fulfillment documentation will be developed in coordination with Cowlitz County and the Department of Ecology following the completion of the environmental review of the facility.

The citizens of this state are being excluded from knowing anything more about the Voluntary Mitigation Program Framework.

How can the public make their own analysis in regard to this project?

Northwest Innovation Works' identifies no specific projects or measures that will address the enormous greenhouse gas pollution impacts. The Department of Ecology should not base the permit approval on speculative assumptions.

The decisions made will last for decades, we cannot keep ignoring climate change, time is running out.

Please deny the permit.
No attachments

Comment From: Debi Zickefoose

9/25/20 @ 1:53 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: Portland Raging Grannies (Portland Raging Grannies )

9/25/20 @ 1:30 AM
Testimony from the Raging Grannies and supporters. Just one evening's fotos.
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: Portland Raging Grannies (JOANA KIRCHHOFF)

9/25/20 @ 1:25 AM
Testimony from the Raging Grannies and supporters.
Attachments:
Download
Download
Download
Download
Download
Download

Comment From: Nancy Adams

9/24/20 @ 9:13 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Cheyenne Ness

9/24/20 @ 7:18 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Joanne Parrent

9/24/20 @ 5:27 PM
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.

This new Dra...↓

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

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

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

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

Comment From: Ute Saito

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Sara Simon-Behrnes

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Jen Forti

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Liliana Burchard

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

Comment From: Matt Stevenson

9/24/20 @ 5:00 PM
Don’t allow the world’s largest fracked gas-to-methanol refinery to harm our climate and Kalama!
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]