Citizens comment on Bradwood EIS

Staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) heard comments on the draft environmental impact statement for a proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal Tuesday in Cathlamet.

Bradwood Landing, a branch of NorthernStar Natural Gas, is proposing to build the terminal at Bradwood, Ore., across the Columbia River from Puget Island.

The proposal calls for building the receiving terminal, re-gassification facility and two or three large storage tanks at Bradwood. A pipeline would be built from Bradwood to Port Westward, where it would cross under the Columbia at Mill Creek, and then traverse Cowlitz County to connect with an existing north-south pipeline.

FERC released the draft EIS last summer and has been collecting public comment this week in meetings in Longview, Clatskanie, Cathlamet and Knappa.

Several people spoke in favor of the proposal.

Richard Erickson, executive director of the Lower Columbia Economic Development Council, said that board had initially taken a neutral stance but subsequently changed to a supporting stance because of potential economic benefits.

Bradwood Landing has committed to stationing three tugboats at Cathlamet; the tugs would be used to assist the LNG tankers in docking and embarking.

Working with the Workforce program, the plant could provide vocational training to high school students, who could earn journeyman certification, he said.

Third, the company has followed through on commitments to contribute to the welfare of the county with $100,000 a year until the plant is built and $500,000 a year once it is built.

Puget Island resident Kayrene Gilbertsen echoed Erickson’s comments. The company has followed through on its promises, she said, and she had talked to firemen who visited Savannah, Geo., the site of another LNG terminal, and who returned feeling they could deal with LNG emergencies.

Gary Gilbertsen, also of Puget Island, cited the LNG industry safety record and said the plant wouldn’t impact fish and wildlife.

Steve Fluke, Raymond, a union representative, said the union supports the proposal because of the jobs and economic impact they will have.

Karen Bertroch, Rosburg, said the company’s mitigation plans and contributions to fish recovery efforts were quite welcome in the region. She added that she had once lived in Alaska and opposed the Trans Alaska Pipeline project. That pipeline was built, she said, “and it didn’t hurt a thing.”

Thus, the lesson she learned in Alaska was, “If we compromise, we can all win,” she said.

Other speakers, however, challenged the proposals and urged FERC to look closer at details.

Puget Island resident Paula Carlson challenged EIS comments that the plant would have little noise impact. Noise from activities on the river is noticeable, she said. The error calls into question the accuracy of other NorthernStar comments in the EIS, she added.

Esther Gregg, Rosburg, reported that the Washington State Grange had voted unanimously at its summer convention to oppose the plan because of its impacts on people and the surroundings.

Puget Island resident Carol Kriesel cited inconsistencies in the EIS regarding distance from the plant to the Island and in a finding that the plant would be small to medium size. The project has too many inconsistencies, she said.

Island resident Rick Beck took issue with a comment in the EIS that no known slides had occurred along the river in the area. He referred to a quarter mile wide slide that occurred at Bugby Hole that created a tsunami wave that killed a Puget Island resident. The region is due for a major subduction zone earthquake he added, and no one knows how to design facilities to withstand that.

“Don’t you do something that the rest of us will regret,” he commented.

Island resident Craig Brown said he is a retired fire fighter from San Francisco, and from his experience, he doubted the tugs would be able to assist at an LNG fire on a tanker or at the terminal. Also, a release of LNG could easily create a vapor that would drift onto the island and find an ignition point.

“The draft EIS doesn’t deal realistically with how to deal with the fire hazard,” he said.

Robert and Gail Kaiser, landowner along the proposed pipeline route in Cowlitz County, said the draft EIS doesn’t adequately cover geological hazards along the route. Landslides have caused ruptures in the existing Williamson pipeline, they said.

Mike Lewis, Puget Island, said he had had a 30-year career in risk management in the insurance industry. His opinion is that by siting an LNG facility at Bradwood, it would become a bulls eye for terrorists.

“You’re inviting yourself to become a 9/11 target no matter what you write in that book (the EIS),” he said. “This is just another example of how our engineers in this country think they can build anything.

“Whenever there’s a fire at a refinery, firemen just stand back and let it burn. You don’t fight fires on ships like that.

“This is an unmitigated disaster.”

Beverly Beal of Cathlamet expressed concern over seismic hazards. The EIS doesn’t mention the Nisqually Quake which occurred a few years ago, but her house shook and rolled very hard, she said.

Daniel Serres, advocate for a consortium of groups opposed to the proposal, noted that FERC’s consulting firm which did environmental review on parts of the draft EIS, is also consulting for a firm proposing another natural gas pipeline which could be linked to the Bradwood Landing pipeline. That appears to be a conflict of interest, he said.

FERC Project Manager Daniel Friedmann responded that FERC had just recently learned of the potential conflict and reviewing the firm’s status.

FERC will address the comments from all meetings and from those sent in email or by US Post. A final environmental impact statement and project certificate could be issued next spring.