Submission Number: MBTL-SEPA-DEIS-0001485 

Received: 5/31/2016 12:27:53 PM
Commenter: Thomas Brown
Organization: Cap & Seal Co.
State: Illinois

Agency: Cowlitz County and the Washington Department of Ecology
Initiative: Millennium Bulk-Terminals Longview SEPA DEIS
Attachments: No Attachments
Submission Text
Dear Washington State: I am President/Owner of a small manufacturer in Illinois. We make small parts out of steel. You may think we have no stake in this project, but it is obvious to me that we do. This idea of deciding about shipping things based on the greenhouse potential of the freight when that freight is consumed somewhere else, and created somewhere else, is completely wrong-headed. The reason the terminal is needed in the first place is EFFICIENCY. That equals LESS ENERGY CONSUMED per ton of coal. Decide on this terminal based on the impact the terminal will have on the area. Make it efficient and clean as possible and then move forward. It is not up to the State of Washington to decide who can burn coal. The coal will be purchased and burned whether you build this terminal or not. The idea that all outbound freight be judged on its greenhouse potential is not a good one. Who will fill out all the forms? Will this greenhouse legislation move to steel we import from other countries? I'm sure there is some greenhouse effect there? Will I or my vendors be placed in the position of having to determine the GHP of every coil of steel? Will it move to plastic? Will it expand to the fuel burned to move the material? Will we stop the production of coal cars, tanker cars etc because of the greenhouse potential of the freight they potentially carry? This is an international trade KILLER. If we open this silly door, will our trading partners also adopt similar retaliatory restrictions for goods they ship to the US? The potential for unintended negative outcomes stemming from this legislation is massive. There is no unusual impact from a terminal that receives rail cars of coal and ships them on if it's designed properly. Kudos for going to the trouble to see that it is designed properly. We're for a clean, efficient freight hub if someone wants to build it. It's a job creator and helps the US stay competitive and productive. We're not, however, for judging any freight hub based on its freight. It's not making the freight and it's not consuming it. Efforts to replace the use of coal are already going on in many big consumption countries. Until those are successful, the coal must come from somewhere to keep going. Coal buyers are going to buy and burn coal whether or not you build this hub. Why not burn coal from the US? The alternative would be building yet more new coal mines in China or somewhere. I've heard that a new coal mine is built in China every day or two as it is. The more new mines built in the Far East, the more difficult it will be to end their coal in the future. Better, I think, to use the world's existing facilities for the last 20 to 30 years of coal as fuel. This idea just isn't going to help anything...only will make the US a weaker nation. We're not for that around here. Thanks, Tom Brown Cap & Seal Co.