Biggest in the world: methanol facility

More Tacoma City methanol facilities arguments

I have two thoughts: (1) First; a source of water exists already for a new methanol plant; and (2) Being the biggest might-just present the biggest community hazard potential? Absent any community hazards analysis reports created and published for community to read first.

Proposed methanol plant for Port of Tacoma, Tacoma City area needs 7,200-gallons of water each minute; accordingly, Tacoma City Municipal Public Utility: Environmental Services: Wastewater Treatment Plant just happens to discharge many gallons per minute of effluent (treated water) water before dumping this water into Puget Sound Waters: Commencement Bay and travels within pipe across Port of Tacoma property already towards new methanol facilities sites. Therefore if the Wastewater effluent is good enough to be discharged into Puget Sound it’s good enough to use by any proposed methanol plant water requirement also.

Presented, within article,1 "[W]ould be the largest methanol manufacturing facility in the world. . . ."; therefore, this would present the largest potential community risk if something went wrong . . . but we still don’t have a community risk assessment hazards reports (land, water, and community surrounding) for the methanol facilities proposed for construction and operation and spills? See generally, John Sherman, “Community right to know lacking”, John Sherman’s Blog (John E Sherman’s Blog Dec. 25, 2015), https://johnesherman.com/2015/12/24/community-right-to-know-lacking/ or ( http://bit.ly/1mhX80H )

Citation

(1) Matt Driscoll, Matt Driscoll: The time for a methanol debate in Tacoma is now, (The News Tribune, Tacoma Wash.) (Dec. 28, 2015), http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/matt-driscoll/article51966305.html? or ( http://bit.ly/1RPEFWw )

////

Legal courts consider what

You want to know what legal system is doing. Pay your money first!

You can read the details after your pay your money to read what general government should already be providing to interested and effected persons of any Superior Court’s jurisdiction of people.

2015-12-26_14-10-24

Pierce County, Case information and scheduling, (Dec. 26 2015), https://linxonline.co.pierce.wa.us/linxweb/Case/CaseFiling/filingCopies.cfm?cn=15-2-14604-7&ct=CIVI

You pay then you can read details

Just another example, justice conducted behind the fog of money first

I think, absent my reading the courts documents, is a motion to resolve LNG facility(s) proposed for Tacoma City, Port of Tacoma: Puyallup Tribe of Indians v. City of Tacoma, Pierce County Wash. Sup. Ct. (2015 Civ.) 15-2-14604-7 (Land Use Petition (LUPA) ).

We Pierce County Taxpayers pay

The court(s) should not be charging Pierce County Taxpayer for the courts system documents that they already support with money and this is especially true for public health and environmental issues that affect and effect our communities that we collectively support to exist—government and courts.

////

Community Right To Know Lacking

What we don’t know right now

What hazard is presented me and other people population by Liquid Natural Gas (“LNG”)2,5,6 facility located within Tacoma City (Municipal Corporation Port of Tacoma) Washington?

We have the right to know what hazard is added into our community and presented risks

As SARA Title III Community Right-to-know Act3 intent:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) was enacted by Congress in 1980 to clean up the nation’s hazardous waste sites and to provide for emergency response to releases of hazardous substances into the environment. CERCLA is also called Superfund, and the hazardous waste sites are known as Superfund sites. In response to continuing community concern regarding hazardous materials and chemical release tragedies, a reauthorization and expansion of Superfund was signed into law in 1986. It is known as the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Title III of SARA (SARA Title III) is the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). SARA Title III establishes requirements for federal, state, and local governments, Indian tribes, and industry regarding emergency planning and Community Right-to-Know reporting on hazardous and toxic chemicals. The Community Right-to-Know provisions help increase the public’s knowledge and access to information on chemicals at individual facilities, their uses, and releases into the environment. States and communities, working with facilities, can use the information to improve chemical safety and protect public health and the environment.

Seems to me that explosive gas and fire would relate to fault in LNG facility operation and containment. LNG facility classified to qualify under SARA Title III Community Right-to-know Act. Also, an added hint is Tacoma City is considering opening and staffing a fire response station in close proximity to the proposed new LNG plants; as a result, Tacoma City appreciates some hazard not disclosed to us Tacoma City public (community).

I live in a community too

Because I live in a community where a new LNG plant(s) are planned and since my community consists is “People who [also] reside in a locality in more or less proximity. A society or body of people living in the same place, . . .” (Black’s Law Dictionary 280 (6th ed. 1990)) Therefore, I as person living within my community have the right to know hazards introduced into my community!

Now comes a hazardous substance into my surround

Does a potential hazard exist when managing LNG and future harm could occur? Where potential exists as possibility but absent existing today as I write. Right-to-know act imply, those involved with hazardous substances must disclose full range of risks public (community) exposure. In brief, I think any LNG facility, located within my Tacoma City, is a business that operates using hazardous substances; this means, thus must disclose those risks to me and all other persons within my Tacoma community. A complete hazards disclosure to my community before an potential hazard becomes a actual hazard event that has irreversible consequences to any person!

Just some foreign past examples of LNG hazards written disclosures

As others have addressed the LNG potential hazards7 – 11 created in past year from different state but two similar situations exist (1) A LNG facility; and (2) A LNG facility and water e.g., to our Puget Sound: Commencement Bay waters. There have already been some accidents with LNG and their exist articles written about LNG accidents.

So there does exist past example how hazard analysis studies should be written and published for community public to read, understand, and then make informed comments about building LNG plant(s) within their Tacoma City community.

My thoughts are these

My comments are already recorded within The News Tribune article related to these LNG facilities.1

Works cited

(1) John Sherman – ”[D]eficient”. Environmental and risk.. (2015), http://on.fb.me/1TjINf2

(2) PSE proposed Tideflats LNG facility (City of Tacoma 2013), http://bit.ly/1J7j60H

(3) SARA Title III: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Purpose and Applicability of Regulations (2014), http://www.in.gov/idem/files/small_bus_chap07.pdf

(4) Richard Nemec, Tacoma LNG storage project still moving forward despite challenges (Dec. 24, 2015), http://bit.ly/1NEShQv

(5) What is the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? (n.d.), Washington State Ecology, http://www.ecy.wa.gov/epcra/whatis.html

(6) US EPA and OSWER, What is EPCRA? (Jul. 24, 2013), http://www.epa.gov/epcra/what-epcra

(7) CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS IN CALIFORNIA: HISTORY, RISKS, AND SITING (2003), http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-07-17_700-03-005.PDF 2003

(8) Mike Hightower et al., Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over Water (2004), http://www.energy.ca.gov/lng/documents/2004-12_SANDIA-DOE_RISK_ANALYSIS.PDF 2004

(9)Ted Sickinger et al., Gas explosion at LNG facility in Washington prompts concerns about proposed export terminals in Oregon (OregonLive.com Apr. 2, 2014), http://bit.ly/1QPJFdG

(10)Repairs worth $69M ongoing at Plymouth natural gas plant (2015)(East Oregonian) http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20150105/repairs-worth-69m-ongoing-at-plymouth-natural-gas-plant

(11)Chesapeake Climate Action Network et al., In Light of Washington LNG explosion, community demands answers to cove point export terminal concerns, Aggregated (EcoWatch Apr. 7, 2014), http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/07/after-lng-explosion-community-cove-point-export-concerns/

////

Which: people or government perfect society tomorrow?

Taxes, lists, fees, rules, and the license fixes

Solves what? How? Applied to who?The solution is achieved when what happens? As fixed; the question is: do the specific taxes, lists, fees, rules, and licenses (collectively, “obeyers”) get removed?

Applying obeyers upon people; as a result, do we really have improved people actions tomorrow. Don’t think so. I have not recognized the obeyers in action creating the desired society (people interactions) improvements yet, as we continue to add more obeyers rules everywhere.1,2,3,4,5

We have doctor rules,5 police rules,4 government’s people rules and the fees or taxes that solve the problem.1,2,3

I think this

People, the average person, absent obeyers; therefore, will revert to what is right and just for people when given the correct and information. We don’t need obeyers that create new rules and collect money (not for the common good tomorrow) today. Ever hear the government say “we just don’t have a solution, so you must solve this problem yourselves”.

Citations

(1) Wikipedia No fly list (Wikimedia Foundation 2015), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List

(2) Seattle ‘gun violence tax’ defeats NRA challenge in court ruling (RT International Dec. 24, 2015), http://bit.ly/1MxYl9e

(3) Virginia to cancel concealed gun permit recognition with 25 states (RT International Dec. 24, 2015), https://www.rt.com/usa/326921-virginia-concealed-carry-p

(4) Lionel Nation, YouTube: Police Charge $3, 000 to View YOUR Body Cam Footage (YouTube Sept. 22, 2015), available at https://youtu.be/TtPJnjgWJCU

(5) Lionel Nation, YouTube: Infants Are Being Lobotomized by Big Pharma (YouTube Dec. 23, 2015), available at https://youtu.be/38WuyZJ9A3M

////

Be a information questioner

Think to ask, your knowledge depends upon the answers

Lionel’s Manifesto: The 12 Rules of Critical Thinking1

And, do take notes because this is the basic concept of knowledge and forget one-step and you will revert back to one of the herd as presenters drag you along for their ride tomorrow.

Who is faulted as information fragments delivered

Considering the information presenters:

  • Family & friends;
  • Political communications;
  • Local, regional, state, and federal governments;
  • News media (newspapers, web pages, internet) main stream media (“MSM”);
  • Books and ads;
  • Historical writing;
  • Legal writing and decisions;
  • Religion beliefs; and
  • Education and training

The flood of broken information comes each day every day.

So we know: what we know: how we know it: simply by information presented. We should consider—think about information details presented—but absent asking pointed questions this presented information will remain nothing more than a statement of words-joined.

Information basic foundation

Always ask: (1) The reason the presenter is presenting; (2) Who are the receptive listeners; (3) The presented information is to elicit what effect from who; (4) What information is missing; (5) Who is doing what to whom for what resulting benefit to just who; and (6) Am I allowed to ask questions and receive logical answers in simple words; thus I will connect my questions with the missing parts of the presenters presentation

When you think you know, thought you have known, consider this: I don’t know at all; therefore, ask another question.

Works cited

(1) The Lebron firm (The Lebron Firm) (n.d.), http://www.lebronfirm.com/#!media/cbr3.

The right information, to the right people, at the right time, prevents the wrong results by the right people. J.E. Sherman

////

Intellectual Property absent annual fees

Intellectual property should pay every year

It’s good to pay each year for the benefit you might receive if you ever decide to drive your vehicle; it follows, so should holding license to things one might access to receive a present or possible future benefit also annual licensed with fees and reporting.

As a condition of public benefit, like the annual vehicle registration (public roads) fee license renewal is required; so should annual intellectual property (“IP”)1 (public commerce) license renewal fee; as a result, required to maintain that person’s right to use, each year, that original registered IP also as a public commerce right; else it expires absent annual renewal fees paid to State(s) and Federal Government.

Let’s compare again

A car is a item of real property that has some value while licensed each year; therefore the IP that people own also has some value and should not be exempt from annual license renewal filing with fees paid.

Works cited

(1) Wikipedia Intellectual property (Wikimedia Foundation 2015), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property.

Restatement

////

Why is news no longer newsworthy

News for sake of news reports is not really news

What has happened to investigative reports done for local, regional, and national news stories presentations?

Apparent to me: main stream media (“MSM”) has the following constraints, limits real news collection and reporting; for example, constraints:

  • Working within established corporation MSM news collection budget restraints;
  • Preferential news sources, from which to elicit what is called news:
    • Source will terminate your MSM ability to ask questions and get answers if person irritated by MSM asking the wrong questions and presenting the wrong facts discovery.
    • As news source declares what is secret that must not be disclosed for the public good or government security.
    • Like political thinking can always write better news together and throw it out as MSM real news;
  • Stories aligned with those that pay for MSM ads;
  • News surveys. Surveys that tell MSM what it’s readers really like or dislike about it’s news presented? Then ask the question again about what news they did provide absent comparison to alternative; and
  • Newsroom and editors preference to elicit some response from those readers.
News stories rejected by MSM just because
  • Liability resulting from story content published;
  • infringe on a personal right to privacy;
  • story is not complete. Unable to verify facts;
  • unreliable source for this news;
  • government threats for such story published; and
  • the political and business objectives of such story is counter to the strategy this specific MSM publisher has adopted to present to public.
News reported could be better, just how?

Maybe the entire MSM news reporting—collecting, editing, publishing—might be improved for readers everywhere if the major MSM businesses gathered their potential news stories from people that write. Not reporters at all. Not the writers as we now consider news reporters because news reports seem only a regurgitate or parrots what has been told to them by some official briefing held for the MSM news outlets.

What a real MSM news process would require

It’s really quite simple to get good and complete MSM news stories, if that was desired; it follows:

  1. A story with facts and citations present to all facts presented.
  2. An Editor. The Editor that will configure the story into readable words-joined test with correct grammar and punctuation.
  3. Now comes the MSM news delivery team that voices or prints this news story for public viewing appreciation.

That’s it. With a complete news story that will write well, and all the players named (name that dog), and with a readable result in print or other MSM presentation is what people desire (in my opinion).

////

Prolific rules absent public proofing

So many rule writers today

Prolific rules3 and more everyday but nobody, except the writer and writer’s employer, might read the written words?

A rule is written absent people’s ideas how a problems solution might already exist—for example, legislatures and judicial common law new law sources written. Therefore (the solution action plan) find somebody somewhere to join the words necessary making new rulemaking script.

I recalled, from reading, just how rules and regulations formation has evolved within the United State; since Congress and states had adopted a change from rules of common law courts enacted or decided to also include legislature(s) enacted statutes.1

Comes the written rule reading overload

Presently with court rules and legislator rule written approved and becoming something for someone somewhere to obey, follow, or prohibit; it follows, just a few examples of rules so complex that the average reader of words is confounded:

  • IRS Tax Code;
  • Affordable Care Act;
  • Cybersecity acts2; and
  • Patriot Act; i.e. a few.
New written rulemaking why?

A rule is written when people don’t have any idea what to do for a problems solution. Therefore find somebody somewhere to join the words necessary making the rulemaking script.

Does a pubic benefit exist?

New rule. No real public benefit for tomorrow. Also, just thinking a-bit, the written rules are so complex, so many words, so many meaning, and lacking insufficient editors to alter existing adopted rules; as a result, rules written, rules adopted, rules enforcement, and rules changed to align with tomorrows society norms and standards and civilized society stand little- to no-chance of every being reconsidered. Too bad. Stare decisis1 used by courts past might have been the real solution to the overwhelming words written as rules today for tomorrow enforcement.

The rule making mistake, just might have been, when the Congress decided to expand who can create and enact rules including Congress.

Works cited

(1) Richard K. Neumann, Jr., Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing,(4th ed.) 5–6 (2001).
(2) Jenna McLaughlin, Hasty, Fearful Passage of Cybersecurity Bill Recalls Patriot Act, The Intercept_: Unofficial _sources (Dec. 19, 2015) https://theintercept.com/2015/12/19/hasty-fearful-passage-of-cybersecurity-bill-recalls-patriot-act/ or (http://bit.ly/1QBqnIV).
(3) Lionel Nation, YouTube: Absurd US Laws and the Mindless Sheeple Who Follow Them
(YouTube Dec. 17, 2015), available at https://youtu.be/Ojq8dIpfMYE

We have lists

Lists are created because?

(1) As a reminder to do or remember something;
(2) a listing of what I like or dislike; or
(3) a list made by others that qualifies or un-qualifies a person where name is placed upon the list.

Lists created for personal use are good but not for government use where public access discrimination follows a name-on-list blindly

As a result:

Any listing of any person by name upon any list that has not been created by any court of law remedy (within public view) and has prohibitory result to the named person, absent persons right to argument in open court.

In other words:

Lists, absent rule’s purpose, provides many problem solutions; but blind to rules, policy, and why list persists once created.

List’s applied:

Now we have the No Fly List1 considered for people’s name prohibited from gun purchases. Already No Fly List restricts named people from using public transportation systems. Then we have the Terrorist Watch List as just another list.

Citations, Quotes & Annotations

(1) Wikipedia No fly list (Wikimedia Foundation 2015), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List.
Note: (“No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. The Terrorist Watch List contained around 1,000,000 names by March 2009.”).

////