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 hazards^{7 – 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/

////