Tacoma: Flares: LNG: Methanol: Birds: Not good

Birds fly into and out of Port of Tacoma Area

But, now comes the proposed LNG and Methanol facility(s) to be constructed and operated with flame flare systems for gasses and vapors; it follows, this is just not a good mix with birds flying around or near facility flare burning environmental hazards,

I had to submit my comment to Tacoma EIS Methanol facility


My Comments: “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA File No. SEPA2015-40000260025: Environment: Killing of Birds, (file:ms20160130a.pdf), (Jan. 30, 2016), (Submitted to Tacoma SEPA EIA 1/30/2016), online at http://bit.ly/20dCgKg (visited Jan. 30, 2016)

So, the birds of Tacoma Community need environmental consideration also, even if they are just flying-through and stopping only for a short visit nearby in Port of Tacoma areas, but it should not become their death.

I was not aware of a book until today at the Pt Defiance Boathouse shop: on the shelf, was ‘Seattle Audubon Nature Shop – Birding Destinations – Birds of Vashon 2nd Ed.’ [accessed 30 January 2016]; as a result, I am wondering if the birds might fly (the bird flight-path) between Vashon and Port of Tacoma bird natural habitat? This bird path might cross the Methanol and LNG lands plot areas? Just something else to consider when doing a for-real with fact environmental study: community and all hazards considered.


What I don’t know about natural gas?

Natural Gas is proposed to feed industry in Tacoma Washington

Therefore, It’s time I start learning, it’s an education thing for older people, about natural gas (methane gas) and its good- and not-so-good-benefits.

My research, I discovered there exists sweet- and sour-natural gas

So, which type of natural gas is intended to supply the Tacoma Washington LNG and Methanol processing plants? I don’t know.

See, John Sherman, Sour Gas Like Sour Grapes Isn’t Great (Jan. 28, 2016) (pdf document) (available online http://bit.ly/1JJElGt ).

Note: This linked document is under revision as I discover new stuff about natural gas supply and use and hazards; as a result, I will revised document content.


Published: Jan. 28, 2016 :: 1540 PST (Rev. Jan. 29, 2016 :: 0640 PST)



Focus again: Tacoma PSE Proposed Tideflats LNG Facility

We must remember the LNG projects is still proceeding

Let’s remind ourselves that the Tacoma PSE proposed Tideflats (Port of Tacoma) LNG Facility is still proceeding; for example, see:

Let’s really see just what went into the “final” SEPA EIS document for Tacoma Community (people) and environmental understanding about the Tacoma LNG Facility? We must look at the final analysis presented within the Tacoma EIS document.

While, our attention has been directed towards the current SEPA EIS for methane-to-methanol plant; thus, I don’t remember that my Tacoma Community people have been informed yet about the LNG plant operating in Tacoma and its current status? Especially relevant, Haven’t seen any LNG article published in local Tacoma newspaper or Tacoma City Government making the Community public announcement: this LNG plant is completely environmentally safe for the Tacoma Community as a new LNG industry plant? Maybe, I just missed the good news about this LNG plant?


Revised Jan. 27, 2016::1220 PST

Industry: Chemicals: Community Knows What When?

Communities have potential hazards, people must know

in my community, Tacoma Wash., under review is a methane-to-methanol industrial plant proposed to be constructed here then operated and it will become the biggest methane-to-methanol operating plant in the world once built and processing methane (natural gas).

Likewise, I have an interest in the potential people hazards to me and other people within my Tacoma Community. Therefore, I must promote the U.S. EPA to do its environmental hazards review for my Community and all other U.S. Communities; as a result, publish all hazards discovered to all people within every effected Community. No exceptions.

See, John Sherman, Hazards: Chemicals: Who Will You Tell Just Wehn? Why?, (Jan. 23, 2016) (pdf document) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160123a.pdf or http://bit.ly/1OFf13n (visited Jan. 23, 2016).

let’s hope that the U.S. EPA does take an active environmental review of the proposed methane-to-methanol plant operating hazards and publishes each hazard discovered as discovered.


Published Jan. 23, 2016:1030 PST

I think I have EPA: EPCRA standing because

Let me think of the reasons

First, I must have a direct interest, or affected by potential for future injury, future harm created by operating Port of Tacoma Washington methane-to-methanol plant. I need have conditions that I might be adversely affected in future years, as also others within my Community; Just thinking, I think I do. I think I have the necessary interest and standing for my thinking of future actual harm to me and my Community.

See, John Sherman, Do I Have Standing U.S. EPA: EPCRA Considers What for Who?, (Jan. 21, 2016) (wordpress pdf document), online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160121a.pdf (visited Jan. 21, 2016).

Question: Tacoma City involvement

I question, conflict-of-community people(s) interests as Tacoma City Government is involved with the environmental review process for all hazards that will become present within Port of Tacoma if the methane-to-methanol plant is constructed and operating? Constructed and operated by private, not public, business venture.

Let’s hope the U.S. EPA and its EPCRA does a good job

The Community Right-to-Know Act policy intent, I believe, is to protect—people, lives, air, water, community, and absent living in fear and promoting a better environment tomorrow than today.


Published Jan. 21, 2016 : 1340 PST

Environmental process: policy created rule

The U.S. Environmental Policy First

Even though, we have had rules how the U.S. Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is applied today; but there exists the background policy that first created U.S. environmental oversight; let’s not forget what was intended by the early policy writers.

See generally, John E. Sherman, First, Environmental Policy then Rules Aligned with Policy, (Jan. 19, 2016) (pdf document) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160119a.pdf (visited Jan. 19, 2016).

Local governments clearly cannot allow industrial facilities to be situated within urban areas, regardless of the evolution of land use over time. Industry and government need to bring proper financial support to local communities so they can provide medical and other necessary services to reduce morbidity, mortality and material loss in the case of industrial accidents.[supra, at 1, n. 3 Lessons Learned]

For this reason, when a community EIS is undertaken all surrounding hazard(s) must be considered with written published public analysis EIS report results. For two reasons, (1) So interested and effected persons may review the completeness of the EIS hazards study report; and (2) The community (people) may use the EIS report; as a result, to benchmark their specific environmental hazards and risks concerns as allowed and promoted by Citizens guide to the NEPA[See, supra, n. 6]


Published Tue., Jan. 19, 2016 : 1445 PST

How EIA for SEPA or NEPA works

Let’s review, community public comments, the process

The review process for methane-to-methanol, Port of Tacoma proposed industrial plant, as Tacoma solicits environmental comments for government review and just how this works?

Let’s take a look at the environmental comments coordinator—Tacoma: NW Innovation Works: What Permits Will Be Required for a Plant at Tacoma, Washington?, (Accessed January 18, 2016) online at http://nwinnovationworks.com/projects/port-of-tacoma

Commenting process is a bit more complex

See, John Sherman, Tne Environmental Assessment Means?, (Jan. 17, 2016), online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160118a2.pdf (visited Jan. 18, 2016).

Still don’t see community hazard(s) analysis required first

I fail to find any reference to a mandatory community—people, property, lives, and well-being—required by default. Maybe a Community Right-to-Know Act study is required, but I can’t find the reference to such study documents as I read what is available to our Tacoma community public?


Let’s review our right to know -v- methanol

Community Right-to-Know sounds logical

On the other hand, does anybody really want the community (people, stakeholders) to understand what hazards are potential within their communities?

See, Sherman, John, Tacoma People Have Access Rights: Read the Planning Plans: How to Mitigate Community Industrial Accidents, (Jan. 17, 2016) (WordPress pdf file t20160117b) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160117b.pdf (visited Jan. 17, 2016).


Published Jan. 17, 2016 1444 PST Tacoma WA

The surround, methane-to-methanol process

What are some other hazard situations

Remember that, as our Tacoma City community (people) are focused on the environmental review stuff, looking directly at proposed planned methane-to-methanol industrial plant and its operation; in addition, we must keep all other Port of Tacoma current or future area industrial hazards defined and presented for community people to review as relative hazards consideration.

For example, See, Sherman, John, Methane-to-Methanol Industrial Site Hazards Proximate Hazards Between All Other Industrial Processing or Storage Hazards Located Nearby, (WordPress J.E. Sherman) (Jan. 17, 2016) (pdf document t20160117a), online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160117a.pdf


Published Jan. 17, 2017 : 0910 PST

Not more H2S into our wastewater influent!

Methanol: Tacoma stakeholder’s create the environmental focus

First of all, that does not sound logical; it follows, most people in Tacoma have little- to no-idea what hazards should environmental study consider (detailed hazard study subject): as environment issues are presented by community people—life, property, environment (land, air, and water), and secure safe community—regarding the methane to methanol process industry proposed for operation within Port of Tacoma Washington.

Secondly, Our Tacoma City Environmental Services Wastewater Utility [3] workers don’t seem to be considered when we argue the methane to methanol conversion process; yet if the methanol plant flow its effluent (process discharge used water) water into Wastewater Utility piping and treatment systems; as a result, this effluent water needs the same environmental review as all other hazards considered related to this project.

Tacoma wastewater hazards already

We’re not going to dump more hydrogen sulfide (“H2S”) liquids chemical waste into my Tacoma wastewater sewer system piping and treatment process; are we?

I am asking because sometimes methane is scrubbed with water

As a result, the scrubbed methane is cleaned by water to remove:

  • CO2
  • N2
  • H2S

In that case, these process effluent chemicals must be sent somewhere, and
could that somewhere be our Tacoma Wastewater Treatment Plant?

Nevertheless, these methane cleaning waters must be treated else just dumped into Puget Sound Commencement Bay.

Right now, our Tacoma Wastewater utility workers are exposed to bio-hazards today, the workers that are exposed to waste stream toxins flowing from homes, businesses, industry, and hospitals—including H2S, low oxygen (“O2″”) levels, and other health hazards[1,2]—each day as these people work with wastewater physical contact, pumping stations, and treatment plants, wet-wells, and influent waste streams, and removing the solids from waste stream (the rag rakes).

We stakeholders must surface the hazards first

The proposed Tacoma plant is currently in the beginning of its SEPA review process, lead by the City of Tacoma, which aims to determine its potential environmental impacts. This begins with a scoping period in order to identify the issues that will be focused on in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Scoping is also the first of several opportunities for public comment during the SEPA review. [4]

Therefore, I hope this helps give some Community right-to-know ideas e.g., what are the Tacoma community hazard(s) assessments that must be completed!

Works cited

[1] Albatanony, M A, and M K El-Shafie, Work-Related Health Effects among Wastewater Treatment Plants Workers, The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2 (2011), 237–44 online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022842 (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[2] U.S. OSHA, Safety and Health Topics : Hydrogen Sulfide – Hydrogen Sulfide in Workplaces online at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hydrogensulfide/hydrogensulfide_found.html (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[3] U.S. EPA, Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems online at http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/primer.pdf (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[4] Proposed Methanol Plant in Tacoma, WA, (Concrete Connection on WordPress.com), online at https://concreteconnection.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/proposed-methanol-plant/ (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

Published 1/16/2016