Methane process facts missing

Logical decisions need facts first

We have some methane gas processing industries proposed for Tacoma Washington, Port of Tacoma, area. This industry is moving ahead with permits and construction planning, but still missing is stakeholders (community people’s) fact information published prior to requesting stakeholder’s comments about these projects.

Tacoma stakeholders (the citizens) need more factual information related to Port of Tacoma new methanol process…, (Facebook post) (Jan. 14, 2016).

Comments second, after all facts published

Let’s get all the facts first before any public stakeholders comments are collected and evaluated for these methane processes permitted within our community.

Methanol conversion process requires lots of water. Why?

We have been told that water is required for process. See, Dunkelberger, S. (2016, January 14). Signature drive seeks to put methanol plant to a vote, Retrieved January 15, 2016, from
we have not been told about the process that needs the water or what the water contains (chemicals) after this process use?

State-of-the-art methanol process

So, let’s guess what that process might be that requires a lot of water for converting methane to methanol see generally, Efficient Natural Gas-to-Methanol Conversion, ARPA-E. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2016, from

Absent facts our community will just play the guessing game

ring a hazard into our community: first explain the hazard(s) facts then let our Tacoma community stakeholders make a decision. A decision, as to, allowing or not allowing your industry to operate within our community and it’s for export of our natural resources that once exported and gone will be gone forever.


Natural gas, the burn

We don’t need more natural fuels burned, I think this

When I consider new natural gas (methane) processing facilities within my community Tacoma City, Port of Tacoma, I don’t think it’s a great ideal to allow more natural gas processes that can contribute additional chemicals to our current airborne chemicals inventory in Tacoma.

I still maintain the thinking: The Tacoma community right-to-know about all risks proposed to be operated within their Tacoma community, not find out the hazard analysis was never done and made into a published public and available document.

Natural gas released

Natural gas (mathane gas) is not a problem when held captive underground but when we extract, process, added to airborne inventory, or com busted (burn) it; as a result, new considerations by the community (people) must be evaluated.

CONCLUSION The climate implications associated with the production and use of natural gas differ from other fossil fuels (coal and oil). Natural gas combustion yields considerably lower emissions of greenhouse gases and other air pollutants; however, when methane is released directly into the atmosphere without being burned through accidental leakage or intentional venting is about 21 times more powerful as a heat trapping greenhouse gas than CO2 when considered on a 100-year time scale. As a result, considerable effort is underway to accurately measure methane emission and leakage. Policy-makers should continue to engage all stakeholders in a fact-based discussion regarding the quantity and quality of available emissions data and what steps can be taken to improve these data and accurately reflect the carbon footprint of all segments of the natural gas industry. To that end, additional field testing should be performed to gather up-to-date, accurate data on methane emissions. Policy-makers have begun to create regulations that address methane releases, but a better understanding and more accurate measurement of the emissions from natural gas production and use could potentially identify additional cost-effective opportunities for emissions reductions along the entire natural gas value chain. [1, §3, at 24]

Vehicles and alternate fuels

Alternative fuel and fuel economy legislation

What rules (legislation) has been created for the alternate fuel(s) public use?

Summaries of selected sections of federal legislation related to alternative fuels and advanced transportation technologies: [3]

  • Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014;
  • American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012;
  • Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthoization, and Job
  • Creation Act of 2010;
  • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009;
  • Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008;
  • Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007;
  • Energy Policy Act in 2005;
  • Energy Policy Act of 1992;
  • Surface Transportation Acts;
  • Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990;
  • Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988; and
  • Clean Air Act of 1970.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 supports natural gas use as an alternate fuel; for example, “EPAct 1992 encourages the use of alternative fuels through both regulatory and voluntary activities and approaches the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) carries out. It requires federal, state, and alternative fuel provider fleets to acquire alternative fuel vehicles. EPAct 1992 also defines “alternative fuels” as: methanol, ethanol, and other alcohols; blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline (E85); natural gas and liquid fuels domestically produced from natural gas; propane; . . .” [3] I am not sure we the public community had any input into these legislation rules content as created or community review of the facts that support these alternate fuel rules as we read them today?

Vehicle combustion airborne inventory

Just maybe, maybe the stuff from the tailpipe of our vehicles might not be as good as we have be lead by other for us to believe; since:

German journal Angewandte Chemie, chemists from Sandia and Lawrence Livermore National Labs in Livermore, CA, along with German and Chinese collaborators, summarize a series of recent studies examining what exactly is coming out a biofuel tailpipe. They found that while biofuel combustion produces many of the same chemicals released during fossil fuel burning, it also generates a complicated mixture of additional chemicals that are potentially harmful to humans and the environment. [4]

Our internal combustion vehicle engines create airborne chemical to add to existing air inventory of chimerical; for example, see

Sources of emissions: Industry sources: The use of acetaldehyde is widespread in industry, and it may be released into waste water or the air during production, use, transportation and storage. Sources of acetaldehyde include fuel combustion emissions from stationary internal combustion engines and power plants that burn fossil fuels, wood, or trash, oil and gas extraction, refineries, cement kilns, lumber and wood mills and paper mills. [5}]

Gas burned

Burning natural gas still creates CO2 and other chemicals that added to our community airborne chemical(s) inventory . I don’t think we should add additional burning byproducts to the air—“The emissions from natural gas-fired boilers and furnaces include nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), trace amounts of sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter (PM)”[2, §1.4.3 Emissions]

See, Table 1.4-2. Emission factors for criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases from natural gas combustion, [2] (emission factors).

Natural gas is one of the major combustion fuels used throughout the country. It is mainly used to generate industrial and utility electric power, produce industrial process steam and heat, and heat residential and commercial space. Natural gas consists of a high percentage of methane (generally above 85 percent) and varying amounts of ethane, propane, butane, and inerts (typically nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and helium). The average gross heating value of natural gas is approximately 1,020 British thermal units per standard cubic foot (Btu/scf), usually varying from 950 to 1,050 Btu/scf. [2, §1.4.1 General]


[1] Technology: Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions) (leveraging-natural-gas-reduce-ghg-emissions.pdf) (Jun. 2013), online at (visited Jan. 10, 2016).

[2] U.S. EPA, Natural Gas Combustion, (ed. 1998) (org. MS Word C01S04.docx) (pdf created may 14, 2014), online at (visited Jan. 10, 2016).

[3] U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center: Key Federal Legislation, (The AFDC is a resource of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities program) (ed. Jun. , 2014) (federal legislation related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and other transportation topics), online at (visited Jan. 10, 2016).

[4] Guest Writer, New Questions about Toxic By-Products of Biofuel Combustion, (InsideClimate News) (Jun 9, 2010) (Study finds spectrum of possible chemicals emerging from biofuel burning process, including formaldehyde.) online at see also, (visited Jan. 10, 2016).

[5] Australia Government, National Pollutant Inventory: Acetaldehyde, (National Pollutant Inventory: Department of the Environment: GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia 1800 803 772 ABN) (n.d.), online at (visited Jan.10, 2016).


Air quality and natural gas

What happens to Tacoma City Air Emissions Inventory

An air emissions inventory is an accounting of the amount of air pollution emitted by various sources. Every year, Ecology and the local clean air agencies inventory facilities with air operating permits. This is called a point source inventory. Every three years, Ecology inventories many additional sources such as motor vehicles, wood stoves, outdoor burning, agriculture, and natural sources. Several inventory summaries are available below. (see,

New sources could be natural gas processing, conversion, or burning activities done at the worlds biggest planned conversion plant. Therefore there must be some air emissions inventory added caused by these natural gas industrial or commercial processes.

Still waiting Tacoma City hazard analysis documents

Not available for public community viewing yet are all the community right-to-know documents related to potential hazards caused from planned natural gas Port of Tacoma plant(s) operations—community and workplace and air inventory chemicals increased.

See generally, J.Sherman, Natural gas process considering community and workplace, (pdf document) (Jan. 8, 2016)


Natural gas, financial incentive

Natural gas cost forecast

Prohibiting or restricting LNG trade not only is contrary to international norms agreed in the WTO but also destroys value in the United States by creating artificially low prices for domestic consumption of natural gas.(1, at 4)

I think that this is funny logic; for example, “[C]reating artificially low prices for domestic consumption of natural gas.” is great for United States natural gas consumers! Low energy price, low wages, go together well.

I need to support natural gas, just why?

Those who sell gas might just have an economic incentive to export.

US natural gas producers are eager to take advantage of tremendous price differentials between the United States and foreign markets. US prices are around $3 per million metric British thermal units (mmBtu), while prices in Europe are $11 to $13 per mmBtu and as high as $18 per mmBtu in Southeast Asia. Even considering the cost of liquefaction and ocean transportation at $3.50 to $9.00 per mmBtu, producers can export LNG and earn a signifi cant profi t over domestic sales.(1, at 2)

Our U.S. energy price rise to what?

US natural gas producers are eager to take advantage of tremendous price differentials between the United States and foreign markets. (1, at 3)

If we set-aside the for profit motivation for export sales of natural gas resources, but what remains is the community—my community— right-to-know about the specific hazards and areas of hazards introduced into my Tacoma City, Port of Tacoma, Washington USA community?

We need an explanation why; for example, “[S]ome natural resources—particularly petroleum and hard minerals—are unevenly distributed across the globe. Geographic concentration of production can encourage the formation of cartels that seek to lift prices above competitive norms.”(1, at 4) is really bad for our local community energy (natural gas) ratepayer’s cost?

We in Tacoma Washington USA don’t need to race-to-the-bottom with our wages while energy prices are negotiated on a world commodity market.

I think this

No natural gas plants should be designed or constructed or operated within my Tacoma Washington community without first: A written and public published hazard analysis study related to each natural gas conversion process or natural gas distribution system located within my Tacoma City community and the public potential hazards (life and property) described and areas of hazards!

We should never permit a natural gas customer’s ratepayers’ price to become bench-marked price by a exported price received for U.S. natural gas resource. I consider this thought should apply to NG, CNG, LNG, and Natural gas to methanol.

Works cited

(1) Gary Clyde Hufbauer, Allie E. Bagnall, and Julia Muir, Policy Brief: Liquefied Natural Gas Exports: An Opportunity for America, (NUMBER PB13-6) (Feb. 2013) (Peterson Institute for International Economics), (“Gary Clyde Hufbauer is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Allie E. Bagnall and Julia Muir are research analysts at the Peterson Institute.”) online at (visited Jan. 7, 2016).


Natural gas leaks are problems

What’s the problem with a natural gas leak?

Natural Gas (“NG”)(methane gas) contained within a piping distribution systems is good. Broken or leaking NG distribution system pipes; it follows, is not so good. Well, consider this, maybe nothing wrong if the NG leaked is a small amount, but what if the NG leak is large and continues for a long time? That might be bad for everybody—people, health, property, valuation of property, and the CO2 Earth’s protective atmosphere blanket.

Let’s consider what a current NG leaking concerns are today:

John Sherman, Natural Gas A Review, (Jan. 7, 2016), (online pdf document link).

What’s proposed for Port of Tacoma NG systems and support has done a good job with limited information presenting what is proposed related to NG systems and Port of Tacoma. Also, the related fire department response locations described. 1

Does there exist safety valve requirements for NG systems?

I wonder, as I think, what does a large capacity NG distribution system include for automatic pipe shutoff valves in the event of earthquake (seismic) damage or soil liquification (soil that can’t support foundation weight applied anymore after ground become soup of liquid and earth) right here in Tacoma Washington, Port of Tacoma, Port lands?

So a large NG distribution pipe fails, what happens, and how quickly to stop the NG flowing into atmosphere?

Who is liable for NG related future harm?

Issue. If NG leak caused damage to community—people or property or person had to spend money for remedy—then who is responsible? Who pays who for what? Who (which people) are not paid for NG caused home evacuations, property damage, and other related out-of-pocket expenses incurred as result of NG causation harm?

My homeowners insurance covers?

I don’t know what my homeowners insurance indemnify me for accidents related to Tacoma City Port of Tacoma business operation; for example, like:

  • Natural gas related harm or expenses;
  • Methane gas related harm or damage or expenses;
  • Methanol plant hazards damage or expenses; 2 or
  • Liquid natural gas facility hazards damage or expenses?

Now the community indemnifying insurance coverage or exclusions subject should be another factor addressed within any published community right-to-know hazards report.

Works cited

(1) OKs New PSE LNG Facility, (Nov. 13, 2015) (Latest stories, online at (visited Jan 7, 2016).

(2) David Ferris, E&E reporter, NATURAL GAS: Enormous northwest refineries would feed china exclusively, (Nov.17, 2015) online at (visited Jan 7, 2016).


LNG Planning, Community not informed

The LNG planning just missing community people’s notice!

I think this: When a hazard is considered to introduction into Washington State by anybody; it follows, inform the people first—all affected and effected communities people with written notice—who is doing just what for benefit back to which specific people. It’s these hazards and risks to the community people (lives, property, safety) and all people have the right-to-know before a hazard is introduced into their community!

Just another example of no Community Right-to-Know Act public presentation.1

We have three risk issues related to our Tacoma community and risk disclosure missing are: (1) Natural Gas ("NG") distribution systems; 1 (2) Liquid Natural Gas ("LNG"); and (3) Natural Gas-to-Methanol ("NGM") production plant. 2 All these NG related industries considered for operation within our community should have a completed and community published hazards risk analysis study and these documents should be presented to Tacoma City community (people) before any public hearings are calendared!

What’s these three physical separations?

Now I understand we have three potential hazards considered to be constructed and operated within Tacoma Port of Tacoma; therefore, there must be some dependent and positional risks shared between these three NG, NGM, and LNG facilities? But I find no community risk analysis reports to say: No risk from- or-between these three gas related locations?

Works cited

(1) Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Oregon LNG and Washington Expansion Projects, (Draft: Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement, vol. 1) (FERC/DEIS-0261D DOE Docket No. FE 12-48-LNG) (Aug. 2015) online at (visited Jan. 3, 2016).

(2) GAS TO METHANOL FACILITY AT THE PORT OF TACOMA, (NW Innovations Works)(2015 1102 NWIW FactSheet Tacoma.pdf) (2015), online at or (visited Jan. 3, 2016).


Useful LNG information

Where are LNG facilities located

i2016-01-02_7-57-48Where are LNG facilities located?

See,North American LNG Import/Export Terminals Existing, (Oct. 20, 2015), available at

Status of LNG facilities everywhere

On-Stream under Construction Planned Proposed/under Study, (Global LNG Limited) (Nov. 2015), available at

The LNG planning just missing community people’s notice!

Stuff happens. The community is excluded from knowing about LNG stuff. See, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Oregon LNG and Washington Expansion Projects, (Draft: Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Impact Statement, vol. 1) (FERC/DEIS-0261D DOE Docket No. FE 12-48-LNG) (Aug. 2015) online at (visited Jan. 3, 2016).

Which operates first methanol or LNG plants because:

Just thinking, if a natural gas ("NG") to methanol ("NGM") conversion plant is consider for construction and operation should it be constructed within a hazard radius determined for catastrophic potential accident harm radius?

Here again, were just missing the community right-to-know risk analysis detailed reports for both LNG, NG, and NGM plant and piping system within Port of Tacoma Washingtion State.

Words written about LNG

Accidents and rules citations. See generally, Appendix C3 C3-1 Chronological List of LNG Accidents C3-2 Marine Safety and Security Requirements C3-3 Design and Safety Standards Applicable to Natural Gas Projects, ( 2007) or

History. See also, Tim Riley, LNG danger to our communities | Fracking gas for LNG Exportation | safety risks of LNG Exportation & LNG importation | safety risks of LNG transportation | safety risks of LNG storage, (2004),

Study. See generally, What is the safety record of the LNG industry?, Center for Energy
Economics (Oct. 1979),


It’s Safe, see. See, Edward Dodge, How dangerous is LNG? (Breaking Energy Dec. 22, 2014) (photo cite supra) online at

Looking back, let’s think about LNG. See generally, 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),

Understanding LNG

Philip Weems And Harry Sullivan, Lng overview lng overview: International Energy Law, Contracts, and Negotiations 2005, (n.d.) (what is lng? presented is: (1) not lpg or ngl (2) natural gas that has been cooled until it liquefies (-160°c) (3) volume is reduced 600 times (4) lighter than air when vaporized (5) not under pressure (6) colorless, odorless and non-toxic (7) stored cold (8) can be heated and vaporized again when needed), online at (last visited Jan. 3, 2016).

LNG insurance


See also, Washington LNG blast spotlights natural gas safety, (Apr. 7, 2014), online at (last visited Jan. 3, 2016) ("Stephen Maloney, a senior risk consultant at Moody’s Analytics with a background in LNG risk analysis, said the Washington incident could trigger a review of the risks posed by LNG facilities, including a fresh look at the probable frequency of accidents. Companies and regulators use risk models when considering permitting projects.").

Older review of LNG

Philip Weinberg, Cargo of Fire: A Call for Stricter Regulation of Liquefied Natural Gas Shipment and Storage, 4 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1975 (1975), online at

See also, Philip Weinberg, Cargo of Fire: A Call for Stricter Regulation of Liquefied Natural Gas Shipment and Storage, 4 Fordham Urban Law Journal 1975 (Vol. 4, Issue 3 (1975) Art. 2), online at (visited Jan. 3, 2016).

LNG Requirements

Requirements. See, U.S. Department of Transportation: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials: Safety Administration, LNG Plant Requirements: Frequently Asked Questions, (Pipeline technical resources) (Revised, Dec. 7, 2015), ("H5. Can an exclusion zone extend beyond the operator’s LNG plant property line? As long as the facility is in operation, the operator is responsible for assuring compliance with the limitations on land use within exclusion zones, according to the descriptions in NFPA 59A . . . . For example, an exclusion zone that extends past a property line into a navigable body of water or onto a public road is typically acceptable. This may not hold true if that body of water contains a dock or pier that is not controlled by the operator of the LNG plant, or if another entity could erect a building or members of the public could assemble within the exclusion zone. It is possible to assure compliance by legal agreement with a property owner affected by the exclusion zone, such that the land use is restricted for the life of the LNG plant.") available at

Keep reading for LNG risk understanding

Absent LNG accident a hazard does not exist; but with accident; hence just how expansive is the actual damage to life and property? The average community (people, just like me) would like to see the risk analysis written study that follows the Community Right-to-Know Act disclosure community knowledge benefit.

My home in community shared with LNG

Since my home is within Pierce County Tacoma City neighborhood, if a LNG accident and my home or property is damaged who pays to fix all the damage and cost caused by any LNG, NG, LPG, NG-to-Methanol plant accident?

Thomas Zuo, Home insurance and explosions, (Home (n.d.)), online at (visited Jan. 3, 2016).


Economics and LNG plants good, say some

Some say LNG plant is good

Supporting the Tacoma Port of Tacoma proposed new community Liquid Natural Gas ("LNG") project is the Chamber of Commerce, Fife Milton Edgewood. 1

Maybe the Chamber of Commerce knows what the community does not—hazards presented to my community

lets review what Chamber of Commerce presented 1 for public support of new LNG project benefit; e.g.,

The Tacoma LNG project will help ensure continued dependable service and additional benefits to all PSE natural gas customers. It will help ensure continued dependable natural gas service on the coldest days of the year. Having a stock of available LNG will also allow PSE to reduce its gas purchases at times of peak demand, reducing costs that would otherwise be passed on to consumers. Also, healthy growth of PSE’s commercial customer base helps spread PSE’s overhead costs across a broader customer base, lowering costs for existing natural gas customers.

The Tacoma LNG Facility will go through an extensive review and approval process with federal, state and local government agencies. Natural gas is a proven, safe source of energy that reduces reliance on foreign fuels. LNG is simply another form of the natural gas currently used in millions of homes and vehicles. PSE will develop and issue a supplemental environmental impact statement, obtain multiple permits and provide numerous opportunities for public comment. Some of the major agencies involved include: U.S. Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Pierce County, City of Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma. More than 100 LNG production, storage and transport facilities currently operate in the US – including one that PSE has owned in Gig Harbor for more than a decade.

That presented, what did it say?

Not one word about any hazard of any type, not Community right-to-know Act study done, or what hazards to people if accident? All the health, safety, and community (people) informed about hazards introduced into their community and neighborhoods missing from this document.

Sounds like LNG produced use evolved?

This proposed LNG plant uses has evolved over time as now represented within The News Tribune article. 2

Now LNG for export use and the biggest LNG plant in the world. According to article.

Just thinking, I wonder

Did Lora Butterfield, Chamber of Commerce, realize the document, 2 as written, was lacking community right-to-know hazard information and just failed to write about hazards, or was the author not informed by the LNG plant’s supporters that there could be any community hazard to people? I wonder which?

What is Chamber of Commerce LNG position today?

Just maybe, they were not told, did not read, there have been LNG accidents already. 3

Now that would be an interesting document to read.

Works cited

(1) Lora Butterfield,(President/CEO) Support of LNG Project (pdf document) (Fife Milton Edgewood Chamber of Commerce), (Aug. 18, 2014) available at or

(2)Matt Driscoll: The time for a methanol debate in Tacoma is now, (thenewstribune Dec. 28, 2015), or

(3) JEFF BARNARD, Officials seek clues in natural gas facility blast, Local News (The Seattle Times Apr. 1, 2014),


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), or ( )


(1) Matt Driscoll, Matt Driscoll: The time for a methanol debate in Tacoma is now, (The News Tribune, Tacoma Wash.) (Dec. 28, 2015), or ( )


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),

(2) PSE proposed Tideflats LNG facility (City of Tacoma 2013),

(3) SARA Title III: Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act Purpose and Applicability of Regulations (2014),

(4) Richard Nemec, Tacoma LNG storage project still moving forward despite challenges (Dec. 24, 2015),

(5) What is the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)? (n.d.), Washington State Ecology,

(6) US EPA and OSWER, What is EPCRA? (Jul. 24, 2013),


(8) Mike Hightower et al., Guidance on Risk Analysis and Safety Implications of a Large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Spill over Water (2004), 2004

(9)Ted Sickinger et al., Gas explosion at LNG facility in Washington prompts concerns about proposed export terminals in Oregon ( Apr. 2, 2014),

(10)Repairs worth $69M ongoing at Plymouth natural gas plant (2015)(East Oregonian)

(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),