Were is US EPA in other US Cities doing what

Let’s not forget Flint MI and what the US EPA let happen to the citizens without presenting public warning or hazards disclosure.

See generally, Five takeaways from congressional hearing on Flint

See, Flint, Michigan Water Contamination The House Oversight and Governmental Reform Committee held its second hearing on the contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan

We see that US EPA in concealed from public deals with State and Local government sacrificed the Citizens health for interests of government(s). This should not have ever happened. The solution: for US EPA release all Community hazards information as soon as discovered … forget State and Local emergency management because they are unqualified to protect Citizens from and hazards if the disclosure in not in the government’s interest.

Flint, Michigan, Water Crisis Marc Edwards, an environmental and water resources engineering professor at Virginia Tech University, talked about his involvement

More hearings held Thursday, 17 March 2016 Flint, Michigan Drinking Water Contamination Gina McCarthy and Governor Rick Snyder (R-MI) testified at a hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act and lead contamination of the water supply in Flint, Michigan.

More hearings on the Flint water failures to be added to this post as reveled.

////

Does Washington SEPA Process Discover Truth?

State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Helps How?

I have always had questions about how a SEPA can protect the environment by its results when the detailed scientific studies, data, and articles are not published first before public input permitted by the SEPA process.

Others have questioned the SEPA process also; for example:

Therefore, a lot of questions about just how effective is Wash. SEPA process?

We will all know more as the Tacoma Methanol Facility SEPA EIS process unfolds.

////

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Actual Injury

Actual injury, the question is: who pays who and how much?

That has caused me to make a comment

My Methanol Facility comment submitted to Tacoma EIS is this:

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Friday, February 5, 2016

EIS Scoping Comments: Tacoma Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility (TMMEF): “Proposed Methanol Plant”: SEPA Lead Agency: City of Tacoma (File No. SEPA2015-40000260025).

My comment applies to environment after actual harm caused by—Methanol facility: “Exploration of financial liability beyond the amounts typically held by the plant operators” See, METHANOL EIS DRAFT SCOPING REPORT 02052016.PDF 14, http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scoping%20Report%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Missing is the liability to each person within the Tacoma Community related to making them whole again as a result of harm caused by this Tacoma Methanol Facility?

I find absent from Tacoma Community impact analysis is: Owners and operators of the Tacoma natural gas (methane)-to-methanol facility fail to explain their actual limits-of-financial liability to Community, people, and persons harmed or injured caused by operation of methanol facility?

My comment: Included within the Draft EIS(s) and all Final FEIS should be a statement describing actual Methanol Facility liability limitation(s) or coverage benefit(s); as a result, for any actual harm or injury caused to Tacoma Community—people, real property, property, lives, and health. Also a statement that, liability coverage is guaranteed to Community persons for all current and all future years as Methanol Facility continues processing natural gas (methane).

John E Sherman
4601 N 26th St
Tacoma WA 98407-4605 USA
Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com
http://johnesherman.com
////

It’s funny, just how: thinking one thought; as a result, causes one to think of another thought: Just like this liability of actual injury and who is compensated how much to make the damaged person or property whole again. Didn’t see that explained in the Draft Tacoma EIS related to the Methanol Facility just yet. It’s important when there exists potential hazards operating within the Tacoma Community.

////

U.S. Wealth Gap, A Solution

Within U.S. there exists wealth gap

The issue: how do we, as a U.S. Society, solve or reduce this wealth gap condition?

See, John Sherman, It’s Called “The Wealth Gap” It Exists: Just Why?, (pdf file: t20160120a) (Jan. 20, 2016) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160120a.pdf (visited Jan. 20, 2016).

Intellectual property seems exempt from gap discussions, why?

Hence, the U.S. Policies should consider the wealth gap compared to U.S. Society values and the intellectual property (“IP”) rights. Is it good to gift people money under IP right while wealth gaps might just be getting larger?

Balanced against, IP rule rights. e.g.,

  • Patent rights;
  • Intellectual Property rights; and
  • Protectionism rights (U.S. and International).

Let’s start the review discussion

Whether, IP rights trump the U.S. Society wealth gap conditions we are aware of today, and most-likely with become larger tomorrow as money is extracted from wage earning U.S. Citizens to pay for the IP’s right to money absent work.

////

Published: Jan. 20, 2016: 12:10 PST

Tacoma we forget Bhopal

Bhopal, we disremember multinationals community interests

Patel, N. A.,  Gandhi’s Prophecy: Corporate Violence and A Mindful Law for Bhopal, (2015) online at http://works.bepress.com/nehal_patel/10/ (visited Jan. 14, 2016).

I agree, Tacoma natural gas industrial plant(s) are a fitting remembrance: what can go wrong when it goes wrong: absent community right-to-know and hazards present planning and stakeholders (citizens) overview involvement. All community right-to-know: corporation activities not sacrifice local community safety, lives, resources, and environment.

See generally, John Sherman, Probative: Tacoma Stakeholder Invisibility Transnational Industrial Presence, (Jan. 14, 2016} (pdf file:t20160114a) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160114a.pdf (visited Jan. 14, 2016).

////

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

////

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.”).

////