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),


LNG Permits: No interest in community interests

How does a typical LNG export permit work?

Let’s take a look at a typical example; for example, Order conditionally granting long-term, multi-contract authorizations to export liquefied natural gas by vessel from the proposed Alaska LNG terminal in Niskiski, Alaska, to non-free Trade Agreement Nations, (collectively, “LNG permit”)1

LNG permit process sounds good for the community and public goods when considering a LNG facitlity and a LNG export facility but is the process really that comprehensive and inclusive of community people input response?

Just a typical LNG permit process presents

I think the LNG permit process is deficient for the public input to make a difference e.g.,

[N]o person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order of the [Secretary of Energy [n. 61] 6 ] authorizing it to do so. The [Secretary] shall issue such order upon application, unless after opportunity for hearing, [he] finds that the proposed exportation or importation will not be consistent with the public interest. The [Secretary] may by [the Secretary’s] order grant such application, in whole or part, with such modification and upon such terms and conditions as the [Secretary] may find necessary or appropriate.

(§ 3(a) Public Interest Standard 1, at 3, (alteration in original)).

Let’s take a look at words

While section 3(a) establishes a broad public interest standard and a presumption favoring export authorizations, the statute does not define "public interest" or identify criteria that must be considered. In prior decisions, however, DOE/FE has identified a range of factors that it evaluates when reviewing an application for export authorization. These factors include economic impacts, international impacts, security of natural gas supply, and environmental impacts, among others. . . .

(§ 3(a) Public Interest Standard 1, at 3, (emphasis added)).

Missing is community right-to-know safety study results or reports required. Our communities have the right-to-know what hazards potential are constructed and operated within our community (people, residential, housing, living, transportation areas)!

How is my community input appreciated?

Reading this actual LNG permit, I fail to see weighting of the community (people) inputs or concerns to any meaningful decision factor in granting this LNG permit.

Therefore, this might just be a same or similar process used at Pierce County, Tacoma, Port of Tacoma, Washington for a future LNG application for an export permit? So, the community should be aware how the public input process works for evaluation of their input into all LNG application permit(s) everywhere.

Works cited



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 ( )


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.


Pierce County, Case information and scheduling, (Dec. 26 2015),

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),

(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),