Let’s review why Tacoma Mayor Likes TPP

Why is the TPP not good for Tacoma people

We, I have, known for a long time the Trans-Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) has been secret for what ending benefit to whom? Therefore, just maybe we can understand a little who is doing what to just who that benefits our Tacoma Community?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an expansive trade deal being negotiated between twelve countries in the Pacific Rim: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. Because the TPP is intended as a “docking agreement,” other countries would be able to join over time.

The TPP touches on a broad range of issues—the environment, workers and jobs, access to medicines, and more. The TPP would also allow foreign corporations to sue governments directly for unlimited cash compensation—in private, non – transparent tribunals—over almost any domestic environmental or other policy that the corporation alleges is hurting its ability to profit.

Despite the impact that the TPP would have on nearly every aspect of our lives, the TPP is being negotiated in near complete secrecy. None of the draft chapters of the agreement have been made public, and the only people with access to texts are a handful of government officials and hundreds of “trade advisors” who almost exclusively represent multinational corporations.

One of the dirtiest secrets of the TPP is its potential to pave the way for dramatically increased fracking across the United States. See, An Explosion of Fracking? One of the Dirtiest Secrets of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement Sierra Club, https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/TPP-LNG_Factsheet_Updated.pdf (last visited Feb 27, 2016).

Tacoma Mayor supports TPP

“She [Mayor] reiterated her support for the proposed free trade Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, . . .” See, Tacoma mayor looks abroad in 2016 State of the City speech | The News Tribune, http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/politics-government/article62322212.html (last visited Feb 27, 2016)

What has past combustion sources explained already

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that in the coming decades the United States’ natural gas (NG) demand for electricity generation will increase. Estimates also suggest that NG supply will increasingly come from imported liquefied natural gas (LNG). Additional supplies of NG could come domestically from the production of synthetic natural gas (SNG) via coal gasification-methanation. The objective of this study is to compare greenhouse gas (GHG), SOx, and NOx life-cycle emissions of electricity generated with NG/LNG/SNG and coal. This life-cycle comparison of air emissions from different fuels can help us better understand the advantages and disadvantages of using coal versus globally sourced NG for electricity generation. Our estimates suggest that with the current fleet of power plants, a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have lower GHG emissions than coal. If advanced technologies with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) are used, however, coal and a mix of domestic NG, LNG, and SNG would have very similar life-cycle GHG emissions. For SOx and NOx we find there are significant emissions in the upstream stages of the NG/LNG life-cycles, which contribute to a larger range in SOx and NOx emissions for NG/LNG than for coal and SNG. See generally, Comparative Life-Cycle Air Emissions of Coal, Domestic Natural Gas, LNG, and SNG for Electricity Generation Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007 , 41, 6290 – 6296, http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/authorizations/2012_applications/sierra_exhibits_12_100_LNG/Ex._80_-_Jaramillo_2007.pdf (last visited Feb 27, 2016).

////

Who says, the Community counts?

Community listens

The Tacoma three proposed industries:

  1. Natural gas distribution pipe system;
  2. LNG Facility; and
  3. Methanol Facility.

Community speaks

Tacoma and surrounding Communities speak for- and against-arguments that relate to Tacoma proposed natural gas industries to be operated within Port of Tacoma Washington.

Who listens to Community speak?

The issue, who listens to Community concerns and just what are those persons willing to do that address the Community concerns? At what cost to Community health and welfare expense?

Apparently, Federal Way Washington listens and has created a Community action plan related to Tacoma proposed Methanol Facility.

Just a bump-in-the-road

Just a simple citizens of Community have had their opportunity to voice concerns but now it is time to move forward with natural gas industries, construction, and processing begins.

Time to stop these industries

The question remains, just who, name the decision making individual(s) that has the authority and responsibility to halt industry construction and operation; as a result, industrial facility operations that could potentially harm Tacoma and surrounding Communities.

////

Tacoma Water: Methanol: Consumption

The methanol facility use

Specifically, presented, “7.1 Water Supply The methanol plant will require significant quantities of water to function. Estimated usage amounts identify the facility as requiring about 10.4 million gallons of water per day (enough to supply 26,000 homes, assuming average use of 400 gallons per day). . . .” See, Methanol EIS Draft Scope of Work 02052016.pdf (p. 8, § 7.1) (emphasis added)., http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scope%20of%20Work%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 13, 2016)

The water customers use forecast 2014

So, we are informed about the Tacoma Water Utility ability to supply water to all customers March 2014:

Just over a century ago, 42 million gallons-a-day of Green River water began flowing through a 43-mile pipeline into the City of Tacoma. Today, the Green River is still the city’s primary water source, and one of the nation’s last remaining unfiltered surface water supplies. To comply with the federal Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), Tacoma Water and its Second Supply Project (SSP) partners expect to start up a new filtration facility late this year with final completion by May 2015.

Tacoma Water provides direct drinking water service to about 316,000 people in the City of Tacoma, and parts of King and Pierce counties. The utility also supplies water to a number of wholesale customers as well as its SSP partners, Covington Water District, the City of Kent, and Lakehaven Utility District.

In 2005, the SSP partners completed a transmission pipeline from the Green River, increasing the capacity of the Green River supply to about 167 million gallons per day. Including the SSP partners, about 500,000 customers receive water from Tacoma’s system. If all wholesale and partner utilities are counted, about 1 million customers could receive water from Tacoma’s system. See, Water Tap, March 2014 – wt0314.pdf Washington’s Drinking Water Newsletter, http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4200/wt0314.pdf (last visited Feb 13, 2016)

Let’s calculate just a little

For example, methanol facility presents every home uses 400-GD (gallons per day) therefore the Year 2014 forecast for water customers might reach 1-million; as a result, 1-million × 400-GD = 400-MGD water production required from Tacoma Water. But, were not considering the 10.4-MGD water methanol facility requires.

Tacoma Water Utility filtration production capability

Nevertheless, we now have an operating new drinking water Tacoma Water filtration plant, “The facility will be able to treat up to 168 million gallons of drinking water per day, and will be the largest filtration treatment plant in Washington.” See, Tacoma Water Green River Filtration Project, http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/Pubs/331-490-Tacoma.pdf (last visited Feb 13, 2016).

I would say were a little water short right now.

On the other hand, maybe Tacoma Water Utility has new and revised water consumption forecasts for years 2015 and years future? I don’t know because I have not seen the current water consumption data forecast done Tacoma Water and population (housing) growth considering the SSP partners.

Still, if this new Tacoma Water filtration plant has capability of 168-MGD and using the methanol house water consumption fact; as a result, we will need, in future years, 400-MGD filtered water but we only have 168-MGD available as filtered drinking water. Seems-to-me the filtered drinking water supplies are just a little short for future years availability and that is excluding the Tacoma Methanol Facility water consumption.

Ultimately, might we consider the methanol comparison water usage by homes is wrong? 400-GD : 1 home.

As an alternative source of water

Instead, maybe the Methanol Facility might draw its process water from Puyallup River and condition this water as necessary for its methanol process needs. Condition the water need at its own expense and to the filtration necessary for methanol process supply water quality.

Maybe the devil is in the financial water details?

Who knows? I would not like to consider the Tacoma Water Utility is playing a financial immediate benefit gain for today and placing all residential ratepayers at risk for their future drinking water availability in future years; for example, if Tacoma Water Utility needed to make more revenue for customers soon the Methanol Facility might be the cash-cow it needs instead of increasing ratepayers’ rates even more? Tacoma Water Utility needs to publish fact data about Tacoma Water current and forecast future years drinking water consumption including all water use impacts related to Second Supply Project (SSP) partners considered.

////

Tacoma: Port: Tax: Community Weight

It follows, there exist many tax exemption for many reasons that apply to Federal Government, State Government, County Government, City Government, and Public Corporations; all tax exempt because public good gifted back to the people that pay taxes within the State of Washington. See, Tax Exemptions 2000, Public Property, http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/Reports/2000/Tax_Exemptions_2000/proppubl.htm?noframes (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

But now, we have ports and economic development that are tax exempt but with the ability to tax on top of tax exempt; for example:

Industrial Development

The Washington State Legislature has also been generous in granting authority to pursue industrial development – the fastest growing segment among ports. Port districts can construct buildings and structures to accommodate virtually any type of industrial or economic activity. These facilities are generally the sort that the private sector can’t -or won’t – build or improve.

Ports also can develop the infrastructure – water and sewage systems, and roads – necessary to attract job-creating businesses. Once a facility is built, it is often leased to businesses that generate jobs in the community.

Ports also have the authority to create Industrial Development Districts (IDD) and levy a property tax of up to $0.45 per $1,000 of assessed value for up to 6 years. IDDs are a valuable source of funds for economic development within the district, which can include water, light, power and fire protection facilities and services, streets, roads, bridges, highways, waterways, tracks, rail and water transfer and terminal facilities, and other harbor and industrial improvements. Each time industrial development projects are completed at port facilities – diversifying the economies of cities and counties – employment opportunities increase, tax revenues to cities, counties and the state are increased, and communities are made stronger. See, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, http://washingtonports.org/issue-areas/economic-development/ (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

On the other hand, just how is “[D]iversifying the economies of cities and counties—employment opportunities increased, . . . ” measured today to validate this argument?

Therefore, history speaks to the intent of Ports and Industrial Developments results that have created what we view today and done for our Tacoma Community interests. See generally, HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History, http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9624 (last visited Feb 10, 2016). So, the average person might just ask about the additional “Port of Tacoma: Frederickson Industrial Area”

The Port of Tacoma was one of the first to set up an Industrial Development District after the Legislature authorized them in 1939, designating an IDD on the Commencement Bay tideflats. World War II interrupted tenant recruitment, but by the late 1950s Purex, Concrete Technology, Stauffer Chemical, and Western Boat Building were all operating in the port’s first Industrial District.

Because, if the Frederickson Industrial Area is going to have natural gas (methane) fuel electrical power generator sets operating, but still unanswered it the sweet- or sour-methane feeding into our Tacoma Community; as a result, sour-gas just-might release more airborne chemical hazard inventory into our Tacoma Community environment? Who’s got the environmental impact study on other Tacoma Community natural gas fed industrial facilities—planned or operating or processing—now? See generally, Sour Gas – Health Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide, http://www.watershedsentinel.ca/content/sour-gas-health-effects-hydrogen-sulfide (last visited Feb 9, 2016).

Despite, Tacoma Port now we have the Seattle Port alliance effect also, So just what is the combined Ports effect on Tacoma Taxpayers? I don’t know but somebody should make some public presentations about benefits and cost and observables result the Tacoma Community should benefit from? See generally, PORT OF TACOMA – POT_Resolution_Creating_Seaport_Alliance_PDA_050515.pdf (draft missing the content), https://www.portseattle.org/About/Documents/POT_Resolution_Creating_Seaport_Alliance_PDA_050515.pdf (last visited Feb 10, 2016).

One could say, were just lacking some important Tacoma Community environmental information, but we are also assessed property taxes to pay for these Community Port(s) existence. Does that really make sense to Tacoma Community Citizens (people)?

Nevertheless, “Each year, the Port receives about 1.7 percent of the property taxes that Pierce County homeowners pay. The money helps to pay off general obligation bonds for Port-related projects that benefit the broader public, such as road improvements and environmental projects.” See, Port of Tacoma – City of Fife, Washington, http://cityoffife.org/online-guide/businesses/economic-development/port-of-tacoma (last visited Feb 10, 2016). For me, I have a difficult time recognizing the “Port related projects that benefit the broader public”?

Seems like, Port of Tacoma (Tacoma and Seattle Ports) should become more open with my Tacoma Community informative information—environmental hazards they permit to be introduced then operated with my Tacoma Community; as a result, I am assessed property taxes each year to support what Port is doing to the health, welfare, and environment of my Tacoma Community.

////

Tacoma: Methanol Facility: Draft EIS Available Now

Tacoma Methanol Facility Environmental Impact Review Draft is available

These “Draft” EIS documents are great reading for Tacoma Community knowledge about the proposed Methane-to-methanol facility under Tacoma review process

My advise, please read, and if necessary submit your own comments into this Methanol Facility EIS review process.

////

Tacoma: LNG: Loopholes: Questions?

My blog post (this post) is just a refer to another article. See,

Tarika Powell, ‘Tacoma Steering into Uncertain Waters | Sightline Institute’ (Jan. 13, 2016), online at < http://www.sightline.org/2016/01/13/tacoma-steering-into-uncertain-waters/ > [accessed 4 February 2016]
See also, Doriss, Oliver, ‘Even If I Didn’t Live Here I Wouldn’t Want This’, (feb. 1,2016), online at http://www.oliverdoriss.com/2016/02/01/even-if-i-didnt-live-here-i-wouldnt-want-this/ [accessed 4 February 2016]

Just a thought, methane when does U.S. run out?

Methane (natural gas) extraction within U.S. must have a limit able to be mined. Extracted and gone forever. So, where are we at with our proven methane U.S. reserves? See generally, ‘List of Countries by Natural Gas Proven Reserves’, (Wikipedia) (2016) online at <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_natural_gas_proven_reserves&oldid=701367891> [accessed 4 February 2016]

What’s going to happen when our U.S. methane reserve is low and gone?

  1. Our U.S. gas utility prices increase;
  2. no more gas for U.S. customers unless import; and
  3. gas prices will be negotiated on a world gas commodity markplace.

Therefore, we don’t need to be exporting our methane (natural gas) anywhere outside the U.S. now and tomorrow.

////

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.

////

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

Tacoma Methanol SEPA EIS: My Review

I must understand the process first

The Washington State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) and the Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) are just a little difficult to grasp for Tacoma Community People’s resulting benefits received back from these review process(s)–SEPA and EIS?

We will never know what difference any public comments made to influence the Tacoma Methanol Plant SEPA EIS process; unless we–the public–are allowed to read all of them.

I’m still not sure I understand the benefit of these public comments submitted. Seems-to-me the SEPA EIS decision makers have the final say as just what is necessary for our Tacoma Community SEPA EIS study finding. See, John Sherman, How It Works: Tacoma Methanol Plant Environmental Impact Stuff (Jan. 26, 2016) (revised, footnote ed., added content), (WordPress pdf file t20160126a) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160126a2.pdf (visited Jan. 26, 2016).

////

Published Jan. 26, 2016 : Revised ed. :: 0705 PST