Tacoma We Need to Monitor Our Air: Many Locations

To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org

Tuesday, March 1, 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 potential environment impact upon Tacoma and surrounding communities:

Hydrogen Sulfide and Our Community Air

Since we don’t know the sources from which feed the Tacoma LNG and Methanol Facilities natural gas supply raw product input to process—sour gas, sweet gas, fracking gas, or just natural gas, and from which specific location mined; as a result, we must monitor the air hazards introduced into Tacoma Community forever.

It will become necessary to setup monitor multiple air inventory monitor stations within Tacoma Port and Tacoma Community neighborhoods (also Federal Way and Fife Wash.) that will detect and record hydrogen sulfide (“H2S”) content and the amount of hydrogen sulfide within our air inventory at the sampling station. This air monitoring must be done for Community(s) people health and illness prevention. See generally, Hydrogen Sulfide, Oil and Gas, and People’s Health Energy and Resources Group University of California, Berkeley, http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/landuse/hydrogensulfidestudy.pdf (last visited Mar 1, 2016).

The potential stationary hydrogen sulfide source potential emitters

“flaring operations at both oil and gas facilities, venting, wastewater pits, and an oil refinery….”, supra at 45. The H2S air monitor stations should be located to detect emissions from these emitters.

Also we need H2S air monitor stations along length of natural gas piping distribution system pips and all pumping stations where possibility of piping gasket leakage or pumping station seals could leak, supra at 8, note 21. This is important to those persons’ health living within proximity to this distribution natural gas system that feeds the Methanol Facility and LNG Facility.

Oil and gas operations may emit hydrogen sulfide, routinely or accidentally, during the extraction, storage, trans port, or processing stage.20 During of extraction, hydrogen sulfide may be released into the atmosphere at wellheads, pumps, piping, separation devices, oil storage tanks, water storage vessels, and during flaring operations.21 Flares burn gases that cannot be sold as well as gases at points in the system where operating problems may occur, as a safety measure. Because it cannot be sold, hydrogen sulfide is routinely flared. Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the product of combusting hydrogen sulfide, but in the event of incomplete combustion, H2S may be emitted into the atmosphere. Supra at 8.

Community health and wellness requires we monitor our air

Because we have potential of three hazards present within Tacoma Port—natural gas piping system, LNG Facility, and Methanol Facility—we need to monitor the air we Tacoma Community people must breath: as a result, to know when our health is affected and to what extent by these industrial process(s) operating within our Tacoma Community.

////

 

Cove Point: LNG: Just Information

Tacoma and other communities have LNG as a common concern

Our Tacoma LNG facility already has received Tacoma SEPA FEIS status and do we even understand what the means to Tacoma environmental health? And how do we know?

Stop Cove Point: Another Community: No Fracked Gas Exports

Just a interesting article: Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Stop Cove Point: No Fracked Gas Exports, [accessed 16 February 2016].

So where is Cove Point at today?

let’s take a look: ‘Dominion Cove Point’ Dominion Cove Point, (construction updates available) [accessed 16 February 2016]

We are going to have a LNG facility here in Tacoma Washington also; therefore, wheat can we learn for other communities? Let’s take a look.

////

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: 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

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

Tacoma, can we drink the methanol effluent water?

A simple question deserves a simple answer

Proposed is a lot of cubic feet per seconds of potable water feeding the methane to methanol conversion process to make the process work. So, what is wrong with the water that is expelled (effluent water) from this conversion process after it does its processing conversion job?

Is the effluent water drinkable by Tacoma community stakeholders/

If not, why not?

A missing fact question presented

Why would we want any, our community, community industrial process to dump its effluent waste into our community—land, water, or air—as it exports its value added products to another country or U.S. community, but deposits its waste here in our Tacoma community for us to deal with every day and maybe tomorrows—after this process is closed and gone from our community?

Even if we don’t know yet, today, what these waste byproducts are, will be, or how much quantity expelled from this methane to methanol conversion industrial process into our community surround.

Facts still un-explained, my community right-to-know

////

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]

Reference

[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 http://www.c2es.org/publications/leveraging-natural-gas-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions (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 http://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch01/final/c01s04.pdf (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 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/key_legislation (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 http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20100609/new-questions-about-toxic-products-biofuel-combustion see also, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.200905335/abstract (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 http://www.npi.gov.au/resource/acetaldehyde (visited Jan.10, 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 https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/indus-act/lng/lng-existing.pdf

Status of LNG facilities everywhere

On-Stream under Construction Planned Proposed/under Study, (Global LNG Limited) (Nov. 2015), available at http://www.globallnginfo.com/world%20lng%20plants%20&%20terminals.pdf

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 http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f25/EIS-0492-DEIS-2015.pdf (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, (http://citizensagainstlng.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Cabrillo-Port-EIR-Appendix-C3_List-of-LNG-Accidents.pdf 2007) or http://bit.ly/1RWNY71

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), http://www.timrileylaw.com/LNG.htm.

Study. See generally, What is the safety record of the LNG industry?, Center for Energy
Economics (Oct. 1979), http://www.beg.utexas.edu/energyecon/lng/LNG_introduction_10.php

dodge-lng4

It’s Safe, see. See, Edward Dodge, How dangerous is LNG? (Breaking Energy Dec. 22, 2014) (photo cite supra) online at http://breakingenergy.com/2014/12/22/how-dangerous-is-lng/

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), http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/07/after-lng-explosion-community-cove-point-export-concerns/

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 http://www.kslaw.com/library/pdf/2005shortcourse.pdf (last visited Jan. 3, 2016).

LNG insurance

See generally, POTENTIAL LIABILITIES FOR CASUALTIES IN LNG SHIPPING CASUALTIES IN LNG SHIPPING SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL GAS TANKER AND TERMINAL OPERATORS 46 Th Panel Meeting San Francisco, (Society Of International Gas Tanker And Terminal Operators), (Apr. 21, 2004), http://www.kslaw.com/library/pdf/weems_lng.pdf

See also, Washington LNG blast spotlights natural gas safety, (Apr. 7, 2014), online at http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2014/04/07/325643.htm (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 http://bit.ly/1StHXxS

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 http://bit.ly/1RjjydK (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 http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/lng/faqs.htm

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 Insurance.org (n.d.)), online at http://www.homeinsurance.org/home-insurance-and-explosions/ (visited Jan. 3, 2016).

////