I seldom write :: i just need a quest.
Learn to operate the motorcycle throttle twist and control front brake activation at the same time. The Brake Light Initiative (“BLI”) is a important rider control skill.
See., The Brake Light Initiative- A Treatise on Motorcycle Control- Ride Craft: A treatise on bike control, from the author of The Pace., http://www.cycleworld.com/2014/05/28/the-brake-light-initiative-treatise-on-motorcycle-control-using-your-braking-skills/ (last visited 29 Nov 2017)
////
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:
2. Serfdom: Isolated decision making in the urban planning context produces a phenomenon that Professor Robin Molloy of Syracuse University calls “serfdom,” in which legal outcomes depend upon personal status in the political sphere. In such a legal environment, what people are allowed to do depends upon who they know, on whether their projects seem politically advantageous, on whether they fit a planner’s vision for a particular urban landscape, or on whether they benefit a city’s financial interests. Public entrepreneurialism, the participation of the public purse in urban development, is part of this phenomenon. See, Abstraction, Precedent, and Articulate Consistency: Making Environmental Decisions California Western Law Review (Vol. 34) (at 3, p. 429), http://scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu/cwlr/vol34/iss2/11 (last visited Mar 3, 2016)
We will all know more as the Tacoma Methanol Facility SEPA EIS process unfolds.
////
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:
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).
“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.
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.
////
I must say Microsoft Office.com applications have come a long way and are now quite capable to do things just a fast as one can think without loss of thought focus caused by the word processing package use problems created for users of early versions.
Good work Microsoft Corporation. I like the features of your Office.com Word 386 (2016) application.
////
Who says, the Community counts?
The Tacoma three proposed industries:
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.
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 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.
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.
////
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)
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)
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
////
To: mailto: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org
Sunday, February 7, 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 SEPA and this Environmental impact statement (“EIS”) related to the natural gas supply feeding the Methanol Facility.
Given, we are able to determine that the natural gas feeding the Tacoma Methanol Facility will be towards the sour gas spectrum because this same gas distribution piping supply system is proposed also feeding the Tacoma LNG Facility. Therefore:
2.2.1.2 Natural Gas Delivery and Pretreatment Systems
Natural gas would be delivered by a distribution pipeline and metered before it enters the Tacoma LNG Facility. Natural gas, upon delivery and prior to conversion to LNG, must be conditioned. This entails the removal of any constituents other than pure methane. These constituents could include ethane, propane, butane, and other heavy – end hydrocarbons, as well as minor quantities of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, sulfur compounds, and water. The pretreatment system would consist of amine gas treating and regeneration, a gas dehydration system, outlet gas filtration, and an intermediate heat transfer fluid system. As part of the pretreatment process, carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds removed from the natural gas would be flared through a ground flare system described in Section 2.2.1.7 (Other Process Facilities). Heavy hydrocarbons are used as fuel gas to the maximum extent possible, also described in Section 2.2.1.7. When operating conditions are such that all of the heavy hydrocarbons are not used as fuel gas, the components are sent to a holding tank. Periodically, this holding tank would be emptied and its contents transferred to a truck and taken off site for disposal or sale to a third party for use as fuel. See, PSE DEIS Chapter 2 Description of Proposed Action.pdf (at 2.3), http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/pse/PSE%20DEIS%20Chapter%202%20Description%20of%20Proposed%20Action.pdf (last visited Feb 7, 2016)
As a result, it is known that Tacoma LNG Facility the gas has stuff within gas supply that must be removed prior to conversion process, but this cleaning of gas indicates this is sour-natural gas and “Sour gas is a natural gas that contains significant amounts of hydrogen sulphide (H2S). It is extremely poisonous to humans and animals even in small quantities, corrosive, flammable and smells like rotten eggs.” Also, people have been evacuated to safe areas because of sour gas release into environment. See, All About Sour Gas The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/06/20/sour-gas-hydrogen-sulphide-hs2_n_3473666.html (last visited Feb 7, 2016)
My comment: Two comments, two environmental EIS issues: 1) If Methanol Facility incoming natural gas (methane gas) piping distribution system develops leaks and if this gas is sour gas; as a result, will there be sufficient H2S (hydrogen sulphide) content to cause environment hazard to community (people) from this escaping gas—once smelled then becomes just odorless—killer gas; therefore, human health environmental risk; 2) Sour gas is more corrosives; therefore, requires special materials to withstand H2S gas caused materials and piping failures; therefore, gas containment materials environmental risk that requires necessary materials to contain sour gas and protect my Tacoma Community. See generally, Hydrogen Damage – Metallic Corrosion, http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=104 (last visited Feb 7, 2016).
John Sherman
4601 N 26th St
Tacoma, WA 98407-4605
Email: jmjsherman@gmail.com
Johnesherman.com
////
To: Tacoma.methanol.sepa@cityoftacoma.org
Saturday, February 6, 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 methane-to-methanol conversion process and combustion airborne inventory added—Methanol facility: “The applicant has stated 70% of natural gas will be converted to methanol, while the remainder will be combusted to produce energy for the chemical processes. Emissions associated with this combustion process will need to be disclosed.” See, Methanol EIS Draft Scope of Work 02052016.pdf (p. 5:n.8), http://cms.cityoftacoma.org/planning/Methanol%20Plant/Methanol%20EIS%20Draft%20Scope%20of%20Work%2002052016.pdf (last visited Feb 6, 2016).
In this case, we see “According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration ( EIA ) , . . . With about 100 cubic feet of natural gas needed to produce one gallon of methanol, . . .” See accord, Methanol: The Clear Alternative for Transportation – Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx Methanol Institute, http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/Methanol-Flexible-Fuel-Vehicles.aspx (last visited Feb 6, 2016).
Therefore, “One metric ton of methanol (2,204.62 lbs) = Approximately 333 U.S. gallons.” See, SCC – Southern Chemical Corporation » Methanol FAQ’s Southern Chemical Corporation, http://www.southernchemical.com/wp/safety-environment/frequently-asked-questions (last visited Feb 6, 2016).
As a result, My factoring, I find: (7.3-million metric tons / 333gallons) * 100-cubic feet natural gas = 2.2-million cubic feet of natural gas required with 70% conversion process; as a result, 0.9-million cubic feet of natural gas is burned or combusted and added to the airborne combustion byproducts inventory. (See, Tacoma “Draft”, Supra, P 2:n. 4).
My comment is this: With 1-million cubic feet natural gas (methane) combusted (burned) and added to Tacoma Community airborne chemical inventory; as a result, how does that compare with the average Tacoma homeowner using natural gas for heating and cooking with their airborne chemical inventory contribution? We have yet to be informed: will the Methanol facility consume “sweet- or sour-natural gas (methane)” because the amount of chemicals entrained within the natural gas stream is more with “sour-natural gas (methane)” and must be cleaned and the residue from cleaning sour-natural gas (methane)’ must go somewhere?
This “Draft” (Feb. 5, 2016) presents “[T]he EIS will not be designed to disclose every molecule of impact or capture every emission. That is an inefficient use of resources. . . .” (Supra, “Draft” p. 4). I disagree because if you are a person that is harmed by a fugitive Methanol Facility chemical molecule then a harm is a actual harm. See also, Soot Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soot&oldid=702882659 (last visited Feb 6, 2016). Therefore I would suggest you don’t list the human health harm details but list every chemical molecule that will be fugitive from the Tacoma Methanol Facility processes. Just list all chemicals that will become introduced into the Tacoma Community airborne inventory caused by Methanol Facility!
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.
////
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.
////
