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

Environmental process: policy created rule

The U.S. Environmental Policy First

Even though, we have had rules how the U.S. Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is applied today; but there exists the background policy that first created U.S. environmental oversight; let’s not forget what was intended by the early policy writers.

See generally, John E. Sherman, First, Environmental Policy then Rules Aligned with Policy, (Jan. 19, 2016) (pdf document) online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160119a.pdf (visited Jan. 19, 2016).

Local governments clearly cannot allow industrial facilities to be situated within urban areas, regardless of the evolution of land use over time. Industry and government need to bring proper financial support to local communities so they can provide medical and other necessary services to reduce morbidity, mortality and material loss in the case of industrial accidents.[supra, at 1, n. 3 Lessons Learned]

For this reason, when a community EIS is undertaken all surrounding hazard(s) must be considered with written published public analysis EIS report results. For two reasons, (1) So interested and effected persons may review the completeness of the EIS hazards study report; and (2) The community (people) may use the EIS report; as a result, to benchmark their specific environmental hazards and risks concerns as allowed and promoted by Citizens guide to the NEPA[See, supra, n. 6]


Published Tue., Jan. 19, 2016 : 1445 PST

How EIA for SEPA or NEPA works

Let’s review, community public comments, the process

The review process for methane-to-methanol, Port of Tacoma proposed industrial plant, as Tacoma solicits environmental comments for government review and just how this works?

Let’s take a look at the environmental comments coordinator—Tacoma: NW Innovation Works: What Permits Will Be Required for a Plant at Tacoma, Washington?, (Accessed January 18, 2016) online at http://nwinnovationworks.com/projects/port-of-tacoma

Commenting process is a bit more complex

See, John Sherman, Tne Environmental Assessment Means?, (Jan. 17, 2016), online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160118a2.pdf (visited Jan. 18, 2016).

Still don’t see community hazard(s) analysis required first

I fail to find any reference to a mandatory community—people, property, lives, and well-being—required by default. Maybe a Community Right-to-Know Act study is required, but I can’t find the reference to such study documents as I read what is available to our Tacoma community public?


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

The surround, methane-to-methanol process

What are some other hazard situations

Remember that, as our Tacoma City community (people) are focused on the environmental review stuff, looking directly at proposed planned methane-to-methanol industrial plant and its operation; in addition, we must keep all other Port of Tacoma current or future area industrial hazards defined and presented for community people to review as relative hazards consideration.

For example, See, Sherman, John, Methane-to-Methanol Industrial Site Hazards Proximate Hazards Between All Other Industrial Processing or Storage Hazards Located Nearby, (WordPress J.E. Sherman) (Jan. 17, 2016) (pdf document t20160117a), online at https://johnesherman.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/t20160117a.pdf


Published Jan. 17, 2017 : 0910 PST

Not more H2S into our wastewater influent!

Methanol: Tacoma stakeholder’s create the environmental focus

First of all, that does not sound logical; it follows, most people in Tacoma have little- to no-idea what hazards should environmental study consider (detailed hazard study subject): as environment issues are presented by community people—life, property, environment (land, air, and water), and secure safe community—regarding the methane to methanol process industry proposed for operation within Port of Tacoma Washington.

Secondly, Our Tacoma City Environmental Services Wastewater Utility [3] workers don’t seem to be considered when we argue the methane to methanol conversion process; yet if the methanol plant flow its effluent (process discharge used water) water into Wastewater Utility piping and treatment systems; as a result, this effluent water needs the same environmental review as all other hazards considered related to this project.

Tacoma wastewater hazards already

We’re not going to dump more hydrogen sulfide (“H2S”) liquids chemical waste into my Tacoma wastewater sewer system piping and treatment process; are we?

I am asking because sometimes methane is scrubbed with water

As a result, the scrubbed methane is cleaned by water to remove:

  • CO2
  • N2
  • H2S

In that case, these process effluent chemicals must be sent somewhere, and
could that somewhere be our Tacoma Wastewater Treatment Plant?

Nevertheless, these methane cleaning waters must be treated else just dumped into Puget Sound Commencement Bay.

Right now, our Tacoma Wastewater utility workers are exposed to bio-hazards today, the workers that are exposed to waste stream toxins flowing from homes, businesses, industry, and hospitals—including H2S, low oxygen (“O2″”) levels, and other health hazards[1,2]—each day as these people work with wastewater physical contact, pumping stations, and treatment plants, wet-wells, and influent waste streams, and removing the solids from waste stream (the rag rakes).

We stakeholders must surface the hazards first

The proposed Tacoma plant is currently in the beginning of its SEPA review process, lead by the City of Tacoma, which aims to determine its potential environmental impacts. This begins with a scoping period in order to identify the issues that will be focused on in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Scoping is also the first of several opportunities for public comment during the SEPA review. [4]

Therefore, I hope this helps give some Community right-to-know ideas e.g., what are the Tacoma community hazard(s) assessments that must be completed!

Works cited

[1] Albatanony, M A, and M K El-Shafie, Work-Related Health Effects among Wastewater Treatment Plants Workers, The International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2 (2011), 237–44 online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23022842 (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[2] U.S. OSHA, Safety and Health Topics : Hydrogen Sulfide – Hydrogen Sulfide in Workplaces online at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/hydrogensulfide/hydrogensulfide_found.html (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[3] U.S. EPA, Primer for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems online at http://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/primer.pdf (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

[4] Proposed Methanol Plant in Tacoma, WA, (Concrete Connection on WordPress.com), online at https://concreteconnection.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/proposed-methanol-plant/ (visited Jan. 16, 2016).

Published 1/16/2016

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


Methane process facts missing

Logical decisions need facts first

We have some methane gas processing industries proposed for Tacoma Washington, Port of Tacoma, area. This industry is moving ahead with permits and construction planning, but still missing is stakeholders (community people’s) fact information published prior to requesting stakeholder’s comments about these projects.

Tacoma stakeholders (the citizens) need more factual information related to Port of Tacoma new methanol process…, (Facebook post) (Jan. 14, 2016).

Comments second, after all facts published

Let’s get all the facts first before any public stakeholders comments are collected and evaluated for these methane processes permitted within our community.

Methanol conversion process requires lots of water. Why?

We have been told that water is required for process. See, Dunkelberger, S. (2016, January 14). Signature drive seeks to put methanol plant to a vote, Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://www.tacomaweekly.com/news/view/signature-drive-seeks-to-put-methanol-plant-to-a-vote/
we have not been told about the process that needs the water or what the water contains (chemicals) after this process use?

State-of-the-art methanol process

So, let’s guess what that process might be that requires a lot of water for converting methane to methanol see generally, Efficient Natural Gas-to-Methanol Conversion, ARPA-E. (n.d.). Retrieved January 15, 2016, from http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/efficient-natural-gas-methanol-conversion

Absent facts our community will just play the guessing game

ring a hazard into our community: first explain the hazard(s) facts then let our Tacoma community stakeholders make a decision. A decision, as to, allowing or not allowing your industry to operate within our community and it’s for export of our natural resources that once exported and gone will be gone forever.


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).


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]


[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).