Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />- Emissions from on-road activity is not identified specifically but <br />accommodated for as growth to the area. Did the future growth include <br />estimates for Bayport construction and future expansions -for the 2007 <br />State Implementation Plan? After 2007? Again, currently commercial <br />truck activity (and heavy equipment) is federally regulated and falls <br />outside the TNRCC's Pollution Control Plan. <br />- The less than significant impact definition avoids the true impact to the <br />communities adjacent to and near the Bayport site. It assumes it's not <br />significant because a number has been plugged into an attainment plan <br />that covers an eight county area. Airshed Impacts should be site specific <br />and not assumed to be less than significant because it was spread out or <br />balanced over an eight county area. There are alternative sites where the <br />Airshed Impacts would not affect such a large population. <br />- The entire eight county region is being subjected to rules related to heavy <br />construction limitations, landscape and lawn mowing limitations and new <br />speed limits. Even though small in their total effect, we've all been asked <br />to share the load while this proposed activity is a point sowce and a real <br />impact borne by a few people, not fully projected for year 2007 and not <br />projected at all beyond 2007. <br />A All of these concerns are amplified by the fact that the 2007 State <br />Implementation Plan still falls short of needed NOX reductions. Therefore, <br />any increase in NOX is unjustified and unreasonable. <br />^ Hams County officials have recently indicated they may take <br />action on the proposed 55 mph speed limit. If this occurs and the <br />55 mph restriction is removed then the projected NOX 2007 <br />shortfall would be even greater. <br />^ Furthermore, five petitions filed with the 5th U. S. Circuit Court of <br />Appeals cite different flaws in the plan as reasons the court should <br />review and set aside the EPA's approval. The petition argues that <br />the 2007 SIP Plan did not account for the future growth of <br />emissions expected for entities like the Port of Houston. Please <br />advise what the petition claims was not accounted for. <br />LIGHT POLLUTION <br />• Homes to the north side of the channel will experience disruptive amounts of light <br />pollution. The DEIS states "Development of the Terminal complexes would <br />change the visual character at any of the terminal location alternatives from a low <br />level undeveloped area to awell-lighted, 24-how transportation facility with high- <br />mast lighting." <br />5 <br />