2000-04-24 Regular Called Meeting

Browse Search

RPR-le-20~ 1631 HE5-MRRRTHON OIL COMPANY • By Facsimile: 281/471-7168 Mr. Bob Herrera LaPorte City Manager P.O. Box 1115 LaPort, Texas 77572 April 10, 2000 Re: Port of Houston Authority Bayport Container Expansion Project Dear Mr. Herrera: 713 296 3401 P.03 Thank you for takin~ the time to discuss the Bayport Container Expansion Project with me on Tuesday, Apn14 . Per your request, I have outlined my concerns in the following paragraphs for review by the City Council. As we discussed, please schedule me to address the City Council for 5 minutes on Apri124, 2000 regarding this issue. I would also appreciate you scheduling Ed Matuszak to address the Council after my presentation. I am a chemical engineer who during the past 19 years have worked as a regulator for the EPA, as an environmental engineering consultant and as an environmental engineer for the petrochemical industry. I am a homeowner in the Clear Lake Area and I have become concerned about the proposed Bayport project and the lack of adequate community involvement in the Envimiunental Impact Statement (EIS) process. My objectives for addressing the City Council are as follows: • Recruit as many Bay Area Communities as possible to participate on a cost share basis in the retention of an independent technical consultant to review and comment on the Corp of Engineer's (COE's) draft EIS document; and • Explain the rationale of why it is crucial for the Bay Area Communities to participate in the EIS process. . Bond Election As general background, many people have been led to believe that passage of the port bonds last November ensured that the Bayport project was essentially a "done deal". Nothing could be further from the truth. In order for this project to move forward, the Port of Houston Authority (PHA) must obtain twa federal permits from the COE. Failure by the PHA to secure these two permits will result in the abandonmern of the project. The preparation of the E1S is the first step in the permitting process. In September or October of this yeaz, the "Public" will have an opportunity to canuncnt on the EIS. The only snag is that the U.S. Congress has specified that only "substantive comment" submitted by the "Public" may be considered relevanrt by the CUE. That is, comments that specifically addresses the data and/or the analysis presented in the EIS may be considered as relevant and hence worthy of consideration in modifying or even halting the project.