Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-2002 Port of Houston Expansion Review Committee Minutes• MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION OPPOSITION COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 4, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Engelken at 5:00 p.m. Members of the Committee Present: Councilpersons Guy Sutherland, Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, and Peter Griffiths. Members Absent: None Members of City Executive Staff and Cit~ployees Present: City Manager Robert T. Herrera, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, and City Secretary Martha Gillett. 2. DISCUSS PROPOSED DRAFT PORT OF HOUSTON EXPANSION OPPOSITION LETTER AND OTHER POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE LETTER Councilperson Guy Sutherland questioned whether it is better, more forceful, to have a complete document with everything included in it; or a cover letter with attachments, like the draft attached to the agenda. He raised this as a point of discussion. When he receives comments, he prefers it be one continuous letter. The draft has two parts, the letter and a more detailed objection attached. He feels when letters are submitted with attachments, some may take the cover letter and file it separately from the attachment, being the bulk of the document. We have a lot of information in the cover letter that needs to be included with the attachment, or made as one document. Unless it's a continuous writing, we have no way to be certain it will be kept as one document. There is no reference in the letter of additional comments, an attachment. He suggests the letter go out under the Mayor's signature. There was some discussion reviewing the information from Shore Acres and including any needed information. Councilperson Peter Griffiths would like strong comments added regarding the lowering of EPA standards; particles, microns, ozone, etc. There was further discussion on this. The Assistant City Manager John Joerns emphasized the region is "sight specific". At our sight it cannot be dispersed as it could be in Texas City; there's concentrated loading in a part of the County that already has concentrated loading. They look at the eight county mandate and assume it would be the same for all sights, which he does not feel is an appropriate way to look at this. The mandate is for an eight county region. This bullet point was directly lifted from the Executive Summary and it has the point Councilman Sutherland made in the meeting. They summarized it; they provided a certain impact in the Houston/Galveston Attainment Plan. Stating the impact on the regions plan to attain the ozone standard is long term, but a less than significant adverse impact when you look on the chart. It's the same comment all the way across on each of the different sites. Now the Port has stated that La Porte is the only sight they want; this was in the newspaper. The EPA standards are going to be an immediate impact here in MINUTES OF THE BAYPORT EXPANSION (Cont'd) Page 2 La Porte. The EPA standards need to beefed up. We need to stress how it is not going to be spread over eight counties. This would be more of an effect on our Community; it is very close to not meeting standards. We could lose our EPA federal funding. We need to inform them of our future Master Plan for the City, parks development and other future development of the City. There is no burden on the Port, and they don't seem to have plans to do anything to help the cause. They are to use cleaner diesel fuel, etc. In summary, we are considering one document, emphasizing stricter EPA standards, including long term affects, particles still counted in our emissions, close proximity of our residential area, leaded paint on the ships; all of these include some of the citizen's concerns. Bayport would lessen the value of property. Another concern is the shipping in close proximity to our residential areas. We are pointing out issues relating to Bayport, addressing dredging, noise levels, effect on future recreational plans. State Representatives, Congressmen, Director of EPA, other surrounding city's management, et al need to be contacted; and if possible, meet with some of them. We will continue work on the final draft at the next meeting on Wednesday, February 18, at 6 p.m. 3. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. COMMITTEE COMMENTS There was no new business. 5. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Committee, this meeting was duly adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha A. Gillett, TRMC City Secretary Passed and approved on this 18th day of February 2002. Chairman Chuck Engelken • DRAFT January 10, 2002 Mr. Kerry M. Stanley U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Galveston District Regulatory Branch P.O. Box 1229 Galveston, TX 77553-1229 Dear Mr. Stanley, On behalf of the City of La Porte, please accept, record, and file this letter as the City of La Porte's comments regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Bayport Marine Terminal. The City of La Porte appreciates the time and effort the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has given to study the permit application received from the Port of Houston. We recognize that the review was complex and voluminous. We also believe that the Port of Houston has made a genuine effort to understand some of the concerns raised by residents of East Harris County and the communities they reside in. Our City has participated with the work group developed by the Port Authority (Community Advisory Group) and has attended several public hearings and scoping meetings. The Port Authority continues to work in good faith with the Community Advisory Group in addressing elements of the DEIS and other issues raised during this process. However, it is the view of my Council and my community that concerns raised in the August 1999 position paper have been heard but not acted upon or resolved. Consequently, the City is opposed to the Bayport site, or any combination including Bayport, because we firmly believe the DEIS reinforces our concerns that this site would have substantial long term negative environmental impacts for our community. We would hope that before you consider issuing a permit for this location, you will follow all adopted procedures to insure the public's due process and interests are held at the highest degree of accountability. In addition, we would request that all issues raised during the scoping process, that may not have been analyzed in the current DEIS, be looked at diligently and reported in the final EIS along with all comments received on the DEIS. As a public, we have the right to know how our quality of life will change under circumstances we have no control over. We further believe that the applicant has a duty and stewardship responsibilities to the community that is not yet evident in their permit application. • The DEIS Executive Summary established two categories, non-environmental and environmental, for comparison of alternate sites. In general our review finds that the proposed Bayport site ranked either favorably or equal to other sites in the non- environmental categories of availability, operational effectiveness and site constraints. However, within the environmental category, the Bayport site displayed many negative environmental impacts that were more significant than alternate sites. We sincerely hope that convenience, ease of construction and infrastructure costs for the PHA does not prevail over real environmental impacts to adjacent and nearby homes and communities. Another great concern are the comments on air quality. Except for the No Action Alternative, all comments on Airshed Atmosphere Loading are the same for all alternative sites. Especially disturbing is the statement that "2007 NOX and VOC emissions generated by terminal construction and operations are included in the HGA ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the region's plan to attain the ozone standard is a long term, less than significant adverse impact". This is in effect saying that the increased emissions from Bayport (and surrounding industry) can be spread out or balanced over an eight county region while in reality the impacts will be a concentrated loading to be borne by the adjacent communities. Please explain why other environmental impacts were site specific while this impact was assumed to be spread out over a region? In La Porte we remember the traffic problems which resulted when Barbours Cut was being built. We remember the discussions and compromises by both sides, which resulted in a grudging acceptance of Barbours Cut by its neighbors. Today, we continue to live with those environmental impacts and lack of planning and public/community involvement in the development of Barbours Cut. We are familiar with the much stricter environmental regulations that exist today and trust that the Corps of Engineers will recognize that Bayport is not the appropriate site. We are submitting additional specific comments on the DEIS for the record as an attachment to this letter together with a copy of the position statement the City has filed regarding the proposed Bayport expansion. If you should require any additional information, please let me know. Sincerely, Mayor Norman L. Malone cc: City Council Robert T. Herrera, City Manger Knox W. Askins, City Attorney • Attachment to Letter From Mayor of La Porte, TX Dated January 10, 2002 Additional Comments Re~ardin~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port of Houston Authority's Proposed Bayport Channel Container/Cruise Terminal Noise Pollution • Homes to the north side of the channel will experience disruptive amounts of noise. The DEIS notes that construction noise alone during the nighttime would exceed 55 dBA (decibels, A-weighted sound level) at the nearest residences for dredging, and the nighttime pile construction would exceed 55 dBA at the nearest residences. Operation sound levels at the residences north of the channel would increase 16 to 22 dBA and exceed 65 dBA Ldn. Two of the alternate sites listed would not increase noise pollution or disturb area residents. Air Pollution The DEIS states "emissions of NOX (Nitrogen Oxides (NO + NOZ) + the nitrate radical (NO3 )) , SO2 (Sulfur Dioxides), and PMIO (Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter) will be generated by construction equipment engines as well as fugitive dust emissions. This is a short-term adverse impact. Fugitive dust PMIO emissions would be mitigated by use of dust control measures. Emissions of NOX, SO2, and PMIO will be generated both offsite and onsite due to container and cruise terminal operations. These emissions represent along-term adverse impact. The impact on the Ozone Attainment Plan is stated as "2007 NOX and VOC (Volatile Organic Compounds) emissions generated by terminal construction and operations are included in the HGA (Houston-Galveston Non-attainment Area) ozone attainment plan. Therefore, the impact on the region's plans to attain the ozone standard is a long-term, less than significant adverse impact. • The EIS lacks discussion of fine particulate matter that will be discharged. Although this area currently is in compliance at 10 microns, a small increase from the port would probably cause it to be non compliant. The EPA is moving towards lowering the standard from 10.0 to 2.5, which mandates that the EIS address this issue. • Light Pollution • Homes to the north side of the channel will experience disruptive amounts of light pollution. The DEIS states "Development of the terminal complexes would change the visual character at any of the terminal location alternatives from generally undeveloped to awell-lighted 24-hour transportation facility with high-mast lighting." Transportation Issues • Delays will be caused at rail crossings and major thoroughfares due to increased vehicular and rail traffic. The DEIS presents references to roadways that will need to be improved upon but does little to discuss the actual additional traffic and the burden it would place on area residents. No consideration has apparently been given to conflicts with existing vehicular traffic. The only suggestions made are the widening of Port Road from the project site to SH 146 and "proposed interchange and ramp improvements in the vicinity of the Port Road and SH 146 interchange." The DEIS acknowledges that Red Bluff Road, Port Road, and SH 146 will need improvements in future years based on projected growth with or without the Bayport Terminal. As for rail traffic, the DEIS is even more vague, stating only that "The site is located so that trains from the site could easily be consolidated with those from the Barbours Cut Terminal" and suggests "road/rail grade separation at new rail crossing at SH 146." The EIS addressed the impact to the transportation system on an area basis but does not address localized impacts. Local communities, which are already subject to the worst environmental impacts, will thus realize immediate impact on their surface transportation and this must be discussed. • Only individual site analyses were performed and there is some question how and if it was done for combined port locations. Shipping • The distance between ships moving into position at the docks may be inadequate to prevent collision and erosion. • Ships entering the Bayport Terminal do not have to comply with the State air emissions reduction efforts. Fairmont Parkway Overpass • An overpass must be constructed where Fairmont Parkway, a major thoroughfare, crosses the new inter port railway. This overpass and the highway modifications at the entrance to the port must be in place by the date the port begins operation. Sewage • Sewage from the ships and the port must be handled in a manner whereby there is no chance that it will enter Galveston Bay. A system approved by i the Texas Department of Health should be in place by the time operations begin. Water Quality • The EIS lacks discussion of current water quality for the portion of the bay that would be affected by the construction of this project and subsequent increase in shipping. It noted a few stations with data collected in 1997- 1998 but the majority is from Galveston Bay Estuary Program reports dated 1992 and 1994. • The EIS lacks reference to ongoing projects and water quality results from current studies that address dioxin and bacteria which could help determine whether or not the Bayport Ship Channel will be added to the state list of impaired waters. • The EIS lacks discussion on the impact of dredging on water quality for the short or long term. If dredging causes re-suspension of contaminants, the channel would be placed on a list that would require Total Maximum Daily Load studies. • The EIS lacks discussion on the potential impact of increased shipping activity and storm water runoff on water quality. Wetlands/Habitat • Wetlands in the Galveston Bay watershed provide treatment of storm water runoff and buffer floods to reduce storm surges and additionally serve as habitat for wildlife and commercially valuable species. The EIS describes 2.5 acres of wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Corps that will be destroyed and require mitigation and 103.5 acres of non- jurisdictional wetlands. The EIS lacks adequate discussion on the impact of losing these wetlands. • The EIS lacks adequate discussion on the value of wetlands, specific mitigation requirements, or the location of mitigation. Furthermore, we believe that our original concerns remain valid and require a closer examination by the Corps of Engineers. Attachment to Letter From Mayor of La Porte, TX Dated January 10, 2002 Additional Comments Re~ardin~ Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Port of Houston Authority's Proposed Bayport Channel Container/Cruise Terminal Almost 2 '/2 years ago we issued a position paper on the expansion. For the purpose of record keeping, we are resubmitting it to you as it was written and delivered to your agency on August 17, 1999. 1) The development will bring about changes in our community which are disruptive and more than just a nuisance. Homes on the north side of the channel to Bayport will experience noise, air pollution, lighting, and shoreline erosion problems. These issues, if not addressed, will cause the property owners' land values to be lowered, and their ability to sell their homes would be very difficult without taking a loss. If the Port Authority cannot correct these real estate concerns, then consideration from the Port Authority should be given to buying out the homes at fair market value, which abut the development. 2) The proposed development will bring with it major rail and vehicle transportation issues which will impact the City of La Porte and will affect neighboring communities. The proposed development will cause delays at rail crossings of major thoroughfares such as Fairmont Parkway, Shoreacres Boulevard, and Red Bluff Drive. Consideration from the Port of Houston must be given to working with local jurisdictions to resolve traffic concerns. In addition, the Port Authority should petition the State of Texas Highway Department to insure that State Highway 146 and State Highway 225 roadways are designed and constructed in advance to provide for the growth of the area and this development. It is recommended the Port Authority approach the State Highway Department to create a specialized truck lane on State Highway 146 to isolate the truck traffic to and from port facilities. The Port Authority should actively take a lead role in insuring rail crossings have overpasses and should also seek ways to fund these overpasses and their construction before the proposed development occurs. 3) The proposed development will add significant air pollution issues that cannot be ignored. The Bayport facility will generate additional air pollution from its use of diesel trucks, diesel ships, diesel cranes, and diesel vehicles that will operate at this location. The Port Authority should study the impact of this air pollution to the surrounding communities and to Harris County. Consideration should be given to using equipment that uses a cleaner burning fuel alternative. In addition, consideration should be given to the placement of air monitoring devices along the site boundaries to measure the air quality leaving the site. East Harris County is under orders of the EPA that our region must reduce nitrogen oxides (Nox) emissions by as much as 85 percent to come into compliance with the national ozone standard by the year 2007. Adding this facility at this location contradicts any stated goal adopted to reduce Nox emissions in our region. 4) The Port of Houston should require a complete Environmental Impact Study be performed by the Army Corps of Engineers and require the Corps of Engineers to seek input from all communities and agencies which adjoin or may play some role in protecting the waters of Galveston Bay as a nationally important estuary. The Port Authority should also engage a consultant to study the existing shipping traffic patterns that enter and use the Bayport channel and apply this usage to their traffic models. Furthermore, it is recommended that the same consultant study the water area of the Bayport channel as it relates to the use of water recreational activities such as sailing, fishing, and shrimping. 5) The proposed development may bring about detrimental marine changes whose impact must be understood. The operation of a facility of this type will cause additional erosion to the north boundary of the Bayport channel. Measures must be in place to protect and eliminate the continual loss of shoreline to ship activity visiting and leaving the development. As larger ships come into play, the Port of Houston should attempt to understand the impact to Galveston Bay marine ecosystem if the channel is ever dredged to a depth of 50 feet. The Port Authority should require the Army Corps of Engineers to look at this depth as well as the 45-foot depth, which is proposed, to better understand the incremental change that may occur, if any. Subj: Promised Baypor# Information Date: 1/29102 11:35:36 AM Mountain Standard Ttme From: Lurgey To: ENGELKEN File: Alert.doc (79360 bytes) DL Time (24000 bps): < 1 minute Dear Ken: t enjoyed our brief conversation at thg LaPorte City Hal[ last night. 1 have prepared some information, particularly using Manufacturers own data for credibility. I believe that this opens up a new and so far unheard objection to Bayport. Sony that with the scientific data., it is an 11 page download. Hope you can use this, Sincerely, Rev. Michael Bingham Abundant Life church of LaPorte 281-476-9599 TAureday, January 37, 2002 America Online: ENGELKEN Page: 1 • • 1 "The threat of lncreased Or~anotin pollution in Galveston Bay" By Rev. Michael R. Bingham. Question to the Corps of Engineers "What steps will the Corps propose in reducing or mitigating -the increased levels of Organotin pollution and other Marine Vessel coatings, and materials herein identified, which will invariably be the consequence of the additional increase of foreign flagged vessels entering Galveston Bay, if the proposed Bayport facility is built?" Background All Oceangoing Ship commerce (and much of the Inter-Coastal Waterway traffic) has one thing in common, the use of "Antifouling" coatings to reduce the organic growth of marine life on their underwater bottoms and hulls. Within the last Thirty years a consensus has been reached that while the reduction of marine growth on vessels is desirable, the use of certain products have been outlawed by United States, as being overly destructive of the Marine environment. Certain pollutants such as Lead and Organic Tin Complexes have been long recognized as destructive to natural reefs and entire ecosystems. These compounds resist natural biological degradation. They unfortunately have the ability to continue to kill and to affect marine life, in the "life-chain" from shell-fish to aquatic life to fish and to bird and other animal life including humans. Problem 1. The increase of commerce as proposed will increase foreign vessel traffic. Many of these foreign vessels are immune to U.S. laws and regulations against the deposition of trace Organotin products in U.S. waters. These products and their subsequent pollution in U.S. waters have been long banned from use or application at U.S. Shipyards (many of which surround Galveston Bay). These Organic Tin compounds are leached into the surrounding environment by ablative and contaminative causes, designed deliberatively to kill or slow marine Growths on Hulls. The problem is not what they do, but what they leave behind. • Problem 2. 2 The excellent reduction of these long life compounds within the ecosystem of Galveston Bay, due to the total banning of their use from local shipyards will be reversed especially from the expected increased traffic from non-compliant shipyards in the Far East. Problem 3 The City of LaPorte rises up to an approximate height of less than 20 feet above Mean Sea Level. During a category 1 Hurricane or higher, the natural reefs and ecosystems have historically protected the City. If these natural protections are depleted by additional "kill off' due to Organotin pollution, this would lead to greater destruction than would normally be the case. Natural reef formation through clean Bay waters should be encouraged rather than damaged irreparably. Problem 4 Antifouling Paints made primarily outside the United States often contain this lethal "Organotin" additive. These compounds are usually stored within unlocked and unregulated "paint lockers" of International Vessels entering U.S. waters. Any inspection whatsoever of same will show clearly that open and dried out paint cans, together with damaged cans are invariably visible. At dockside often work details are given over to idle crew to clean out these areas. The disposition of these materials usually goes on in the darkness of night. Our concern is of the illegal disposal of these pollutants over the side, and in Galveston bay waters. Paint Lockers ought to be locked upon entering U.S. Waters, and always inspected by the Coastguard. Reference Material Source: ORTEPA An International organization of Organotin Manufacturers. Reference www. Ortepa.org. Abstract\Introduction Tributyltin (TBT) has been used as an antifoulant in marine paints since the 1960s. Concern about the effect of TBT on non-target organisms led the US Congress to pass the Organotin Antifouling Paint Control Act (OAPCA) in late 1988, which limited the use of 3 TBT-based paints to ships over 25 meters and controlled the release rate of the antifoulant from the paint. These restrictions have been very effective and TBT in US waters has declined so dramatically that there has been no risk of adverse effects to aquatic life from acute (short-term) exposure to TBT since 1994 (Cardwell et al. 1999). Since 1996, risks to aquatic life from chronic (long-term) exposures to TBT are below the US EPA recommended level for protection of an aquatic community at all sites monitored except for some commercial locations in Galveston Bay, Texas (Cardwell et al. 1999). Since at least 1992, areas critical to fish and shellfish communities have not been at risk from exposure to TBT. These declines in TBT concentrations and elimination/reduction of risk to aquatic life are likely associated with the 1988 regulations and changes in the type of TBT-based paint used. Use of free-association ap ints predominated until the late 1980's, at which time they were replaced by TBT self- polishing copolymer (SPC) based ap ints. SPC paints include the TBT biocide chemically bonded throughout the coating, and allow application of thicker paint coatings. This results in a uniform release of biocide, and reduces the amount of biocide entering the environment (particularly during harbor activities). Comparative Aquatic Life Risk Assessment of Tributyltin and Tin-Free Biocides Introduction Based on recommendations of the Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC), the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed a global initiative that will eventually result in the ban of all antifouling systems exhibiting harmful effects on the marine environment. In the interim, antifoulants expected to have the fewest impacts on the marine environment will be required. Tributyltin (TBT) is currently the only antifoulant subject to the regulations under this initiative. Alternative antifouling paints are aggressively being developed as potential replacements for TBT. Given the number of alternative antifouling paints being developed, a process is necessary to determine the antifoulant expected to have the fewest impacts on the environment. The most appropriate process for comparing the potential impacts of antifoulants on the marine environment is risk assessment. Risk assessment considers both the exposure potential and the effects potential of the antifoulant to biota in order to assess the potential to cause adverse impacts. A risk assessment consists of the following phases: Source: US EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Vol. 1. 1989 4 In order to compare the risks associated with different antifouling paints, each risk assessment component should be evaluated similarly and be based on similar types of data. This paper first discusses some of the key issues and types of data that are necessary for a comparative assessment of antifoulant risks to be valid and scientifically defensible. Second, the availability of exposure and effects data for TBT-self-polishing copolymer (SPC) paints is discussed, along with the results of aquatic risk life assessments that have been conducted at multiple sites in the United States. Third, the availability of exposure and effects data for alternative antifoulants is compared to that of TBT. The paper concludes with a summary on the state-of--the-science with regards to the comparative risks posed by TBT and alternative antifoulants. Key Issues/Data Requirements The following highlights the key issues and data requirements that must be addressed in comparing the risks posed by TBT-SPC and alternative antifoulants in the marine environment: Problem Formulation. Assessment endpoints define the measurable ecosystem characteristics that are to be evaluated in the risk assessment (USEPA 1998), such as survival, growth, and reproduction of the marine community. Using this example, the measure of exposure may be antifoulant concentrations in surface water and the measure of effect may be the toxic response of marine organisms to antifoulants. For a comparative risk assessment to be meaningful, therefore, the assessment endpoints and measures of exposure and effects must be the same or comparable for the different antifouling systems. Exposure Characterization. As discussed above, the measure of exposure in an antifoulant risk assessment may be antifoulant concentrations in surface water. In a comparative risk assessment, these exposure concentrations should be based on comparable data sources. For TBT, surface water concentrations have been well characterized in many locations throughout the world (e.g., CEFIC 1994; Dowson et al. 1994; Russell et al. 1996; Tolosa et al. 1996). As discussed later, however, surface water data for most other antifouling biocides are limited or non-existent because they are still in the developmental phase, they have had little use, or they just simply have not been measured. Accordingly, environmental concentrations of alternative antifoulants typically need to be modeled. In a comparative risk assessment between antifouling biocides and TBT-SPC, therefore, TBT concentrations should also be modeled to ensure consistency. It should also be noted that chronic (i.e., long-term) exposure durations are probably the most relevant 5 type of exposure to evaluate because chemicals leaching from the hull of a ship represent along-term continuous source. Effects Characterization. Atypical aquatic community in a marine environment is comprised of a wide variety of organisms, including copepods, amphipods, polychaetes, decapods, bivalves, and fish. The physiology of these organisms is quite variable, and accordingly, they have very different sensitivities to chemicals such as antifoulants. Because toxicity data will not be available for all species in the marine community being evaluated, the sensitivities of a diverse group of test organisms are assumed to represent the sensitivities of a natural marine community. Ideally, toxicity data from chronic studies would be available, but it is sometimes necessary to estimate the chronic sensitivities from acute toxicity data. The toxicity tests should be based on ecologically relevant endpoints such as survival, reproduction, development, and growth. For most alternative antifouling biocides chronic toxicity data are very limited, and for several antifouling biocides acute toxicity data are also limited. The paucity of toxicity data for several antifouling biocides may be the limiting factor in comparing the risks posed by a variety of antifoulants. Risk Characterization. The risk characterization combines the information compiled in the exposure and effects characterizations in order to estimate potential risk. The risk characterization may simply be deterministic where a point estimate of exposure is compared to a point estimate of effects (e.g., the concentration protective of 95 percent of the species) or probabilistic where the distribution of exposure data is compared to the distribution of effects data and risk is reported as the percent species in the aquatic community expected to be affected. Regardless of approach, the point estimates or distributions must be calculated using the same methods. In addition to direct chemical risks posed by an antifoulant, other issues must be considered in a comparative risk assessment. For example, increased fouling could result in introduction of foreign species, increased emissions of greenhouse gases caused by greater ship drag, and greater consumption of fossil fuels due to reduced fuel efficiency. Tributyltin The following summarizes the availability of exposure and effects data for TBT, as well as the results of a TBT risk assessment at three marine locations in the U. S. Exposure Data. Tributyltin concentrations in the aquatic environment have been heavily studied at many locations throughout the world, including the North Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and Japanese water bodies (e.g., CEFIC 1994; Tolosa et al. 1996; Suzuki 7 tend to be localized near TBT sources. The following discusses the data available for alternative antifoulants and whether sufficient data exists for these compounds to conduct a comparative risk assessment with TBT. Alternative Antifoulants There are a variety of other antifoulants that have been developed or are in the process of development. A copper compound such as cuprous oxide (CuZO), copper thiocyanate (CuSCN), or metallic copper is often used as the principle biocide, but booster biocides are often necessary to protect against copper-resistant fouling organisms (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). These boosters may be either organic or organometallic compounds (Table 1). The following discusses the types of exposure and effects data available for these compounds. Exposure Data. Unlike TBT, concentration data for many of these compounds in the aquatic environment are limited or non-existent because the compounds are not in heavy use as an antifoulant or are still in the developmental stage. Consequently, exposure concentrations for these compounds in the environment would have to be modeled. The triazine compound Irgarol® is one exception. It has been heavily used in some locations, and measured concentrations along the coast of England and in the Mediterranean Sea are approaching levels that are acutel toxic (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). For most alternative antifoulants, however, environmental data are not available. Table 1. Ezamples of organic and metal-based booster biocides. Organic Boosters Metal-Based Boosters Dichloro-isothiazolone Copper naphthenate Triazine Copper/zinc pyrithione Diuron Zinc oxide ! ~ 6 1994). In the U. S., TBT concentrations have been continuously monitored in three marine water bodies since 1991. Each of these water bodies consist of commercial harbors, shipyards, marinas, and proximal fish/shellfish habitat. This monitoring program provides current concentrations that can be used in risk assessment and also allows for a temporal comparison of risk since passage of TBT regulations in the late 1980s. The results of a risk assessment using these data are summarized below. Effects Data. The toxicity of TBT to aquatic organisms has been heavily studies since the 1970s. Standard acute toxicity data suitable for community-level risk assessments are available for 29 marine species, including echinoderms, bivalves, copepods, amphipods, crabs, shrimp, polychaete worms, and fish (Cardwell et al. 1999). Chronic toxicity data based on appropriate endpoints (e.g., survival, reproduction, development, growth) are available for seven marine species, including copepods, bivalve larvae, gastropods (e.g., snails), and fish (Cardwell et al. 1999; Manning et al. 1999). Risk Assessments. The following summarizes the results of a risk assessment conducted by Cardwell et al. (1999). Cardwell et al. (1999) conducted a risk assessment at four regions across the U. S. at which TBT has been heavily monitored since 1991 (three marine, one freshwater). In each of these regions, TBT concentrations were measured in four different site types: marinas, commercial harbors, shipyards, and fish/shellfish habitat. For each year, probability functions were fit to the TBT surface water data for each site type by region and all marine regions combined. These probability distributions of exposure concentrations were then mathematically integrated with probability distributions of effects data for the 29 different aquatic taxa described above. Risk is then expressed in terms of the average percentage of taxa that are expected to be affected due to TBT toxicity. Using the U. S. TBT monitoring data and acute and chronic toxicity data described above, the percentage of species at chronic risk from TBT in marinas declined from 25 percent in 1989 to <_ 5 percent by 1997. Similarly, chronic risks in commercial harbors and shipyards were also <_ 5 percent by 1997. Chronic risks were negligible (< 1 percent) in fish/shellfish habitat proximal to marinas, harbors, and shipyards by 1996. The sensitive species potentially at risk include some species of bivalves (such as clams and oysters) and copepods. None of these species are at risk in fish/shellfish habitat, however, and no species are at acute risk. These results demonstrate that chronic risks due to TBT are declining to acceptable levels (affecting less than 5 percent of the species is generally considered acceptable [e.g., Aldenberg and Slob 1993; Stephan et al. 1985]) and that risks Nopcocide/C hlorothaloni 1 Zinc metal Preventol A4/Dichlofluanid Zinc naphthenate Densil Zineb Pyridinetriphenylborane Mancozeb Thiram Maneb C~ Effects Data. As mentioned above, appropriate (i. e., high quality and published) acute and chronic toxicity data for TBT are currently available for 29 and 7 marine species, respectively. As Table 2 shows, considerably fewer toxicity data are available for the organic booster biocides. This lack of toxicity data virtually eliminates the ability to assess the comparative risks between these antifoulants and TBT. With such limited toxicity data, particularly chronic toxicity data, it is not possible to assess risks to the aquatic community and it is not possible to know if sensitive species have been adequately tested. TBT is a good example of this last point. The toxicity of TBT was underestimated until about the mid-1980s when chronic tests of some less standard species demonstrated that TBT was more toxic than previously thought. Although TBT was found to be more toxic than thought, the data provided the impetus for regulations on TBT usage. As the TBT risk assessment demonstrated (Cardwell et al. 1999), these regulations helped reduce risks from TBT to acceptable levels. This same scenario could occur with a new biocide, i.e., it may be more toxic than originally thought given that the toxicity data are so limited. Additional toxicity testing with these compounds will be necessary if a comparative risk assessment with TBT is to be meaningful. Table 2. Number of marine species tested with different organic Iii 9 booster biocides. Chemical Acute Chronic Dichloro-isothiazolone 9 1 Triazine 4 1 Diuron 22a 1 Nopcocide/Chlorothalonil 7 0 Preventol A4/Dichlofluanid 3 0 Densil 0 0 C~ 10 Pyridinetriphenylborane 0 0 Thiram 0 0 '19 of these species are algae. The effects of metal-based booster biocides in the marine environment is also uncertain. Copper compounds such as cuprous oxide, copper thiocyanate, or metallic copper have been used as principle biocides. However, in order to protect against alternative species, various booster biocides are used to control the copper- tolerant organisms (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). The effects of copper ion in the marine environment is probably minimal because most copper is highly bound and chelated to various ligands. However, the effects of some organic boosters (e.g., dithiocarbamates) in combination with copper have been reported to be additive (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). The toxicity of another metal-based booster, zinc pyrithione, has been shown to be acutely toxic to some species at similar concentrations as TBT. For example, the TBT LCSO values for Mysiclopsis Bahia and Oncorhynchus mykiss are 1.7 and 4.6 µg/L (U. S. EPA 1997), respectively, compared to 6.3 and 3.2 µg2 for zinc pyrithione. In mammals, zinc pyrithione has been shown to cause paralysis and to be mutagenic (Snyder et al. 1965; Adam et al. 1995). Further studies are necessary to determine whether these effects occur at environmentally relevant concentrations. In a recent study, Goka (1999) evaluated the teratogenic potential of zinc pyrithione in two species offish in early life stage (ELS) toxicity tests: zebra fish (Brachyclanio rerio) and Japanese Medaka (Oryzias latipes). The ECSO values for teratogenesis (in the form of spinal defects) in zebra fish and Japanese Medaka were 9 and 5 µg/L, respectively. This study demonstrated that zinc pyrithione is indeed teratogenic to two species offish at fairly low concentrations, but true chronic (i.e., life cycle) studies are still needed to determine the chronic sensitivities of • 11 aquatic biota. The toxic effects of all metal-based boosters need further evaluation. Summary of Risk Assessment Results. To date, no scientifically rigorous risk assessments have been conducted for alternative antifouling paint systems. Kramer (1998) conducted an ecological risk assessment of copper and adichloro-isothiazolone, but many of the assumptions of exposure and effects are questionable. For example, insufficient information is presented to adequately evaluate the exposure modeling of adichloro-isothiazolone that was required. The effects characterization was fundamentally flawed because acute toxicity data were used to determine effect levels; however, as mentioned above, chronic toxicity data are more appropriate because the leaching of biocide from paint represents a continuous source. Lord et al. (1997) assessed the aquatic life risks associated with a triazine, but the results are questionable because it appears the compound's toxicity and persistence were underestimated. For example, Pearce's publication in the New Scientist indicates that assessments by the pesticide division of the Swedish inspectorate concluded that triazine degrades "very slowly" in aquatic environments and is likely to accumulate in water and sediments, and that it tends to accumulate in fish (Readman 1996). There are no known aquatic life risk assessments of alternative antifoulants in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Conclusions As stated in the introduction, the IMO MEPC has developed an initiative to ban all antifouling systems exhibiting harmful effects on the marine environment and in the interim, to use antifoulants that elicit the fewest possible effects. Risk assessment is the most useful tool to determine whether a chemical does or may exhibit harmful effects on the environment, and comparative risk assessment is the most useful tool to determine which chemical poses the smallest risk to the environment. As yet, no comparative risk assessments have been conducted between marine antifoulants. Comparative risk assessments of TBT and alternative antifoulants are currently difficult due to the lack of analytical methods, limited monitoring data, and little information about the fate and toxicity of these alternative compounds (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). It should be emphasized that the alternative antifoulants have not been studied extensively and have the potential to cause environmental damage because they are designed to be toxic to a range of marine organisms (Voulvoulis et al. 1999). In fact, based on the meeting notes from the OSPAR convention in 18-22 October 1999 the INPUT and ASMO working_groups concluded that TBT alternatives seem to have the same types of unwanted environmental effects as TBT (O5PAR 12 1999). Some of the alternatives have already been banned in some countries or on some types of sailing~crafts. For example, after 2000, antifouling_paints containing copper and Irgarol® will be banned on all pleasure craft on the East Coast of Sweden, and Denmark has banned products containing Diuron and Ir ag role'. To conduct a risk assessment for most of the alternative antifoulants, exposure concentrations would have to be modeled. Additionally, effects data are limited to only a few species and most often based on standard acute toxicity tests. As a result, the toxicity endpoints are generally not comparable between TBT and other antifoulants, and toxicity data are not available for a group of species that is representative of a diverse community. Risk assessments of TBT, however, in countries with OAPCA-like regulations, have demonstrated that risks to aquatic life appear to be limited to chronic effects in a few sensitive species in marinas and some shipyards and commercial harbors, but not in fish/shellfish habitat proximal to these areas. Given that the estimated risks posed by TBT have been well studied and tend to be low and localized to its source, and that the exposure and effects data are limited for alternative antifoulants, there is currently no basis for replacing TBT with an alternative antifoulant. A comprehensive and defensible comparative risk assessment of TBT and alternative antifoulants will be necessary to demonstrate whether alternative antifoulants would be expected to have fewer impacts on the environment than TBT. Irgarol is a registered trademark of Ciba-Geigy Corporation. All rights reserved. Underline emphasis mine Conclusion There is currently no United States regulation or Marine law which can force compliance of foreign vessels into harmony with U.S. environmental regulations concerning the leaching of Organotin and other unwanted Marine traffic pollutants into Galveston Bay. This due solely to the passage of Non-Compliant International ship traffic If the Corps of Engineers gives approval to the Bayport expansion, it is in the unenviable position of encouraging an acute violation of the Law regarding the obvious increase in Organotin and other toxic pollutants in Galveston Bay, merely through the increase of International marine traffic. L~ 13 Sincerely, Rev. Michael R. Bingham 331, S. 7`h. Street LaPorte Texas 77571-0898. (281) 476-9599. ~ ~ January 30, 20t~2 Councilman Chock l~rtgeiiccn, Chairman Councilman Guy Scrtherland Councilman Howard Ebo~v c~~;,c<<<<<4n Peter crt RE: City of LaPorte can~ents concerning. Bny~rt ~~1~ Geatle~ten: In tk~e dug. i 999 LaPorte $aypurt P~a~o_n_ Pager,- the: city addr4ssed ~ moor conccrns. Included in concern numb- 5w~1y~~e~thr1e~ s~*taYtemcnty^y"T~h~e P~o~a-t AF.'.rtho{rity s4hou~l(~d ~q€{~~e the l 1l llly i..~l.ir~~ ~t Lll~.~-.1 n~+V J 4lJ-1VVA tF~ [ill ~? V4p~~1~1 iJ lf'llrif t} 4F.T iir~~l ~ L1~4 "F.J `1VV4 ~.J-4~ii1, which is pcr-pvsed, to better uricJers~d u~ ire~.~ental change; which may occur, if ,„ any. The 50-f~c~t delatl_1 ~va~ rct anaal;r~ed in the l~l/1S. I arse .;;ogee t~:at it was ^Ct ref~~ in the City's recent drafk cc~mmentS about tine I}~15. I€ rvvas, and st~Ii is a vatid concern and should have been addrLssed. The Part of koustc~n r'~u~ority ~P~H~~~ ec~nsi~tendy denied plans for a ~€?-feat chac?xtel even th~uglt tue 8ayp~rt wttaF~cs have heer~ designer fc~r a ~f-fcx~t c#.ep ~~ addition, please read the last ttivc pa*a~ phs of the attached a:-dcle. It seems very apparent that the P~l-iA. recognises the future necessity of the ~fl-foot channei_ Thank you iUr your Cousideratien of'.hljs I7~aitei r%d foi the Courz~i's effor`Ls is date. 9~/~~~~~ Barbara Suber 3902 Bonita LaPorte, Texas 77571 •i ya`°~ i~z 4 .,~.r...._ 5 A.y^i.,.r Kr..~..~,. .. { ' r .. .. -u e~r~~ ~ao~ -~.p: . j `~~~Y~ r ! e'~r. M1:A 1 ~` i.l: 1 7t i ~~X"` ~ j b ~ ref, ._ ' ,~~I11Ll~~S OrVe 7}r p , ~ ~~~ _ . ~ ort '.Continued from Page 1 B. ` a ~- l e :in~estf~:~. ~~~ ~ : ~ . s s r ~ pipeline companies against the p~ ort and also the 4 }' " ~ .- ~ „ ~ ~: ~ i U.S: Army Corps_ of Engineers. They; included firms ,, ,, r = ~, ~ rr ~ - ~ , _ . `' such as Eaocon Pipeline Co., Chevron:Chemical; Mo-. , ,,,~, , ;; < . - ,... , , , . ;,i f-,, ~~ r~ ~ ~, ;~ bil Pipeline Co., Dynegy Midstream` Services; , Appeal~,plarlned over cost ~ Equilon Pipeline`Co., Air Liquide America, Zleppco f ;, ~ ~ ,r~ .y , -:. ,•, .,,,t ~ ~ .' .. Crude Oil and Texa$ Eastern Tran$mission Co :,~,+,: `'associated `withr dredging ~ ~ Over time the number of companies involved'has ~'~~ w ~., •, ~ 1 ,. :changed because of merg- ` ' " .. „ , ;, ers, additions, by; a: few that BY NELSON ANTOSH ° ' ~ ~ found. they are affected, 'Houston Chronicle ~ '~', >~ ,. +~ _ The pipelines and some who pulled out " ,. Carry a variety when they, ;discoveredahat. ;,, ..,:, :.. ..: r . , ;, Yr e ; ~ their lines are `alreadyE P>. ~: U.S. District~Judge Itiynt~.Hughes:has ruled that the ~ Of prOCIIJCtS ' Port of Houston Authors ;..:and not com es, "should I °deep enough;.` Calabrese :; from chemicals said. The latest tally ~ is _ .pay the cost of lowering pipelines to accommodate; the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , laintnt's ~ =~,, ~~, , , . 5 ' ,~, deeppening of the Houston" Ship"Channel "~ ` `' ~t0`crude oil to r p :~ , ~ ,yr<p4tba,~o ;~ ; F ~, ~ :,,,,: '``The exact bill is still not known,,but froni100 to`~110 ~, flatllral"9aS. :•,The>pippehnesr,carry a '° '` ipelines;;may"be involved'at a cost`of approximately I variety ..of~pproducts'from ~' ~' 'p$1 milhon each; said Denis CalabreseT Sa spokesmani ~ ,cherXucals.to~i.crude oilsto' ;` f-for the companies. '~!: t f ~_ :~, ~, ~:~~ ~ ;~ „natural gas+~Because ,,of '. ~ - The'ruling calls for the port to~compensate the com ~ various and complex,oWnerslups,.~the:.number'of • panics fors actual costs, some 'of which' they"have al . `lines crossing beneathfthe-Ship hannel has always ready' incurred ' . , ~ '' been in question, he smd~~~i ~~ . ' a % 'i These new costs to the port will come °on~ top of;the The Texas Water Code says; that if com es. are $130 million that local ~taxpayers~have~approved~for 1 required to move theirihnes~it'musbbe"at the =u the local-federal projectito wxdden and deepen the chant. local project's ,expense: In this case, the local project neL ~ ~, t : , , , .~,~ . :, _ ~ is the Houston. Port, Authority Calabrese ~ said. "~ PorE'Chairnian Jim Edmon saul;Monday that the ~ `- ,> °`" "r^~ ~ '~~Fj"~°° ~~; • ~ ,.`f~ ai authority..plans= to appeal`; The~~ort~s~iould` hQt`have` ~~ rTl'e ;plan x,is ° to ,deepens the ;channel. from' .40 feet ~~ ; . .. , %to' 45`fee 'but tti "'dre " `will , d - than tha . lines:' ' _ ~;< ,,, 11 ~> ~, :.,. S+Hu~hes' decided to go with Texas'`~aw in~, granting "'the" pipeline'companies''motionzfor''summary'~udg • ~ "ment and denying the port's:' F' ~~r,t, a ~+. x,., ,,, , , ''-' ~ "We will appeal and find`out,"~Edmonds`'said.of-the' juddg~e's•interpretation:<~~ ~ ~a; :,.,, t , ,.;. ,~} :. ~ • .Tbe :conflict started in' late 1998 as a lawsuit' by 20 '~ See~PORT on Page 86: t, , e , g'; go. eeper t " t because silt"will qui y, settle .into:,the depression: , i ''.The''channel`is;alsobemg widened;,:from_::400 feet'.,= _rtoa 530. feet, to better accommodate,ship traffic .. ~' Port„officials said at a pubhc`'meeting thatathere,~, ~~=~is'~ no guarantee` th won't ego evens deeper later,,,f . the spokesman sai basically a :warning for the' . companies to go deep enough so they won't have to go through this again. r i/av/o~