Texas LNG Brownsville, LLC/Texas LNG Project Docket No. PF15-14-000

Per the attached letter dated Jan 4, 2016 from the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY to FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ), the United States EPA has some very serious concerns regarding the environmental impacts by the proposed project(s). 

 “We are unsure how FERC anticipates meeting NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requirements, however, we recommend that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared rather than an environmental assessment, as the potential environmental impacts of the proposed projects appear to be significant.”

An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a more comprehensive method than an environmental assessment (EA) to assess potential and existing environmental risks at once.

The EPA comments are based on their review of Draft Resources Reports 1. General Project, 2. Water Quality, 3. Fish, Wildlife and Vegetation, and 10. Alternatives. 

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 1.9 Future Expansion and Abandonment Plans requires the applicant (Texas LNG) to include plans for removal of the facility structures and fill material from the site, and restoration of all habitats to pre-project conditions, upon abandonment of the Texas LNG facility. (bottom line…don’t leave a mess behind for the taxpayers to pay for a cleanup).

1.9 Future Expansion and Abandonment Plans

          “There are currently no plans relating to the abandonment or removal of any of the proposed facility.  The EPA recommends that, if the facility is authorized and constructed, the applicant include plans for removal of the facility structures and fill material from the site, and restoration of all habitats to pre-project  conditions, upon abandonment of the Texas LNG facility." 

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 10.2 No Action Alternative basically disagrees with Texas LNG’s assertion that “the economic development policy of the Port of Brownsville  and City and leasing policy of the Port as evidence that if not for the use of the property by the proposed Texas LNG facility, it would be developed for another industrial use”. 

10.2  No Action Alternative

“The report states that the property is located on lands owned by the Brownsville Navigation District and intended for development of the Brownsville Ship Channel. It cites the economic development policy of the Port and City and leasing policy of the Port as evidence that if not for the use of the property by the proposed Texas LNG facility, it would be developed for another industrial use. The EPA does not agree with this conclusion because these policies have presumably been in place for some time, and little development has occurred. These policies have not guaranteed that the site would be developed, nor that it would be in the future. Therefore, the environmental impacts of constructing and operating an industrial facility on the site may or may not occur if the proposed Texas LNG is not constructed.”

EPA comment on Draft Resources Report section 10.4 System Alternatives basically states that it does not accept Texas LNG’s response to FERC data request for system alternatives and it does not appear to fully address the request to consider the alternative of constructing a “combined facility at a single site” in Brownsville with a higher export capacity, but lower direct and cumulative environmental impacts.

10.4 System Alternatives

“ FERC data request regarding alternatives included system alternatives to expand existing or proposed facilities, or to construct a single facility in the Brownsville area that would meet the capabilities of the proposed Project and up to five additional LNG facilities identified in Table 10.4-1 that are proposed for Brownsville. Three, including Texas LNG, Annova LNG, and Rio Grande LNG have initiated pre-filing. The applicant generally stated that some of the Gulf Coast projects are fully subscribed and do not have additional capacity to satisfy the requirements of Texas LNG's customer base, while others remain uncertain about viability. This does not appear to fully address the request to consider the alternative of constructing a combined facility at a single site in Brownsville with a higher export capacity, but lower direct and cumulative environmental impacts.”

It appears that the EPA is our only hope to, if not completely stop the project, recommend that only a single combined facility be constructed that would meet the capabilities of the proposed project and up to five additional LNG facilities that are proposed for Brownsville.

One can only hope.

Is the water safe?

Based on my notes and understanding when present at the CC meeting where Lou Portillo & Associates and Consulting Engineer Mr. Gutierrez presented the “preliminary findings” in their assessment of WTP #1, the non-compliance by the City of San Benito regarding TCEQ requirements is “for lack of a BACK-UP water pump and NOT the quality of the water”.

In my humble opinion, I agree with Mayor Celeste Sanchez that the water is safe to drink. As part of the reporting process, the City mails in July of every year to each water customer/citizen the “Consumer Confidence Report” also known as the “Annual Drinking Water Quality Report”.

SUMMARY........CC Regular Mtg. Dec 16, 2014

Highlighting only the relevant stuff....

6. Presentation on the in house Street Projects in progress.

Construction on Shafer Rd is at a standstill and being held hostage by Texas Gas.

Meeting between the parties is scheduled for the 1st week in January 2015. Bottom line the road construction schedule is way behind and the clock on the contractor has been stopped or will be stopped because the halt in construction is  is not their fault and beyond their control.

10. Consideration and action on payment of $15,875 to Austin Traffic Signal Construction for the accident that damaged the electrical aluminum pole at North McCullough and Stenger causing damages.

Commission approved the payment for a new upgraded traffic controller. Word from the city attorney is that the insurance company already settled with the person who caused the accident and the city will not get the total amount being expended to replace the traffic controller. The city basically dropped the ball.
 
13) Discussion on the use of the 2007 CO's (certificate of obligations) for the Museum Construction and relocation of the museums and use of the City EDA Grant.

There was a long discussion on this item. Besides the CC members, the architect (don't recall her name) and Rey Avila spoke. According to the city's financial advisor, the 2007 CO's won't be able to be refinanced or floated until the year 2016. Furthermore, the EDA grant specifically for the Museums will EXPIRE in September of 2016 if funds are not used by then and they must be returned. The architect (Meg) suggested to the CC that the best option in her opinion is to proceed with plans to build the museum at the current location with upgrading the Community building and using it as part of the museum for archive storage, etc. There was not CC action, just a discussion, but the consensus was to go in the direction of building the museum at the current location as opposed as to the Resaca area and not risk losing the EDA Grant because the project has to be completed by September 2016.

16) Consideration and action for the acquisition of pumps and related materials related to initial repairs for Water Treatment Plant NO. 1

There is more to what is going on at WTP #1 than what the city is willing to admit. The engineering firm, Lou Portillo & Associates, doing the assessment on WTP#1 gave an update report to the City Commission.

Right now, if the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) would do a surprise inspection of the WT #1, the city would be fined for not having a backup to the only good pump operating. Of the 5 pumps the WTP #1 operates, only 1 is operating.

Furthermore, of the 7 filters available to operate the WTP1, 3 are inoperable and 4 need rehabilitation/repair. The engineer made a statement that stuck in my head,  "WTP#1 is FLYING LOW and LEAN BUT NOT SAFE ".

Later!

JR

Summary Recap CC Regular Mtg. Tuesday 18-Nov-2014

6) Update on Street Projects in progress.

semi long discussion on the street projects....Line 17 and North McCullough is behind schedule due to the rainy conditions, 4 inches of recycled caliche have been laid, tomorrow they will start laying the driveway pipes (weather permitting of course). 

Weather permitting, the new estimated completion date is XMAS time.

A question was asked regarding the equipment/machine the city acquired for pothole repair a while back. Apparently, the equipment is broke and the city is waiting for the part from a company from, I believe, in Mercedes. The part is back-ordered. I remember when the street sweeper broke down; it was a very long time before it went back into service. Time will tell.

Ms. Leal, the engineer for the firm contracted to coordinate the street repairs on Travis, Shafer, and North McCullough cleared the confusion among the City Commission regarding the $24,000 "change order" approved in a prior CC meeting. The explanation
was long but it made sense to me. The bottom line is a "change order" was approved; something that Commissioner JD Gonzalez said previously he did not believe in.

Regarding Shafer Road; the city is still waiting for the gas company to finish their work. If I remember correctly from prior meetings, the gas company is replacing the gas pipes.


8) Consideration and action on approval of Lease Agreement extension to Neighbors In Need of Services, Inc. (NINOS) for the Azteca Building at 402 West Robertson and 150 West Francis Street.

I was expecting this decision by the CC because they do this every time the lease is up for renewal. 

Commissioner JD Gonzalez motioned to approve and the rest of the CC approved leasing both city owned buildings to NINOS for the grand total of "$1.00 per year".

It is so easy when it is not money out of your own pocket!! The city commission needs to treat city "taxpayer owned" property as a "business" and run the city as a business. 

But, "It is what it is!"

9) Consideration and action on payment of Invoice from Cruz-Hogan consultants, Inc. on the San Benito Water Treatment Plant No. 2. Micro Filtration Membrane Failure Analysis and Report in the amount of $25,350

After discussion in Executive Session, this item was TABLED.

I believe it is a 77 page report. I don't know if the city requested the report but if the city did request the report, the city has no choice but to pay for the report.

Remember that Cruz/Hogan and associates were under contract with the city and were on a $2,000 per month retainer until September 2014 to provide engineering services to the city.


It is a complete mess.

Later!!

Monthly "Waste Collection" Year over Year Rate Comparison:

(NOTE: this rates were extracted from my personal water bills. I am MISSING the years 2005, 2006, and 2009)

If you notice any calculation errors, please leave me comment below. Like I said, I hate percentages!

		Prior Year	Prior Year
Date	Monthly Rate	$ Increase	% Increase
11/1/2004	$13.60
09/1/2007	$15.25	$1.65	12.1%
08/1/2008	$15.55	$0.30	2.0%
10/1/2010	$16.25	$0.70	4.5%
10/1/2011	$17.06	$0.81	5.0%
10/1/2012	$17.83	$0.77	4.5%
10/1/2013	$18.63	$.80	4.5%
10/1/2014	$19.47	$0.84	4.5%

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services (TRASH RATES), WATER & SEWER RATES

New proposed ORDINANCE 2409-G will increase Trash pickup rates by 4.5%

=======================================================
TRASH PICK RATES:

Residential will increase from (present) $18.63 to (new) $19.47 per month
(if you need an additional trash bin, it is also going up from $7.94 to $8.30)

Commercial and Multi-Unit (apartments) rates will both increase from (present) $35.93 to (New) $37.55 per month
(if a multi-unit customer needs an extra trash container, it is also going up from $7.94 to $8.30

========================================================

WATER RATES........ICL (Inside City Limits)
 It appears that the standard household 5/8 inch meter rates are remaining flat at $20.59 for the 1st 2,000 gallons of use.

Any usage ABOVE the basic 2,000 gallons will be increasing for every 2,000 gallons. Increase will depend on usage.

========================================================    

SEWER RATES are also going up....

(I WILL UPDATE LATER)