Special to the PRESS
LNG Water Supply and Waste Management?
National Parks Service (NPS) in February 2016, listed concerns on the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) site for the LNG export terminal and pipeline proposed by Rio Grande LNG/Rio Bravo Pipeline, LLCs. Here are some of the concerns which are relevant to our area.
For waste management, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo LNG estimates “approximately 20,000 tons of non-hazardous waste and 1,000 tons of hazardous waste to be generated during the construction phase of the terminal.” This amount would now have to be multiplied by the number of LNG export terminals approved for the BND (Brownsville Navigation District). Will the Brownsville landfill receive these wastes? Wasn’t there just a recent explosion that damaged the landfill equipment?
“Will the Brownsville Public Utility Board be able to supply 5.5 million gal/month of potable water in 2022 in concert with expected population growth in Brownsville and the region? During construction of the LNG facilities, it was stated by Rio Grande/Rio Bravo LNG that ‘water will be delivered by trucks from an available supply from the local municipal water districts until the permanent water line from the Port of Brownsville becomes available.’” Laguna Madre Water District has passed a resolution against supplying water to LNG plants, so who and where is this municipal water supply?
The heavy industrial LNG export refineries will be consuming a major portion of our area services. Will the services used by LNG export terminals be detrimental to the health and economy of the local population?
LNG Heavy Trucking
In February 2016, the National Park Services (NPS) listed concerns on the FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) site for the LNG export terminal and pipeline proposed by Rio Grande LNG/Rio Bravo Pipeline, LLCs.
For terminal truck loading facilities, Rio Grande/Rio Bravo LNG estimates at “maximum output, there could be 90 trucks per day or 630 trucks per week x 2 for round trips equaling 1,260 trucks running 24/7, in addition to the delivery of six ISO 40 ft. containers every day” near the local roadways and soundscape for Palo Alto Battlefield, in ADDITION to the “trucking from two other LNG plants” as mentioned by NPS. “LNG trucking cumulative impacts will also be combined with existing traffic to the Port of Brownsville on 550/511 and Highways 4 and 48.” Won’t this high traffic count greatly increase air and noise pollution?
How much more trucking will be needed for other construction materials with more round trips daily, weekly, and annually times the number of LNG plants and other oil/gas businesses welcomed by the BND? How safe will our roadways be for family friendly trips to the beach/coast, parks, birding centers and refuges?
”The NPS anticipates negative cumulative impacts to the viewsheds, nightskies, soundscapes, and cultural landscapes resources of both of the National Historic Landmark battlefields from the development of LNG terminals at the Port of Brownsville.” Tourism to Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park creates $2,861,000 in Economic Benefits to the local area. Will tourists continue to visit the local historic sites with landscapes of LNG storage tanks/facilities in the background?
In San Antonio, officials are planning a transformation of the current commercialized Alamo Plaza to a larger historic Alamo site. Our area parks should be protected in advance and not mitigated afterward at significant expense. Remember the Alamo!
Rick and Diane Teter,
Want the whole story? Pick up a copy of the Port Isabel-South Padre Press, or subscribe to our E-Edition by clicking here.