FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Katie Chimenti 281-326-3343

                    Larry Tobin 281-326-1687

September 17, 2002

 National Security Issues at Bayport

Alternative sites for a new container megaport differ dramatically in their level of national security risk, and Bayport presents especially high risks, according to a new analysis commissioned by the Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association.

            Ricardo Fernandez, president of Indigo Services Corporation and a veteran of 27 years in the maritime industry, recently conducted an assessment for GBCPA of several aspects of the proposed Bayport container terminal project. The new analysis was needed to respond to a revised permit application submitted by the Port of Houston Authority.

            "In the current climate of reappraisal of vulnerability to security risks, port operations have climbed steadily higher on the list of national concerns," said GBCPA spokesman Larry Tobin. "Containers present obvious risks: few are ever inspected while in transit, and all of them must travel through densely populated areas by road or rail."

            “A permit for a new container port offers the opportunity to take national security into consideration. We can’t change existing container ports and their defects," said Tobin. "But the siting and design of a new container port can substantially raise or lower the security risks. An isolated site is clearly a better bet."

            A container port at Bayport would impact up to ten times more people than other sites under consideration, according to figures in the draft Environmental Impact Statement released last November. Bayport has residential development just a few hundred yards away, with some 5,000 people in adjacent neighborhoods, and another 10,000 people within two miles.

            By contrast, potential container port sites at Shoal Point in Texas City and Spillman's Island near Barbour's Cut are on dredge spoil disposal areas remote from all dwellings.

            A spoil island also constitutes an ideal location in having just a single entry/exit route, Fernandez noted. Traffic going in and out can readily be monitored.  In case of an alarm, the whole port can be isolated by shutting down a single route.  Extremely tight security can be maintained as a matter of routine.

            "Container facilities are no longer benign. They are a very real danger," said GBCPA Chair Jim Blackburn in a September 5 letter to the Corps of Engineers. "We are now convinced that this issue should be considered in the permitting process. We have taken a first step toward providing documentation."

            Indeed, less than a week after Blackburn's letter, ABC Television aired a report on September 12 about nuclear material being transported by container through a series of seven ports around the world, breezing through each of them without ever being inspected, let alone intercepted.

            According to Blackburn, “The Port of Houston needs to take a hard look at their plans in light of this new information regarding containers and national security.  If they don’t change their plan and move to a site like Spillman’s Island that is more acceptable from a national security standpoint, then the Corps should turn them down at Bayport for their refusal to adopt this new information into their thinking.  The nation’s security is a bigger issue than the Port of Houston’s self-serving application.”

--30--

Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association
P.O. Box 323, Seabrook, Texas 77586
Phone: 281-326-3343
Website: www.gbcpa.org
E-mail:  gbcpa@gbcpa.org