Foes see partiality in oil terminal review process
State's choice to help evaluate Tesoro-Savage documents has worked for Tesoro
The Columbian By Aaron Corvin and Erin Middlewood October 5, 2014
Critics aren't so sure. One concern: the initial draft analysis of the oil terminal's impacts was written by consultants hired by the Tesoro-Savage joint venture. Another concern: the company hired by the Washington state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council to help check that analysis has previously worked for Tesoro.
The
analysis, called an environmental impact statement, is important because the
siting council draws on it, along with a series of court-like proceedings, to
make a recommendation to the governor. That official has the final say on
whether to approve the oil terminal, which would receive an average 360,000
barrels a day. It may be years before the council finishes its work and the
governor makes a decision. Even then, that ruling will be subject to appeal to
the state Supreme Court.
Audit of Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012
Oct 7, 2014 Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Overall, we found that the Agency’s rationale for identification of projects for environmental assessment is unclear, specifically in making its recommendations to designate projects that may require an assessment, its process for supporting case-by-case designation of projects, and its screening process for determining which projects will undergo an assessment. As well, most of the Agency’s processes and the rationales on which recommendations are based are not made public. As the intent of the new legislation is to focus on projects that have the greatest potential for significant adverse environmental effects, it is important for the Agency to have a clear, transparent basis for identifying those projects.
As in Washington, Governor Inslee's rail safety study, managed and advised through the Dept. of Ecology by whom? BNSF former employees/executives. Do you suppose that is biased...and the money pitched in by this state to make the rails safe for carrying crude to our Ports is outrageous, egregious! When I started reading that long and laborious report--it didn't take long to figure which way the wind was blowing and it was not in the direction of "no crude by rail." So it goes. The public statements are made by we the concerned, but do not carry so much weight as the Dept. of Ecology who (it feels like) is working for the other team.
ReplyDelete