Concerns About EIS Process Credibility- here and in Canada

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

Ever since Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies proposed an oil-by-rail terminal at the Port of Vancouver, company and port officials have said that the state energy facility siting panel's rigorous review would address threats to safety or the environment.

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.

Some experts say that such lopsided corporate involvement in an environmental impact study creates a bias in favor of the project applicant. "It's par for the course in the corruption of the environmental analysis process in the United States," said John Echeverria, a national expert on environmental law and a professor at Vermont Law School. "The concern is that a consultant will have greater loyalty to project proponents than to the agency. It's not likely to be a document that serves the public well, but rather the interests of project proponents."..... read more here

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.

Audit at a Glance here