LNG company's dredging studies flawed: Expect delays
The Oregonian reports that "The marathon regulatory review of a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed on the Columbia River just got longer." The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) sent a joint letter to Bradwood Landing on September 25, 2009 saying that Bradwood's analysis of the dredging impacts of the LNG terminal is flawed and Bradwood must conduct new data collection and modeling. This is very significant for 3 reasons:
1. DEQ and NMFS are committing to the best available science. They contracted with a nationally renowned scientist, Dr. Antonio Baptista, to review Bradwood's analysis. His review shows the analysis was flawed.
2. Once again, Bradwood is trying to take the cheap and fast way out. This time they got called on it. See the story (far below) where Bradwood cut off their promised welding scholarships.
3. The studies required will likely take a year or more to complete. Major blow to Bradwood. DEQ noted that it would need to revise its schedule to review the project - DEQ's letter to Bradwood stated, "To this end, a discussion of whether Northern Star wishes to withdraw or resubmit its application to DEQ is needed." (emphasis added). Columbia Riverkeeper recommends that Bradwood take the "withdraw" option!
Gas terminal proposed on the Columbia River hits new snag
By Ted Sickinger, The Oregonian
September 29, 2009, 7:47PM
The marathon regulatory review of a liquefied natural gas terminal proposed on the Columbia River just got longer.
State and federal regulators want substantially more data and analysis on water quality impacts from the Bradwood Landing project before they can decide whether it meets clean water and endangered species standards.
The request was detailed last week in a letter from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and the National Marine Fisheries Service to the project's backers, Houston-based NorthernStar Natural Gas, Inc.
DEQ told NorthernStar that the additional studies could significantly delay what has already been a four-year federal and state regulatory process.
The agency says it is unlikely to meet an April deadline to render a decision on Bradwood's clean water permit. It will meet with NorthernStar today to discuss findings from a third-party review of Bradwood's data analysis and determine if the company wants to withdraw or resubmit its application at a later date.
Nina DiConcini, DEQ's region division administrator, said she was not in a position to say how long the delay might be. But the expert hired by the agencies to review the company's past work suggested that NorthernStar needed to substantially revise its study of the river flow, including simulations of at least two spring tidal cycles.
NorthernStar, which is racing for approval against competing LNG proposals and natural gas pipelines, said it is premature to determine what, if any, delay would result from additional data requests. Company spokesman Joe Desmond insisted Tuesday that the DEQ and its consultant didn't dispute its basic conclusion that the terminal would have little impact on river flows or sedimentation.
He went on, however, to raise questions about the integrity of the regulatory process, saying the expert used by the agencies was also paid in part by the Columbia River Inter Tribal Fish Commission, an opponent of its project.
It "raises concerns about the independence, transparency, and integrity of the final work product as well as the potential for bias and a conflict of interest," Desmond said.
The DEQ and NMFS based their conclusions on a report from Antonio Baptista, a hydrology expert at Oregon Health & Science University. Baptista was hired to conduct a peer review of the river flow model used by NorthernStar's environmental consultant, West Consulting, Inc., and how the model was applied to the Bradwood project.
Baptista's report pointed to a number of shortcomings with the model itself and how it was applied to Bradwood. He recommended significantly revising the modeling study as well as gathering more baseline data.
In their letter to NorthernStar, DEQ and NMFS said they agreed with Baptista's analysis, considered his report the "best available scientific and commercial data," and expected NorthernStar to implement his recommendations "in full."
DeConcini said Tuesday that NorthernStar had expressed reservations about CRITFC's involvement in July, and that she responded that the concerns were unfounded. She said DEQ, NMFS and CRITFC all required identical studies and cooperated to ensure an efficient contracting process that would adhere to the agreed upon schedule.
Opponents of the project were heartened by the DEQ letter to NorthernStar. Brett VandenHeuvel, Columbia Riverkeeper's executive director, said the letter demonstrated that the permitting agencies were relying on the best science rather than the highly charged politics around an LNG terminal.
Desmond said NorthernStar would be sharing its review of the Baptista report, along with a supplemental technical review by its consultant that "responds to the issues and places them in context."
"We believe this technical analysis will demonstrate that there is no scientific justification for further hydrodynamic modeling studies, which may result in a delay of DEQ's review of the project," he said.
Ted Sickinger: 503-221-8505;
Students' welding scholarship falls apartBradwood Landing turns off torch on program before certification
| |||||||
| Reader Comments
|
