Delaware City Refinery Ethanol Project Heading to Court
by Scott Goss (The News Journal/DelawareOnline.com) The battle over Delaware City Refinery’s planned expansion of its ethanol operations has been renewed.
Two civic groups that unsuccessfully challenged the state’s approval of the project in February are now asking a judge to let their lawsuit go forward.
The Delaware Audubon Society and the League of Women Voters of Delaware have filed an appeal in Delaware Superior Court seeking to reverse the earlier decision handed down by a nine-member state board.
That ruling was not decided on the case’s merits. Instead, the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board voted 5-1 to toss the challenge after finding the civic groups failed to prove their members would suffer direct harm from the project.
“We have filed this appeal because we believe the board misinterpreted the law and the facts in finding the Delaware Audubon and the League of Women Voters did not have standing,” said lawyer Kenneth Kristl, who represents the civic groups.
…
The $7 million Ethanol Marketing Project would allow the Delaware City-area refinery to receive and store 10,000 barrels of ethanol a day before shipping the unblended gasoline additive to other facilities along the East Coast via barge. Currently, the refinery brings in about 2,000 barrels of ethanol by rail, which is then blended with gasoline produced at the facility.
…
Environmentalists see the project as yet another step in what they say is PBF’s plan to transform the refinery into a hub-and-spoke transportation business, which they claim violates Delaware’s Coastal Zone Act.
…
The Coastal Zone Act says “any person aggrieved by the final decision” of the DNREC secretary has legal standing to file an appeal with the state board. However, a 2013 Delaware Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “person aggrieved” to challengers who can show “concrete and particularized” threats to their interests inside the protected zone.
In an attempt to show a direct impact and settle the legal standing question, a trio of Audubon members testified for nearly two hours before the CZICB about the increased train and barge traffic they believe the $7 million project would create, along with the potential for spills and other environmental impacts.
Refinery attorney Bart Cassidy of the Pennsylvania law firm Manko, Gold, Katcher & Fox noted that the refinery has repeatedly stated the movement of additional ethanol would replace some existing crude oil shipments, resulting in zero net impact to train and barge traffic. READ MORE
