Last week, Leavitt said he understands why EFSEC — rather than a local jurisdiction — controls the permit-review process for projects of statewide significance. But it’s a frustration for local elected officials, he said.
“We see a lot of the pressure coming to bear on us,” he said at a Feb. 3 workshop.
For Vancouver, the stakes are particularly high: The developer of a $1.3 billion downtown waterfront revitalization project insists that he won’t go forward with that project if the oil-by-rail facility wins approval. But Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies — who want to build a facility capable of handling 380,000 barrels of oil per day for eventual conversion into transportation fuels — say Vancouver can have both the terminal and a new commercial/residential waterfront. Port officials agree.
The Columbian asked Leavitt and city councilors where they stand on the Tesoro-Savage proposal. None said an oil terminal was in their vision for Vancouver — and a majority express skepticism that their safety concerns can be satisfied. But none have come out in direct opposition to the $110 million project.
Councilors Bart Hansen and Anne McEnerny-Ogle expressed the most skepticism. In any case, the council agreed last week to enter into the EFSEC process as an intervenor, which will allow the city to present evidence and witnesses during the permitting process.
In an interview last week, Vancouver City Manager Eric Holmes said the oil terminal proposal needs further examination before the city takes a position.
“I would expect the city to end up at a place where we’re arguing a position,” Holmes said.
Experts say the review process could take several years.
In a written statement to The Columbian, Tesoro and Savage acknowledged the political tumult in Vancouver and noted the permit process allows many opportunities for comment.
“We understand there are groups who oppose our project at the Port of Vancouver. And we know that they are voicing their opinions to city council,” said Kelly Flint, senior vice president and general counsel for Savage. “The state of Washington has established a thorough and open criteria-based permitting process that provides the public and stakeholders numerous opportunities to participate and provide input, and has established EFSEC to implement and manage the process.”
Theresa Wagner, communications manager for the Port of Vancouver, said the port welcomes the city as a participant in the EFSEC process.
But the port hopes city leaders will wait to absorb all of the information produced by EFSEC’s environmental review before taking a stance.
“We would hope that people would allow the process to work itself through before moving to (a) final conclusion,” Wagner said.
Complex subject
In December, the city sent a letter to the EFSEC outlining more than 100 areas of concern it wants the agency to include in its environmental impact review.
The city’s concerns reflect many of those raised by opponents, including potential oil spills, fiery train derailments, train-traffic impacts on neighborhoods, detrimental impacts to the waterfront redevelopment plan and greenhouse gas emissions. But the city struck a neutral stance in its letter, saying it encourages the agency to “require a full and comprehensive analysis” of the project’s impacts.
Opponents of the Tesoro-Savage proposal are urging city leaders to oppose it.
At the Feb. 3 meeting, Don Steinke, a retired teacher, thanked the council for agreeing to intervene in the EFSEC process but prodded it to do more.
“Tell Gov. Inslee that the risk of spills, fires and explosions should be mitigated to non-significant levels,” Steinke said. “Tell Gov. Inslee that waterfront development is pre-eminent to Southwest Washington, and an oil terminal might kill it, along with twice as many jobs as the oil terminal would create.”
Another speaker, Dale McLain, said the EFSEC has a linear process, but people don’t make decisions in that fashion.
“We make up our mind fairly rapidly, and then we start absorbing information that backs up what we think,” he said. “Please consider making your voices heard now, not later, because minds are going to be made up now, not later.”
Noting the Hough Neighborhood Association opposes the oil terminal, Eileen Cowen said the city should press Tesoro on its plans.
“Make them prove that they’ll enforce safety regulations, unlike the situation at Anacortes,” she said, referring to the 2010 explosion at a Tesoro refinery that killed seven people.
What councilors say
In interviews with The Columbian, city councilors expressed mixed feelings about the oil terminal.
“I’m a proponent of going through the (EFSEC) process,” Hansen said, “but when the process becomes extremely tainted by derailments, explosions and spills, it is difficult to remain neutral.”
McEnerny-Ogle said the oil-by-rail proposal has brought greater attention to potential train-traffic impacts.
“We’ve built a community on both sides of the track,” she said, adding that “some people may think this is just a Fruit Valley or a Port of Vancouver issue; this is any place there is a track.”
“This is one of the more important issues we’ll face in the next several years,” McEnerny-Ogle said. “How do we protect ourselves from it? I just don’t have the faith that’s going to work.”
Councilor Bill Turlay said he believes a redeveloped waterfront and an oil terminal can coexist. He said his concerns about safety will be addressed.
“I’m pleased with the process we’re making,” Turlay said. “We’re getting input from the citizens, input from the businesses.”
If safety concerns cannot be adequately resolved, Turlay said, “I’m sure the EFSEC and the governor will take notice.”
Said Leavitt: “I think it’s safe to say the Vancouver City Council desires a nice quality place for everyone to live, work and play. “I don’t believe (an oil terminal) is a piece of the puzzle we envision for Vancouver. But it’s a very complex process, and we’re going to participate in a very proactive way.”
What others say
Leaders of regional business groups say they’re examining the proposed oil terminal, meeting with people on all sides of the issue and investigating its potential positive and negative impacts.
Paul Montague, president of Identity Clark County, a nonprofit economic development organization, said the group hasn’t decided whether to support or oppose the Tesoro-Savage proposal.”The best way I can put it is there are really solid pros and cons on each side of the issue,” he said.
Kelly Love Parker, president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce, said the group — which has 1,040 members — doesn’t “make decisions based on emotion.”
When the EFSEC produces an environmental impact assessment of the Tesoro-Savage proposal, Parker said, “that would be the time to make the most educated attempt at a judgment call, because this will be a judgment call. It’s neither all bad, and it’s neither all good.”
Mike Bomar, president of the Columbia River Economic Development Council, said the nonprofit private-public partnership will focus on analyzing the economic-development impacts — both pro and con — of the Tesoro-Savage proposal. He said the CREDC, funded by private companies and local governments, has “investors who have concerns both for and against.”
The CREDC’s overarching mission, he said, will be to provide its investors and the community with accurate information about what the proposed oil terminal may mean to the region.
“I think success for us (is) not whether (the) project goes forward, but how the community vets the project,” Bomar said, “and how we work together throughout the process.”
