The state’s environmental review for the proposed Vancouver rail-to-marine oil transfer terminal is a complex document, but some groups say it provides a simple answer: Just say no.
“We think this is a reckless project and it gives the governor plenty of grounds on which to deny it,” said Columbia Riverkeeper Executive Director Brett VandenHeuvel during a Tuesday morning teleconference in which five oil terminal opponents spoke to reporters and others.
If approved, the Vancouver Energy project, a joint venture between Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos., would handle an average of 360,000 barrels of oil arriving by train each day at the Port of Vancouver. The oil would come from U.S. and perhaps Canadian oil fields and be transferred to ships destined to U.S. oil refineries.
The state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council released a draft Environmental Impact Statement last week, and opponents on Tuesday seized on many of the findings to bolster their long-standing opposition to the project.
“Especially when an oil spill happens, it’s going to be proven the two industries cannot coexist — it’s either oil or salmon,” said Bob Rees, representing the Association of Northwest Steelheaders.
But Vancouver Energy maintains its proposal is safe and that many of the terminal’s risks are “minor or negligible, or as impacts that can be mitigated,” project spokesman Jeff Hymas said in a statement.
“While we continue to review the (draft Environmental Impact Statement) we’ve seen nothing to contradict what we’ve said all along — the Vancouver Energy project can be built and operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner, and will provide jobs and economic value for Vancouver and Southwest Washington and support U.S. energy independence,” Hymas said.
VandenHeuvel said the draft review of what would be the continent’s largest oil-by-rail export terminal doesn’t adequately address impacts on climate change. The likelihood of a spill’s occurring at some point during the life of the terminal should also give people pause, he said.
A representative of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation agreed that the project could be dangerous and said tribal interests were being left out.
“The (draft Environmental Impact Statement) fails to understand what true tribal sovereignty means,” Cathy Sampson-Kruse said.
Business and labor groups chimed in as well, saying that any positive economic gain would be offset by image and safety concerns.
“Vancouver would become a dirty little oil town on the north side of the Columbia River,” said Don Orange with the small business group Vancouver 101.
Jared Smith, president of International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 4, said the union believes the terminal would be unsafe for workers and a bad fit for the port.
The Port of Vancouver, however, supports the terminal for its employment and revenue potential.
“Vancouver Energy is a game-changing project with a complex (draft Environmental Impact Statement),” said port CEO Todd Coleman in a statement last week.
Hymas said the project could inject $2 billion into the local economy and support more than 1,000 jobs.
After collecting public comment on the draft environmental review, the state evaluation council will finalize the document and make a recommendation to the governor, likely sometime next year.
Though the governor can’t comment on the project until he makes his recommendation, there may be reason for optimism among opponents.
“The impacts discussed on this call and the impacts on the (environmental review) are pretty staggering — someone with an interest in our state would reject it,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney for oil opponents intervening in the process.
Information, including the full draft Environmental Impact Statement, can be found at www.efsec.wa.gov/Tesoro-Savage.shtml. Those looking to comment can do so online at ts.efsec.wa.gov or by mailing Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, P.O. Box 43172, Olympia, WA 98504.
There also will be a public hearing at the Clark County Event Center at the Fairgrounds from 1 p.m. to 11 p.m. or later Jan. 5, and another Jan. 7 in Spokane.
Comments will be accepted until Jan. 22.
