The number of parties opposed to or concerned about a plan to build the nation’s largest rail-to-marine oil transfer terminal in Vancouver piled up Friday, as initial preparations for the project’s judicial trial took further shape.
Six parties representing a broad array of interests — including cities, Native American tribes, environmental groups, a neighborhood association, a labor union and a private developer — filed petitions to intervene in the trial that will help decide the fate of the oil terminal proposed at the Port of Vancouver.
Most of them already are on record as opposing the project.
The city of Washougal, one of the petitioners and home to five at-grade rail crossings, wasn’t shy about its concerns. So far, the state-level review of the oil terminal has failed to account for the Camas-Washougal Fire Department’s safety equipment and training needs, and for an incident response plan, according to the Feb. 26 petition filed by Donald English, attorney for the city.
“Explosions will threaten the lives and property of Washougal residents,” English wrote. “A property explosion could impact the entire downtown area of the city, including wiping out the fire and police station along with City Hall. Such a horrific eventuality, if it cannot be avoided, should at least be planned for.”
The petitions, due Friday, were filed with the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. The evaluation council is examining the oil terminal proposed by Tesoro Corp., a petroleum refiner, and Savage Companies, a transportation company. The companies want to build and operate a facility capable of handling an average 360,000 barrels of crude per day. They tout jobs, economic development and energy independence among the project’s benefits. They say they’ll operate the terminal in an environmentally sound and safe manner.
Meanwhile, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union’s Local 4 in Vancouver and environmentalists are expected to gather from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. today to protest the oil plan involving Tesoro and a different one proposed by NuStar. The gathering is expected to occur at Mill Plain and Fourth Plain boulevards on the city’s west end. It’s also aimed at supporting a strike by United Steelworkers members to improve safety at multiple U.S. refineries, including Tesoro facilities.
Objections possible
The evaluation council’s examination of the oil terminal includes an analysis of its environmental impacts, a public comment process and a judicial trial allowing the companies and opponents to present information to support their cases.
Just because the parties filed petitions to intervene doesn’t mean they automatically enter the judicial process.
Objections to the petitions to intervene are due on March 6. Responses to those objections are due on March 11.
The parties who filed petitions Friday to intervene were:
• Kristen Boyles, an attorney for Earthjustice, on behalf of the following eight groups: Columbia Riverkeeper, Climate Solutions, ForestEthics, Friends of the Columbia Gorge, Vancouver’s Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association, Sierra Club, Spokane Riverkeeper and Washington Environmental Council.
• The city of Washougal.
• The city of Spokane.
• The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, representing four member tribes: Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce and Warm Springs.
• Columbia Waterfront LLC, the company proposing a $1.3 billion residential/commercial redevelopment of Vancouver’s waterfront.
• The International Longshore and Warehouse Union’s Local 4 in Vancouver.
Because the oil terminal is proposed in Vancouver, the city of Vancouver, which opposes the oil terminal, only has to file a “party participation” notice. It’s the equivalent of a petition to intervene.
Tesoro and Savage, in partnership as Vancouver Energy, filed their permit application on Aug. 29, 2013. Earlier this month, the evaluation council extended to Nov. 1 the deadline for completing its review and for making a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee.
Once the recommendation is made, the governor has another 60 days to accept, reject or send the proposal back to the evaluation council. Opponents may appeal the outcome to the state Supreme Court.
