Overflow crowd at port opposes oil terminal

At least 50 people, including representatives of Vancouver neighborhood associations, arrived at the Port of Vancouver on Tuesday to press commissioners to reconsider the port’s lease for an oil-by-rail terminal and to provide the public with an uncensored copy of the contract.

Many of the opponents of the oil transfer terminal proposed by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies gathered on a grassy berm outside the port’s office minutes before the commission’s regular morning public hearing.

Some held signs showing the neighborhood associations to which they belong. “Terminal means fatal — coincidence?” read another sign. A big banner exclaimed: “No oil terminal.”

Inside the port’s hearing room, the overflow crowd spilled out into the lobby, where chairs were added. During the open forum portion of the commission’s hearing, an estimated 28 people spoke to Commissioners Nancy Baker, Jerry Oliver and Brian Wolfe. Twenty-six of them blistered the Tesoro-Savage proposal. The head of the region’s economic development agency, based in Vancouver, said the agency remains, to date, neutral toward the oil terminal but continues to analyze it. A representative of the Tesoro-Savage joint venture touted jobs and energy security, and said any negative impacts could be mitigated.

Opponents cited toxic air emissions, oil spills and explosive oil train derailments among many reasons to quash the oil terminal deal. Building the Northwest’s largest oil-by-rail terminal in Vancouver doesn’t fit the city’s vision of future development, they argued. Some asked commissioners to hold another public hearing to re-examine the pros and cons of the lease. Others demanded commissioners cancel the arrangement.

Kate Ketcham, a board member of the Carter Park Neighborhood Association, which opposes the oil terminal, said the neighborhood is bordered by rail tracks. Residents “are concerned that their neighborhood is in danger,” she said, listing oil train explosions and spills as top concerns.

Eric LaBrant, president of the Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association, which opposes the oil terminal, accused the commissioners of choosing money over safety. “We’re the ones breathing the poison and raising families in the blast zone,” LaBrant said. “You get the money, we get the poison.”

Comments by neighborhood association leaders and others marked the latest salvo against the proposed oil transfer terminal, as critics have maintained a presence at the port commission’s twice-monthly regular public meetings. To date, 12 Vancouver neighborhood associations have taken positions against the oil terminal. They are Arnada, Carter Park, Columbia Way, Esther Short, Fruit Valley, Harney Heights, Hough, Maplewood, North Image, Northwest, Riverview and Shumway. Vancouver has 66 recognized neighborhood associations.

‘Just miles away’

Port officials gave no indication they’re willing to re-consider the lease. They’ve said the Tesoro-Savage proposal will be subject to additional public scrutiny and input as it undergoes an environmental impact review by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.

Eventually, the evaluation council will make a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who will approve or deny the project. The governor’s decision may be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Before taking public comments about the oil terminal Tuesday, Wolfe, the port commission’s president, said that while commissioners may not respond to people’s remarks, “we do listen.” The port’s lease with Tesoro and Savage, approved unanimously by commissioners in 2013, involves 42 acres and is worth at least $45 million over an initial 10 years. Backers of the project say its benefits include well-paying jobs, revenue for the port and increased U.S. energy independence. Critics cite many concerns, including potential oil spills, the volatility of North Dakota Bakken crude and global climate change.

The companies want to build an oil-by-rail terminal that would receive an average of 360,000 barrels of crude per day at the port. The oil would be stored in six above-ground tanks. Each tank would have a shell capacity of 380,000 barrels, for a total storage capacity of 2.28 million barrels. The oil would be loaded onto ships bound primarily for West Coast refineries.

But hauling highly flammable crude near neighborhoods makes no sense to Neatha Lefevre, secretary-treasurer for the Harney Heights Neighborhood Association. She told port commissioners that she once asked a Tesoro official why the crude hasn’t been stripped of its volatile components. “He said, ‘We’re working on it,’ ” Lefevre said. But “we can’t wait for them” to work on such an urgent safety problem.

Noland Hoshino, president of the Northwest Neighborhood Association, said “we’re just miles away from the proposed” oil terminal and that every family would have to evacuate in a disaster. Since Vancouver families are at stake, he said, Vancouver should decide the Tesoro-Savage proposal. “Let’s not leave the decision to others,” Hoshino said.

Addressing the port’s redactions of certain details in the oil terminal lease, Eileen Cowen of the Hough Neighborhood Association questioned how the public could support a project when it lacks important information about it.

She also noted the port’s use of property tax revenue, saying that with the oil terminal “we are paying you to make us unhealthy.” Cowen added, “Don’t sell out to a boom-and-bust economy.”