A review of the region’s readiness for possible oil spills, explosions or other accidents that may result from the Northwest’s largest proposed oil-by-train terminal will be wrapped into an overall environmental assessment by the state’s Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council.
Vancouver fire officials had hoped the city would be the one selecting an independent consultant to undertake the analysis, to be paid for by project proponents Tesoro Corp. and Savage Companies. Instead, the study will be done by the energy siting council’s consultant Cardno Entrix. The company, headquartered in Australia, has done work for Tesoro on other matters, which worries critics of the project.
Fiery derailments in Quebec, Alabama, North Dakota and New Brunswick have raised concerns about the safety of transporting oil by rail. The terminal, dubbed Vancouver Energy, would receive four or five mile-long unit trains of crude a day.
Because of the terminal’s scale, it’s under the purview of the state energy siting council, created by the Legislature in 1970 to provide one-stop service for developers of large energy projects.
Vancouver had asked for a review to identify deficiencies in emergency response capabilities along the Columbia River from the eastern boundary of Skamania County through the river’s mouth.
Although the parties had earlier agreed that Vancouver could have control over the study, the energy-siting council later learned that doing so wouldn’t comply with state rules for hiring contractors.
Vancouver officials asked the energy-siting council to at least hire one of the contractors the city had already identified as the most qualified. Instead, the energy siting council will turn to Cardno Entrix, which it says has staff with the expertise necessary to perform the analysis.
“I am confident this analysis will address concerns raised by the city of Vancouver,” wrote Stephen Posner, the siting council’s staff manager, in a Thursday letter to Vancouver.
City Attorney Bronson Potter is aware that critics argue Cardno Entrix cannot be objective, but he said he would wait to see the consultant’s study before passing judgment.
Jim Luce, who served as the energy siting council chairman from 2001 until 2013, is not as sanguine. The Vancouver resident and project opponent said the decision to cut Vancouver out of the loop is “regrettable.”
“This is perhaps one of the very most important parts of the environmental impact analysis,” Luce said.
Other project opponents object to the way the energy siting council is using consultants.
As with several projects in the past, the siting council opted to require the proponents to write the draft environmental impact statement. Cardno Entrix charges the state, which in turn bills Tesoro-Savage, to review and revise that initial draft to make sure it meets requirements under the State Environmental Policy Act.
Cardno Entrix has done work directly for Tesoro on other matters, most recently in August.
Energy siting council staff were aware of Cardno Entrix’s work for Tesoro, but say firewalls protect against conflicts. For example, Tesoro and Savage may only communicate with Cardno Entrix about the proposed oil terminal through council staff.
That doesn’t resolve the conflict of interest, alleged Vancouver resident Michael Piper in a complaint to the state Auditor’s Office.
Cindy Evans, manager of legal affairs for the state Auditor’s Office, responded to Piper’s complaint in an Oct. 24 letter. The energy siting council is a part of the Utilities and Transportation Commission, which is undergoing an accountability audit. But that audit won’t address compliance with contracting and bidding laws, Evans wrote.
“We believe your concerns would be best addressed directly with the (energy siting) board in an open public meeting,” Evans wrote.
Piper sent a letter to the board earlier this week, and also filed a complaint with the state Attorney General’s Office.
