Vancouver neighborhoods oppose oil terminal

“Vancouver Energy will strengthen America’s energy security and, in the process, create and support more than 1,000 much-needed jobs annually on average,” said Jennifer Minx, a Tesoro spokeswoman. The companies have conducted 20 meetings with neighborhood associations.

Despite these efforts, a dozen Vancouver neighborhoods oppose the rail terminal, which would handle an average of 360,000 barrels of crude a day.

These residents point to oil-train derailments that caused explosions in North Dakota, Virginia, Alabama and Oklahoma, as well as in Quebec, where 47 people were killed when a runaway train exploded in Lac-Megantic in July 2013.

“If it were to happen it would affect us all, near or far,” said Lielanie Villanueva, chairwoman of the North Image Neighborhood Association in northeast Vancouver.

Minx said rail safety is the concern most frequently raised by neighborhoods. To address that, the Vancouver Energy terminal will only accept newer rail cars designed after 2011.

But residents of North Image and other neighborhoods are also concerned about emissions from the terminal itself.

At last count, 12 of 66 recognized Vancouver neighborhood associations had taken positions against the oil terminal. In addition to Fruit Valley and North Image, Arnada, Carter Park, Columbia Way, Esther Short, Harney Heights, Hough, Maplewood, Northwest, Riverview and Shumway have all gone on record against the proposal. Rosemere, an independent neighborhood group, also opposes it.

The decision on the oil terminal won’t be made locally. In a process that could end up taking years, the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council will review the proposal and make a recommendation to the governor, who has the final say. The siting council takes local concerns into account, and residents haven’t been shy about voicing them.

The Fruit Valley neighborhood didn’t start out against the oil-by-rail terminal proposed for the Port of Vancouver, said Eric LaBrant, president of the association.

He said his neighborhood is especially concerned about projected emissions, which include nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, benzene and diesel engine particulate.

Minx said the terminal will comply with or perform better than all emissions and health-based air quality standards set by local, state and federal regulations, but the neighborhood remains wary.

“The answers we have gotten back on that have been why the emissions aren’t that bad, how they are going to stay within the property line, kind of like smoke staying inside a smoking section,” he said. “After attempting to talk to Tesoro about safety improvements and not getting any specific commitments, the neighborhood finally took the position they didn’t want it.”

LaBrant has one of the “Danger Blast Zone” signs in his yard that have popped up along the railroad tracks. A group of about a dozen local residents opposed to the oil terminal put their money together to make the signs and a website, with a graphic artist donating the designs.

The website points out the emergency officials have advised evacuation within a mile of an oil train explosion, but smoke from the wreck in Cassleton, N.D., last year forced the evacuation of residents five miles away.

The local Danger Blast Zone website urges residents to prepare for an oil train accident.

LaBrant, who points to the Lac-Megantic accident from more than a year ago, is skeptical that’s even possible. “If you look at that town today, it’s still a mess. There’s no emergency response plan for that level of disaster.”