The draft environmental impact statement on the proposed oil transfer terminal at the Port of Vancouver contains 850 pages, not counting lengthy addendums that stretch the page count into the thousands. Not surprisingly, both supporters and opponents are finding what they were looking for in the document that was released just before Thanksgiving. Last week, the rhetorical war was well underway.
Two examples:
“The report shows that the impacts (of the terminal) are too great, and it gives Gov. (Jay) Inslee all the reasons he needs to deny this project,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, director of the environmental group Columbia Riverkeeper. “In essence, it shows that this project is too dangerous.”
“Based on our initial reviews, we believe the draft environmental impact statement supports the conclusion that the Vancouver Energy terminal can be constructed and operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner,” said Jeff Hymas, representing Vancouver Energy. “It appears that most of the probable impacts identified in the draft — especially those associated with the proposed facility itself — are either minor or negligible, or can be mitigated. Statements we’ve seen from opponents of the project appear to focus primarily on events and impacts that are identified in the document as being highly unlikely.”
Expect many more sharp exchanges before the public review period closes on Jan. 22. While it’s obviously impossible so summarize a report as massive as this one, The Columbian selected a few facts about the project as well as statements that are likely to trigger debate and disagreement. The statements, all taken from the draft environmental impact statement, are listed below.
If the project is approved
• Construction would take 18 months. The operational life of the facility is “assumed to be 20 years.”
Details: “According to the Applicant, the parties to the lease between the Port and the Applicant have agreed that at the end of the lease term, the Port will own the improvements on the lease area or may require the Applicant to remove some or all of the improvements. In addition, the parties to the lease have agreed that if the Port elects not to approve a lease extension, the Port would be responsible for decommissioning.”
Operations
• Train cars: Four 120-car trains per day on average, up to three at a time could be unloaded.
• Oil transport ships: “Typical vessels would be medium-sized tankers with cargo capacities similar to the storage capacity of individual storage tanks at the terminal.”
Safety
• In addition to obvious ecological damage, spills and fires could have negative effects on fishermen, tourism and property values.
• Small spills at the facility and along the rail is assumed to spread 1 river mile on the Columbia. Large spills could reach 7 to 13 river miles.
• Spills from ships due to groundings or collisions estimated at a 1,000-barrel spill every 34 years.
“The potential for major unanticipated events … cannot be totally eliminated. Although extremely unlikely, an unprecedented event could potentially cause one or more crude oil storage tanks and the secondary containment berm to be significantly damaged, which could result in a very large crude oil spill at the proposed facility.”
Alternatives reviewed but deemed not feasible
• Trucking oil to the port is “capable of attaining or approximating the proposal’s objectives. However, this alternative would not provide a lower environmental cost.” It would produce two-thirds more greenhouse gases, increase noise levels and reduce transportation safety.
• Bringing oil by barge from the Port of Kennewick: No environmental advantage.
• Siting at the Port of Longview or the Port of Kalama: “Although the ports of Kalama and Longview could potentially provide suitable locations for a similar facility and may feasibly attain or approximate some proposed Project objectives, neither location would provide a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.”
