Opponents again jumped on the company’s safety assurances and hit at the liability presented by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Cos., operating as Vancouver Energy.
“If there’s a theme from the opposing parties, it’s, ‘What really is that risk, and how much risk should the public be willing to bear,’ ” said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney representing several project opponents during adjudication. “Tesoro-Savage is gambling with house money. But the risk is borne by the community, the river and the people.”
Evaluation council members have been keenly interested in who pays for a disaster that exceeds insurance policies and the value of the company. Opponents such as Friends of the Columbia Gorge attorney Nathan Baker say Vancouver Energy is a “shell corporation with the intent of avoiding liability for catastrophes.”
When talking about the what-ifs involved in the project, some experts tapped this week talked about “robust” preparedness plans and initiatives, like requiring better rail cars and a tug escort for oil tankers on the Columbia River. The terminal, at peak capacity, would handle an average of four 120-car oil trains per day delivering largely North Dakota-sourced crude through the Columbia River Gorge.
“Vancouver Energy has already pre-staged emergency response equipment along the Columbia River to respond to an emergency even though the facility has not been constructed,” Barbee said. “Dava Kaitala with the BSNF testified that the volume of rail traffic coming to the terminal is within the normal fluctuations of traffic BNSF handles and would not significantly increase overall traffic.”
The company will wrap up its case next week as adjudication hearings continue through the end of July. Terminal opponents will next have the chance to put experts on the stand to sway the evaluation council. Documents, video and other information about the terminal’s review can be found at efsec.wa.gov.
