A Coastal Community In Washington Contemplates Oil Terminals

A Quinault Indian Nation fishing boat comes in to unload its catch in Grays Harbor, not far from the locations of three proposed oil train-to-ship facilities. Ashley Ahearn/KUOW
A Quinault Indian Nation fishing boat comes in to unload its catch in Grays Harbor, not far from the locations of three proposed oil train-to-ship facilities.
Ashley Ahearn/KUOW

 

By Ahsley Ahearn, KUOW

 

HOQUIAM, Wash. — Grays Harbor, with its deep-water berths and fast access to Pacific Ocean shipping routes, has all the ingredients to be a world-class port.

In some respects, it already is. The Port of Grays Harbor once bustled with shipments of lumber from nearby forests. Next came cars, grains and biofuel. Now, local leaders are warming up to the idea of adding crude oil to the mix.

Roughly 3 billion gallons of crude move from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota into Washington state by rail each year. As oil companies look for the fastest and most cost-effective way to get their product to West Coast refineries, proposals for new oil facilities are popping up around the region.

Washington has five refineries. Four are already receiving oil by rail and the fifth is seeking a permit to do so as well. There are six proposed train-to-ship oil facilities in Washington and two operating on the Oregon side of the Columbia River.

Three of those facilities could be built in Grays Harbor. That could mean more than 700 ships and barges arriving and departing each year and eight oil trains, empty and full, traveling through Grays Harbor County each day.

The proposed facilities present the community with some hard questions about economic growth, environmental risk and quality of life.

Oil On The Move

Forty-five permanent jobs would be created at the proposed Imperium and Westway terminals, with 103 estimated jobs in rail and marine operations, according to a report from the terminal companies. Information on the potential job creation for the third, and largest, of the proposed terminals is not yet available. That terminal is backed by US Development Group. It is in the discussion phase, according to the State Department of Ecology.

“These are projects that will provide jobs and economic development and tax revenue for Grays Harbor,” said Paul Queary, spokesman for Westway and Imperium. “They will help support the existing refinery jobs elsewhere in Washington and they will bring domestically produced oil to U.S. refineries and help maintain and increase U.S. energy independence.”

Imperium and Westway plan to move North Dakota crude on to refineries on the West Coast. U.S. law prohibits the export of domestically-produced crude oil. However, there’s no such restriction on exporting crude brought in from Canada. Canadian crude is already moving through the region  and more could travel through new terminals in the future.

Canadian oil producers are eager to find ways to ship their product beyond North America, suggests Tom Kluza, global head of energy analysis for Oil Price Information Service.

“Really the biggest losers in the oil price slide have been the Canadians,” he said. “They are compromised by their inability to move that to any customers beyond the U.S.”

Despite the recent drop in oil prices, Kluza said the development of infrastructure needed to serve the oil boom in the North American interior — ports, rail capacity and pipelines —  is lagging behind the rate of oil production.  Canadian and U.S. oil producers need access to refineries and terminals in the Northwest, and the regional refineries need access to their product, particularly as output from Alaskan oil fields continues to decline.

“Whether [the Northwest is] the most hospitable is going to depend on the way the local communities and regulators look at the environmental consequences,” he said.

‘What’s a culture worth?’

Thousands of Dungeness crabs rustle and clack as they’re unloaded from the holds of fishing vessels at the Quinault Indian Nation’s docks in Westport, at the mouth of Grays Harbor.

 

Dungeness crab being unloaded at the Quinault Indian Nation docks in Westport, Washington. Almost a quarter of the  tribe is employed in the fishing industry.Dungeness crab being unloaded at the Quinault Indian Nation docks in Westport, Washington. Almost a quarter of the  tribe is employed in the fishing industry. Ashley Ahearn/KUOW

 

The Quinault reservation lies just north of Grays Harbor. Tribal members harvest crab and razor clams along the coast and catch salmon in the ocean and the Chehalis and Humptulips rivers. The tribe opposes the oil terminals. It says an oil spill from a ship or train could close shellfish beds or decimate fish populations. Almost a quarter of the tribe’s 2,900 members are employed in the fishing industry. Ed Johnstone, fishery policy spokesman for the tribe, says the value of that fishery to the Quinault is impossible to quantify.

“What’s a culture worth? What’s a history and tradition worth?” he asked. “You can’t put a number on it.”

 

The Quinault tribe says its treaty-protected  fishing rights are threatened by the risk of an oil spill. Its leaders say they’ll take legal action if necessary to protect the tribe’s fishery.

Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation, says her tribe’s opposition isn’t just about the threat of an oil spill. The global burning of fossil fuels threatens the Quinault’s way of life, she said. Rising sea levels have forced the tribe to move part of its community inland. Last year the ocean broke through and flooded the lower village. The Olympic Mountain’ Anderson Glacier, which feeds the Quinault River, has almost disappeared.

 

A 1936 photo of Anderson Glacier, which feeds the Quinault River.A 1936 photo of Anderson Glacier, which feeds the Quinault River. Asahel Curtis

 

Anderson glacier in 2004. "Our glacier's gone," said Fawn Sharp, president of Quinault Nation.Anderson glacier in 2004. “Our glacier’s gone,” said Fawn Sharp, president of Quinault Nation. Matt Hoffman / Portland State University

“Each area and each region has, I believe, a sacred trust and a sacred duty,” Sharp said, standing beside tribal crabbers as they unloaded their catch. “When you are an elected official you need to make decisions that are based not only on the economics of a decision but the science, the culture, the history.”

 

 

Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation, stands on the docks as tribal crabbers unload their catch. The tribe has vowed to fight the oil train-to-ship terminals  proposed for Grays Harbor.Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation, stands on the docks as tribal crabbers unload their catch. The tribe has vowed to fight the oil train-to-ship terminals  proposed for Grays Harbor. Ashley Ahearn/KUOW

 

The Quinault and other area tribes have often been at odds with non-tribal fishermen. But the non-tribal fishing industry, which employs more than 1,000 people in the area, has joined  the tribes in opposing  the oil terminals.

‘If I hear one more time that this place has great potential, I’m going to puke’

The population of Grays Harbor County hovers around 70,000. Its working-class economy was built on the timber and fishing industries. But today the unemployment rate is higher than the national average. The percentage of residents with a college education lags below the state average.

More than 200 people lost their jobs when Harbor Paper in Hoquiam, Washington shut down in 2014.More than 200 people lost their jobs when Harbor Paper in Hoquiam, Washington shut down in 2014. Ashley Ahearn / KUOW

Al Carter has spent his entire life in Grays Harbor, working in the timber and manufacturing industries and serving as a county commissioner for eight years. He calls himself “an infrastructure guy” – always pushing for the things that make a community appealing to business development and economic growth.

“Sewer, water, roads, bridges, railroads, public safety, public transportation,” Carter counts out on his fingers. “Those are the things that make a community grow and if you build those things, then people will come to those places.”

Carter says it’s been a bumpy ride since the timber and paper industry here crashed. A few years ago the Port of Grays Harbor was courted by the coal industry to build an export terminal.

 

“If I hear one more time that this place has great potential, I’m going to puke,” Carter said, chuckling. “A new group of people come to town every year with a good idea, like, ‘Here’s what we should do!’ and my eyes roll back in my head. It’s like, ‘yeah, OK. Here’s your bucket and your shovel.’”

Carter’s not anti-oil or fossil fuels. He’s concerned about what hundreds of oil trains and ships each year will do to the identity of his community and its potential for future development.

“That much oil, all we’re going to be is an oil terminal. They’re going to dominate our landscape,” Carter said. “Nothing else is going to come here. Nobody else is going to want to come here. There won’t be any room for anything else.”

Being Frank: Keep Big Oil Out of Grays Harbor

Billy Frank
Billy Frank

By Billy Frank, Jr., Chairman, Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

OLYMPIA – Our environment, health, safety and communities are at risk from decisions being made now to transport and export trainloads of coal and oil through western Washington.

If coal export terminals proposed for Cherry Point near Bellingham, and Longview on the Columbia River are approved, hundreds of trains and barges would run from Montana and Wyoming every day, spreading coal dust along the way. That same coal will continue to pollute our world when it is burned in China and other countries thousands of miles away.

Now that threat is joined by proposals to use mile-long crude oil trains to feed massive new oil terminals in Grays Harbor.  Safety is a huge concern. Since 2008 nearly a dozen oil trains have been derailed in the U.S.  In December, a fire burned for over 24 hours after a 106-car train carrying crude oil collided with a grain train in North Dakota. In July, an oil train accident killed 47 people and leaked an estimated 1.5 million gallons of oil in Quebec, Canada.

It’s clear that crude oil can be explosive and the tankers used to transport it by rail are simply unsafe. These oil trains are an accident waiting to happen to any town along the route from the oil fields of the Midwest to the shores of western Washington.

Plans for shipping crude oil from Grays Harbor also include dredging the Chehalis River estuary, which will damage habitat needed by fish, shellfish and birds.  Large numbers of huge tanker ships moving in and out of the harbor would interfere with Indian and non-Indian fisheries and other vessel traffic.

The few jobs that the transport and export of coal and oil offer would come at the cost of catastrophic damage to our environment for years. We would have to live with that damage for many years. Everyone knows that oil and water don’t mix, and neither do oil and fish, oil and wildlife, or oil and just about everything else. It’s not a matter of whetherspills will happen, it’s a matter of when.

Thankfully, the Quinault Indian Nation is taking a stand. “The history of oil spills provides ample, devastating evidence that there are no reasonable conditions under which these proposed terminal projects should proceed,” says my friend, Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinault Indian Nation. “We oppose oil in Grays Harbor.  This is a fight we can’t afford to lose.  We’re in it to win. Our fishing, hunting and gathering rights are being jeopardized by the immediate and future impacts of these proposed developments.”

Right now public hearings are being held and Environmental Impact Statements are being developed for these oil export schemes. You can send comments to Maia Bellon, Director of the Department of Ecology, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 98503-1274.

I urge you to join the Quinault Indian Nation and the many others who are battling Big Oil on this issue. Email ProtectOurFuture@quinault.org or more information.

“We have a responsibility to protect the land and water for the generations to come. Together, we can build a sustainable economy without sacrificing our environment,” says Sharp.

She’s right.

State Blocks Permits For 2 Grays Harbor Oil Terminals

Source: KUOW

A state regulatory board is blocking permits for two crude oil shipping terminals in Grays Harbor, Wash., saying backers have failed to address public safety and environmental issues.

The State Department of Ecology worked with the city of Hoquiam to approve permits for the terminals earlier this year.

The Quinault Indian Nation and several conservation groups successfully argued that permits issued for two terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington should be reversed.

“Those permits should have never been issued in the first place,” said Fawn Sharp, president of the Quinalt Nation.

“The shipping terminals would be a clear violation of public safety as well as treaty-protected rights. Far more jobs would be lost when the inevitable spills occur than would be gained from the development of the proposed oil terminals,” Sharp said.

The Washington Shorelines Hearings Board said the permits didn’t adequately assess the environmental risk of oil spills, seismic events, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to cultural resources.

The denial of these permits won’t necessarily stop the projects from going forward, but the Department of Ecology may require a more comprehensive review.

“We are in the process of reviewing the board’s decision with our attorneys to determine the full implications before making any decisons on next steps,” said Linda Kent, a spokesperson for the Department of Ecology.

There are three terminals on the table for Grays Harbor. Two are officially in the permitting process, which is now on hold.

  • The Imperium terminal would draw two additional trains per day and 200 ships or barges per year. It would have storage capacity for more than 30 million gallons of oil. It would create 20 jobs.
  • The Westway terminal would draw two unit trains every three days and 64 barge movements. It would have storage capacity for more than 33 million gallons of oil.

Overall, the proposed projects could lead to 520 additional vessel transits per year in Grays Harbor, and 973 unit trains per year to the Port of Grays Harbor.

The Washington Shorelines Hearings Board withdrew the permits on Wednesday, saying they were issued without appropriate review of the vessel and rail transit increases and identified “troubling questions of the adequacy of the analysis done regarding the potential for individual and cumulative impacts from oil spills, seismic events, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to cultural resources.”

There are now 10 places in the Northwest considering taking oil arriving by rail from North Dakota to be transported onto ships. Meanwhile, there’s talk in Congress about weakening rules against exporting American oil.

Grays Harbor Crude Oil Terminals Blocked

Board holds projects need full evaluation of “oil spill risks, increase in rail and vessel traffic, and location of expanded facilities in areas of known natural resource and cultural sensitivity.”

Source: Earth Justice, November 13, 2013

Olympia, WA  — The Washington Shorelines Hearings Board reversed permits for two crude oil shipping terminals in Grays Harbor, Washington for failure to address significant public safety and environmental issues. The projects cannot go forward until full and detailed environmental reviews assess all individual and cumulative impacts, according to the final decision released late yesterday.

The Quinault Indian Nation and conservation groups argued that regulatory agencies failed to adequately evaluate the risks of oil spills from trains or marine vessels that would expose tribal fishing rights, commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing, and the economy and environment of Grays Harbor to major harm.

The Board agreed with petitioners Quinault Indian Nation, Friends of Grays Harbor, Sierra Club, Surfrider Foundation, Grays Harbor Audubon, and Citizens for a Clean Harbor that moving hundreds of oil-laden trains and ships through Washington demands full and public environmental review.

Quote from Fawn Sharp, President, Quinault Indian Nation:

“We applaud the decision by the Shoreline Hearings Board to reverse the permit for the crude oil shipping terminals.

“Those permits should have never been issued in the first place. The shipping terminals would be a clear violation of public safety as well as treaty-protected rights. The public trust should not be jeopardized in this manner. Neither should the water nor other environmental resources upon which we all depend. Far more jobs would be lost when the inevitable spills occur than would be gained from the development of the proposed oil terminals. It is the responsibility of the Shoreline Hearings Board and all public entities to take a strong stand against these terminals and all such projects that would diminish the quality of life in our region.

“Good public policy demands that decision makers assess ultimate and cumulative impacts of their decisions and mitigate any potential harm to the public or tribal interest before they commit to an irreversible course of action.

“The history of oil spills provides ample, devastating evidence that there are no reasonable conditions under which these proposed terminal projects should proceed.”

Westway Terminal Company and Imperium Terminal Services had each proposed projects that would ship tens of millions of barrels of crude oil through Grays Harbor each year. Daily trains more than a mile long would bring crude oil from North Dakota or tar sands crude oil from Alberta, Canada along the Chehalis River and into the port, where it would be stored in huge shoreline tanks. The crude would then be pumped onto oil tankers and barges, increasing at least four-fold the large vessel traffic in and out of the harbor.

“There should be a statewide moratorium on crude-by-rail projects,” said Kristen Boyles, an attorney with Earthjustice representing the Quinault Indian Nation. “A frantic dash to permit is immoral when we’re talking millions of gallons of combustible oil, risks of devastating crude oil spills in rivers and the ocean, harm to traditional fishing economies, and irreplaceable natural resources.”

  • The Board first determined that there was undisputed evidence of a third proposed crude oil terminal in Grays Harbor that must be considered in the permitting decisions. This unexamined third project, proposed by U.S. Development, would add 18 million more barrels of crude oil transit per year to Grays Harbor.
  • The Board also found that Ecology and Hoquiam violated the state environmental review law (SEPA) by waiting until after permitting to analyze the proposed additional rail and vessel transits. “To wait until after the SEPA threshold determination is made, and the [permit] is issued, to obtain information that identifies whether potential impacts from vessel and train increases will be significant and whether mitigation is necessary, does not comply” with the law.” Order at 28.
  • The Board expressed concern at the absence of information supporting the permits. “While the Co-leads may have reached the conclusion that there was not likely to be more than a moderate environmental impact from 520 additional vessel transits per year in Grays Harbor, and 973 unit trains per year to the Port of Grays Harbor, they did not share the basis for that conclusion in any of the SEPA documents.” Order at 31.
  • The Board also stated that the agencies could not simply rely without on other laws to mitigate risks and damages. “[T]he Board encourages the Co-leads to identify potential impacts and then analyze how existing laws will mitigate for those impacts.” Order at 36.
  • Although the Board did not decide other issues raised in the case, the Board went out of its way to identify “troubling questions of the adequacy of the analysis done regarding the potential for individual and cumulative impacts from oil spills, seismic events, greenhouse gas emissions, and impacts to cultural resources.” Order at 33. Of particular concern to the Quinault, the Board discussed the failure the ensure that the projects would not harm historic or cultural resources. The Board also stressed the importance of assessing the types of crude oil that would be at risk of being spilled. “[C]ertainly an impact with the potential to ‘wipe out generation(s) of a livelihood of work they [the shellfish folks or agricultural families, or tribes and local communities] have enjoyed and are skilled to do’ should be explicitly addressed.” Order at 34-35.

The Board’s decision comes as the risks of crude-by-rail oil shipments has come into public focus. In July, a crude-by-rail train exploded and leveled a portion of a small Quebec town, tragically killing almost 50 people. That horrific scene replayed last week, as a similar crude oil train derailed and exploded in Alabama, with fortunately no loss of life. The Grays Harbor projects are the first of almost ten projects slated for Washington’s coast that have been challenged; the enormous Tesoro-Savage proposal on the Columbia River is currently undergoing permitting review.

A copy of the Board’s decision is at http://earthjustice.org/documents/legal-document/pdf/crude-by-rail-final-decision.

Haggen recalls ground beef sold at stores outside Whatcom County

 

Haggen has recalled some ground beef because of the threat of E. coli, but none of it was sold at stores in Whatcom County.

If you bought beef under the NatureSource label at Haggen or TOP Food stores outside Whatcom County, you might be affected.

Here is the information from Haggen.

Posted by DEBBIE TOWNSEND on August 1, 2013

The Bellingham Herald

 

haggenlogo

 

BELLINGHAM, Wash. (August 1, 2013) — In an abundance of caution, Haggen, Inc. today announced it is issuing a recall prompted by a nationwide recall from ground beef supplier National Beef Packing Company. National Beef announced the recall of approximately 50,100 pounds of ground beef due to a sample testing positive for E. coli O157:H7. There have been no reported illnesses related to the recall.

Haggen’s recall is isolated to the 97% lean ground beef sold under the NatureSource label produced on July 18, 2013, with a use by/freeze by date of August 7, 2013.

The recalled item was sold in Haggen stores in Snohomish and Oregon City, as well as TOP Food & Drug stores in Olympia, Woodinville and Grays Harbor, Washington.

Haggen has removed the affected product from its stores and initiated its customer recall notification system. The company is asking customers of the affected stores to carefully check their refrigerators and freezers for recalled ground beef. Any opened or unopened products included in this recall should not be consumed and should be returned to their local Haggen or TOP Food & Drug store for a full refund.

Consumers who have questions about the recall may contact Haggen at 1-360-733-8720 or may contact National Beef’s consumer relations toll free at 1-800-449-BEEF.

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160° F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature.