Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout112315_cabs02CABS 615 Sheridan Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 www.JeffersonCountyPublicHealth.org November 19, 2015 JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY AGENDA REQUEST TO: Board of County Commissioners Philip Morley, County Administrator FROM: Tami Pokomy, Environmental Health Specialist II DATE: November 18, 2015 SUBJECT: Agenda Request: Briefing and Possible Approval of Comment Letter on draft EISs for Terminal Expansions in Grays Harbor - Due by November 30, 2015 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Environmental Health requests BoCC consideration of a draft letter to provide comments on draft Environmental Impact Statements (dEISs) for two proposed crude oil terminal expansions projects in Grays Harbor. This letter follows a May 27,2014 letter the BoCC sent commenting on the proposed scope of the EISs. Comments are due by November 30, 2015. ANALYSIS/STRATEGIC GOALS: The Department of Ecology invites comments on dEISs for two proposed terminal expansion projects at the Port of Grays Harbor, Westway and Imperium, for crude -by -rail. The projects have raised the concerns of the four coast MRCs due to the perceived increase of risks to natural resources, human health and safety and impacts to the conduct of normal activities in Aberdeen, Hoquiam and elsewhere within the extended study area. Members of Pacific and Grays Harbor County MRCs are encouraging individual MRC member agencies to submit comments by the November 30 deadline. A resolution to support a collective Coast MRC letter had been on the NPC MRC agenda for November 17, but the meeting was cancelled due to the severe storm that day. Both the NPC MRC and the BoCC provided comments on EIS scoping for these projects in May of 2014. Currently bulk liquids such as biofuel and methanol are handled through the Port of Grays Harbor. These proposed projects, as well as a third that is anticipated, would create and improve existing infrastructure for the transportation by rail, bulk tank storage and shipment by tank vessel of crude oil from the Bakken formation and diluted bitumen from Alberta. The dEISs and related information are available on Ecology's website at htV://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/g_raysharbor/terminals.html. Once finalized after the comment periods, the city of Hoquiam, Ecology and other local and state agencies will use the final EISs in their permitting decisions or approval processes. Community Health Environmental Health Developmental Disabilities Water Quality 364385-9400 360-3859444 360.3859401 (f( Always working for a safer and healthier community (f) 360-379-4487 FISCAL IMPACT: The costs associated with the briefing and letter are negligible. RECOMMENDATION: Hear the briefing from staff on the draft EISs for the Westway and Imperium terminal expansion proposals and consider transmitting the comments as proposed, or with further edits. Community Health Developmental Disabilities 360-385-9400 360-385-9401 (f) Always working for a safer and healthier community Environmental Health Water Quality 360-385-9444 (f) 360379-4487 November 23, 2015 Westway and Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Projects EISs c/o ICF International 710 Second Ave., Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 Dear Interested Parties: The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statements' (dEISs) for terminal expansion projects proposed by Westway Terminal Company LLC (Westway) and Imperium Terminal Services LLC (Imperium). We have concerns surrounding these projects and the harm that they may cause to the people and resources of Jefferson County and Washington State, both directly and indirectly. Comments that we submitted during the scoping process are attached for your reference. The unavoidable and adverse significant impacts identified by the dEISs, in combination with the large number of recent crude -by -rail spills and the natural and human -caused disasters affecting bulk storage of oil, convince us that the proposed facilities present unacceptable risks to human health and safety, the ecological integrity of Grays Harbor, and to young people of today and generations to follow. The proposed projects will exacerbate climate change, ocean acidification and other worsening environmental conditions linked to human -caused CO2 emissions–some of which have already impacted the shellfish industry and are risking jobs and resources within Jefferson County.2 The proposed projects will degrade the quality of day-to-day life for local people–for instance due to lost access to fishing areas and longer vehicle waits at railroad crossings—and the terminal projects will return relatively few local jobs. Instead, they will function to open the spigots wider for Bakken oil as well as Canadian tar sands oil destined for combustion in Asia. The proposed Grays Harbor projects, and the more than 20 other new oil, gas and coal terminals and pipelines proposed in the Pacific Northwest since 20123, point our region in the wrong direction – towards unmitigable degradation of our atmosphere, ocean, biosphere and climate. The new installations would create new ties between the Port of Grays Harbor and the fossil fuel industry just as renewable energy technologies gain ground elsewhere Grays Harbor estuary plays an important role in the lifecycles of iconic Northwest species such as Dungeness crab and salmon. Both are very important to Jefferson County's economy and to sustaining a way of life that is cherished by local residents as well as frequent visitors to coastal communities from places like Port Townsend, Sequim and Port Angeles. Grays Harbor and the coast nearby provide habitat for numerous ESA -listed species. These include Southern Resident Killer Whaless, marbled murrelets, snowy plovers, and streaked horned larks. 1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/geographic/graysharbor/terminals.html 2 http://www.ibtimes.com/cot-emissions-threaten-seafood-ocean-acidification-spreads-along-us-coastlines- 1824158 3 http://www.sightline.org/research_item/northwest-fossil-fuel-exports-2 4 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adnan-z-amin/whatever-happens-in-paris b 8523098.html 5 http: m //www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cb/ecosystem/marinemama,/satellite_ tagging/blog2015.cfm Hundreds of thousands of shorebirds rely on marsh habitat in Grays Harbor during the annual spring migration. Increased numbers of vessel transits and increased vessel density in combination with the risks associated with challenging, seas, weather and visibility place these animals at greater risk. Just one major oil spill could have dire consequences. Short of that, collisions with marine mammals will likely become more frequent. Releases of invasive species contained in ballast water or from vessels supporting biofouling organisms will become more serious. There will be more vessel noise, wakes and related impacts and consequences. We are convinced that unavoidable and adverse significant impacts to animals would indeed occur. Anchoring in Grays Harbor is particularly challenging due to shifting current and sediments and periods of low visibility. In the EISs, please identify potential sites for a designated anchorage with specific requirements for tank vessels as described in 33 CFR 109.07 (Westway — 4.6.3.2) and describe how risks of grounding, dragging or losing anchor and collision at these sites will be minimized. Please also describe impacts to treaty rights, plants and animals due to shading and other impacts from anchoring activities in new location(s) and how these will also be mitigated. According to the dEIS (Westway 3.5), Ballast water discharge and vessels supporting biofouling organisms could transfer a variety of materials into Grays Harbor that could harm aquatic ecosystems. Primary among these contaminants are invasive marine plants and animals, bacteria, and pathogens that could displace native populations and harm aquatic life. Should an introduced species become a successful invader in a new environment, it can cause a range of ecological impacts. These include competing with native species and altering environmental conditions (e.g., increased water clarity due to mass filter feeding), altering food web and the overall ecosystem and displacing native species, reducing native biodiversity and even causing local extinctions... These aquatic system impacts can also lead to economic and public health impacts. Simply monitoring for these impacts, as recommended and described in the EIS, is insufficient to protect ESA -listed species and their habitats. Some invading species could be impossible to eradicate and their impacts extremely difficult to mitigate. The dEISs also provide no mitigation for vessel strikes or impacts of vessel noise on marine mammals. The statement for that "large whales ... are not likely to enter the harbor' is incorrect. Gray whales are widely known to feed in shallow waters and are frequently seen inside of Grays Harbor. The conclusion that "there would be no unavoidable and significant adverse impacts" to plants and animals is untrue and should be corrected. The vast majority of railway accidents involve derailment.6 The Puget Sound & Pacific Railroad connecting Chehalis with the Port of Grays Harbor has suffered for lack of maintenance and its historical accident rate is ten times the national average (Imperium - Chapter 4). The EIS anticipates that the implementation of additional rail improvements designed to support the proposed projects will still allow for an accident rate that is higher than the national average. One reason is that, For about 1,000 feet at a point about 4 miles west of Montesano, the speed limit is 10 mph. The track is on the bank of the Chehalis River. The soil condition is such that maintenance to the tolerance required for 25 mph speed limit is difficult. (Westway 3.15-11) Please provide additional information about the history of maintenance, repairs and vulnerabilities of this section of track and more specific information about the soil condition, how it might vary and why 6 http://www.scientificamerican.com/report/train-tragedies-and-transformations maintenance to achieve 25mph is difficult. Please quantify the increase in risk of an accident in this location if the proposed action, in addition to the Imperium and U.S. Rail projects, are implemented. If an accident occurs in this stretch, who and what would be affected by a spill or explosion in addition to the Chehalis River? Is relocating the track a viable option for improving safety here? What other options may exist? Around the world, crude oil storage terminals are vulnerable to natural disasters and disasters caused by human error. An online industry report from Control Global' from 2014 states, Its safe to say that thousands of filing, emptying and transferring operations go on each month in these tank farms—maybe even every day. The overwhelming majority are done safely, but some result in overfills, which have led in a few cases to major incidents. Data compiled by a reputable operator in the United States estimated that an overfill occurred once in every 3,300 filling operations' Looking over the past couple of decades, we have some notable tank overfill incidents: Laem Chabang, Thailand, in 1999 (seven dead); Buncefield, UK, in 2005 (43 injured), and the Catano oil refinery in BayamSn, Puerto Rico, (three injured). All these involved spectacular explosions and fires with extensive damage to the facility. Since 2012, it appears from the report that an updated standard (API 2350) is being adopted widely. This standard includes a risk assessment that "shall be used by the owner and operator to categorize risks associated with potential tank overfills". Please incorporate information about the updated API 2350 and this risk assessment into the EISs. Please also include a description of overfill incidents since 2012 that have occurred despite implementation of API 2350, if any. Can conclusions be drawn as to whether or not adoption of the new standard reduces the frequency and severity of incidents caused by overfills? Another, perhaps more serious risk to tank farms is lightning. A study' from the UK states: It is estimated that lightning accounts for 61% of all accidents in storage and processing activities, where natural events are identified as the root cause of the incidents. In North America, 16 out of 20 accidents involving petroleum products storage tanks were as a result of lightning strikes... there have been 150 tank fires in a 52 -year period as a result of lightning. The Westway and Imperium dEISs each mention the word "lightning" once within a citation in the References listed in Chapter 8.1 of the Risk and Technical Reports (Appendix M). The word also comes up in two scoping comments. In the final EISs, please assess the risks posed by lightning within the Port of Grays Harbor and also to the unit trains and tank vessels within the extended study area. Natural Hazard -Triggered Technological Accidents (Natech) are recognized internationally as a unique class of incidents "that manifests itself when the natural and technological worlds collide." These accidents are initiated by a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, that leads to the release of hazardous materials.1a Europe's Joint Research Centre summarizes the particular challenges inherent in events of this magnitude and complexity: ' http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2014/prevent-tank-farm-overfill-hazards e "Atmospheric Storage Tanks," Risk Engineering Position Paper 01, Marsh Ltd. ' http://www.lightningsafety.com/nisi_IIs/Causes-of-Failures-in-Bulk-Storage.pdf 10 http://enatech.jrc.ec.europa.eu One of the main problems of Natech accidents is the simultaneous occurrence of a natural disaster and a technological accident, both of which require simultaneous response efforts in a situation in which lifelines needed for disaster mitigation are likely to be unavailable, as they may have been downed by the natural disaster. In addition, hazardous -materials releases may be triggered from single or multiple sources in one installation or at the same time from several hazardous installations in the natural disaster's impact area, requiring emergency -management resources occupied with responding to the natural disaster to be diverted. Moreover, the ongoing climate change predicted to result in an increase of hydro -meteorological events may in turn increase the likelihood of [Natech] accidents. Natechs include the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004, the 2005 Katrina Storm Surge and the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami and others. The 2011 Tohoku tsunami in Japan damaged 418 oil storage tanks and moved 157 of them. Sloshing of contents during the earthquake also caused oil to flow out over the tanks' floating roofs." Major tank farm incidents have involved "floating roofs becoming dislodged and jamming, with a resulting fire being attributed to sparks from the damaged roof being shaken violently."12 The director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Center recently estimated that there is a 10-15 percent chance for a magnitude 9.0 earth quake over the next 5013 years. This equates to a 1 in 300 chance each year. The dElSs cite USGS figures from 2009 — a likelihood of 6-8 percent. The most recent seismic event near the project area was a magnitude 2.5 quake which occurred beneath Grays Harbor on November 13, 2015.14 On a similar note, the dElSs give a figure for sea level rise of 24 inches by the end of the century, but Washington Sea Grant, for one, now provides probabilistic forecasts of sea level rise. 11 These include a range of possible sea level rise magnitudes and the calculated risks of each. This form of information is likely of greater utility for communities and managers than a single forecasted figure. In our letter last May, we requested that the EIS determine what additional infrastructure, plans, procedures and equipment should exist to minimize damage to the environment from a tsunami. In the final EISs, please include a discussion of Natechs involving bulk oil storage and transfer facilities that were affected by tsunamis and other natural disasters — including earthquakes, floods, subsidence, or liquefaction. Please also discuss lessons learned as they may apply to Grays Harbor and storage the of Bakken and tar sands oils specifically. We also request that the final EIS address risks associated with climate change driven sea level rise over the next 50 years in combination with the increasing risk of extreme storm events. 11 http://www.earthquakespectra.org/doi/abs/10.1193/050713EQS120M?journalCode=egsa 11 http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi IIs/Causes-of-Failures-in-Bulk-Storage.pdf is http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/science/the-really-big-one-get-ready-now-quake-experts-advise 14 http://pnsn.org/earthquakes/recent 15 https://wsg.washington.edu/about-wsg/staff/ian-miller/ urs g. Oil storage tank drifted and collapsed by the 2011 Tohoku Tsunami in Japan The EISs correctly indicate that the most likely debris to impact the proposed storage tanks would be woody material like logs. However, past Natechs have also seen empty tanks colliding with fuller ones, vehicles colliding with tanks, empty tanks floating off of their foundations and drifting hundreds of meters away or colliding with and broaching containment dikes. In the final EIS, please discuss the possibility that, during a natural disaster, trains, tanks, vessels and vehicles (as well as logs or lumber) may impact and potentially rupture tanks containing oil or generate sparks that cause fires or explosions. The waters of the California current connect Jefferson County with Grays Harbor. Many species travel along our shores and thrive in the wide diversity of intact habitats that comprise the Washington Coast, including those found within Olympic National Park, the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, several National Wildlife Refuges and the reservations of Coast Treaty Tribes. People have thrived here over decades and generations in communities built, in large measure, around an exceptionally productive marine environment that has long supported fishing, shellfish, crabbing, tourism and other local businesses. In closing, thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proposals and the contents of the dE1Ss. We appreciate your time incorporating our comments into the final documents. Please email Environmental Specialist Tami Pokorny with any questions you may have at tookornv6Dco. iefferson.wa.us. Sincerely, Cc: Governor Jay Inslee Co — Lead Agencies City of Hoquiam Administrator Brian Shay Department of Ecology Director Maia Bellon, Department of Ecology SW Regional Direct Sally Toteff Ends. May 27, 2014 1820 Jefferson PO Box 1 Port Townsend, WA Phil Johnson, District 1 David W. Sullivan, District 2 John Austin, District Westway and Imperium Renewables Expansion Project EISs c/o ICF International 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Westway and Imperium Expansion Proposals - EIS Scoping The purpose of this letter is to comment on the scope of the EIS for these proposals to expand existing bulk liquid storage, and to allow receipt of crude oil, at the Port of Grays Harbor. The Westway and Imperium projects will increase the risk of oil spills in Grays Harbor, a particularly sensitive estuarine environment of nation-wide importance both ecologically and commercially, and to cause other serious and enduring environmental harms and economic impacts to the region. The projects, by facilitating the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, also add to the growing risks of catastrophic climate disruption, sea level rise and ocean acidification. Consequently, the broadest possible scope and a comprehensive approach to the EIS are necessary and justified. We understand that the Westway and Imperium expansion proposals would result in at least a 300% increase in the number of vessel entry and departure transits over 2012 levels (168 to 688), and a 133% increase in the number of train transits (730 to 1703), and the train "units" will include at least 100 train cars. The total storage liquid fuel storage capacity will increase by 72.2 million gallons and up to 749.9 million gallons would pass through the facility each year. A third proposal from US Development, now under consideration by the City of Hoquiam, will add an additional 42 million gallons of storage capacity and another train transit every two days.' The proposed expansion sites and rail corridor are located on fill and other soils prone to liquefaction, post liquefaction settlement, and lateral spreading in the event of Cascadia Subduction Zone Interplate events (earthquakes) which "have occurred in the prehistoric past and will occur in the future."' The site and corridors also coincide with, or are adjacent to, flood and tsunami hazard zones and critical habitat for ESA -listed species. The Board of Jefferson County Commissioners strongly recommends that: 1. EIS scoping be delayed until the 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study is complete and its findings reviewed in the context of other proposed tank farms and coal terminals in Washington State. Phone (360) 385-9100 Fax (360( 385-9382 Jeffbocc(acoJefferson.wa.us 2. The EIS for the Westway and Imperium proposals consider the cumulative effects of oil transport through Grays Harbor, to include US Development's Grays Harbor Rail Terminal (and tanks)', on vessel and train traffic and patterns, on levels of environmental risk, on existing economic activities and on the quality of life for people living in the region. 3. The EIS consider potential failures, of structures or processes, that would cause oil to spill into the environment — such as derailments or other damage caused by earthquakes of various magnitudes, river flooding and associated debris, or tsunamis. 4. The EIS determine what additional infrastructure, plans, procedures and equipment should exist in order to minimize damage to the environment from a forecasted tsunami and to coordinate with the evacuation and other needs of the local population. 5. The EIS identify and quantify any new costs to the public of effective emergency response such as costs to station an ocean rescue tug in Grays Harbor and costs to upgrade emergency response capacity on land. 6. The EIS characterize how the risks of derailments and other train wrecks in the Grays Harbor Region would change as a result of the proposals. 7. The EIS describe in detail the direct and indirect effects of a major spill of 1). Crude oil from the Bakken Formation and its associated impurities (fracking chemicals) and 2). Canadian tar sands and associated impurities (synthetic crude and butimen with diluents) on the ESA -listed western snowy plover (Choradrius olexandrinus nivosus), streaked horned lark (Eremophilo olpestris strigoto), and their designated critical habitats. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Sincerely, JJAusOC hairman �C, z, David Sullivan, Member 3 http://cityofhoguiam.com/rail-terminal/GHRT-Shoreline-Permit-App.i)df z http://citvofhoauiam.com/rail-terminal/GHRT-Geotech-Report.pdf ' http://citvofhociuiam.com/rail-terminal �� l I'itil Johnson, ember Phone (360) 385-9100 Fax (360( 385-9382 jeffboc<OoJefferson.wa.us