YE Canada Oil Train Derailment

Smoke rises from a July 2013 oil train derailment in Lac Megantic, Quebec, which killed 47 people. A consultant hired by a Washington state regulator got basic facts wrong about the accident in a new report. (AP Photo/The Canadian Press, Paul Chiasson)

Consultants evaluating a proposed Vancouver oil train terminal for a Washington state regulator vastly understate the worst-case scenario for a catastrophic oil spill, data from the United States and Canada show.

Three of the four authors hired to write the analysis are former executives of BNSF Railway Co., the railroad that would move oil trains to the Vancouver terminal.

Their draft report released last month calls a 2013 oil train spill in Aliceville, Alabama the worst on record, using it to analyze impacts of a disaster in the Pacific Northwest. The study calls a slightly larger spill "the most credible or realistic" worst-case scenario.

Their report doesn't acknowledge that the largest oil train spill happened in Quebec in July 2013, when an out-of-control oil train derailed and exploded, fueling a raging inferno that killed 47 people and leveled part of a small Canadian town.

The analysis says the Quebec accident spilled just 36,000 gallons of crude. But far more did. Canadian safety regulators concluded 1.5 million gallons escaped from tank cars. Much of it burned in the resulting fire.

Just a third as much oil spilled in the Alabama accident.

Washington's consultants got details about both accidents wrong, saying 689,000 gallons spilled in Alabama. The crash released 455,000 gallons, the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration found.

Matt Krogh, campaign director at ForestEthics, an environmental group, spotted the discrepancies and others in Washington's analysis. He said he was astounded the report downplayed the damage that oil train accidents have caused.

"We've actually seen a real-life scenario that's twice as bad as what they say is the worst-case scenario," Krogh said.

Four consultants wrote the oil train risk analysis for Washington's Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. Three of them, from Texas-based MainLine Management Inc., formerly worked for BNSF. MainLine's website lists BNSF as a client.

MainLine's president, David L. Hatzenbuhler, didn't respond to a call for comment.

Krogh, of ForestEthics, was critical of the state's hiring of the former executives to analyze a project that would benefit their old company.

"It unquestionably looks like a conflict of interest to have former employees of that railroad downplaying the risks of North America's largest oil train proposal," Krogh said.

The council is responsible for studying the $210 million terminal proposed by Tesoro Corp. and Savage Services and making a recommendation on its fate to Gov. Jay Inslee. The governor has final approval.

Amanda Maxwell, spokeswoman for the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, said in an email that the draft report's purpose "is to receive feedback from the public, in order to have a final version that is complete and accurate. As comments are filed, EFSEC and their contractors will be examining and modifying the draft to address any issues or concerns."

She said she had relayed the information about the Quebec and Alabama crashes to the agency's contractors.

-- Rob Davis

rdavis@oregonian.com

503.294.7657