November 24, 2010 in Idaho

Ruling: ITD must hear from megaload opponents

• Print
• Email
• Share

BOISE - Residents and business owners along scenic U.S. Highway 12 who object to giant mega-loads of oil equipment traveling the route and blocking both lanes have a right to be heard at formal hearings before Idaho grants permits for the loads, a hearing officer ruled Wednesday.

In a 20-page ruling, hearing officer Merlyn Clark found that the three opponents who sued to block the loads clearly have a “direct and substantial interest” in the matter. “To allow the loads to travel before a formal contested case hearing is conducted would contravene the right of the parties to intervene and be heard upon the issues,” Clark wrote in his ruling.

Idaho Transportation Department Director Brian Ness is reviewing the ruling, ITD said Wednesday, and “will decide the final action of the transportation department.” Department spokesman Adam Rush said Ness “can accept, reject, modify or hold the recommendation.”

“He’ll certainly take time to review it and look into it and consult with staff here and see how to proceed,” Rush said. While that happens, Rush said, the stay on the permits remains in effect.

ConocoPhillips said in a statement that the company was “disappointed” in the ruling. “We do not believe the recommendation adequately accounts for the careful planning by ConocoPhillips, Emmert International, the ITD, and other state and local agencies,” the company said. “We are well prepared to transport our refinery equipment from Lewiston to Billings safely, and in a way that protects roads and accommodates traffic flow.”

Clark, in his ruling, detailed how ITD reviewed the plans and determined the loads could travel safely. But he also found that the opponents had a right to be heard in the process.

Linwood Laughy and Borg Hendrickson, two U.S. Highway 12 residents who were among those who sued to block the mega-loads, said in a statement Wednesday, “We feel that it is good news that a neutral lawyer has said, yes, residents and business owners who live, work and recreate along U.S. Highway 12 do have a voice in government agency dealings that directly affect them. We look forward to moving ahead with the contested case process.”

They and river lodge owner Peter Grubb sued to block the four shipments, prompting a 2nd District judge to revoke permits for them in August, but the Idaho Supreme Court overturned that decision, saying ITD hadn’t yet issued a final order that was appealable in court, so the courts lacked jurisdiction to review it.

The route is a designated scenic byway dotted with campgrounds, hot springs, and historic sites; it roughly parallels the route explorers Lewis and Clark followed. The twisting road follows the protected Lochsa and Clearwater rivers.

Though ConocoPhillips plans just four mega-loads - consisting of two giant coke drums that have been cut in half, to replace two aging drums at its Billings, Mont. refinery - they are the first of more than 200 mega-loads proposed for the route. Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil plans to send 207 extra-large loads of equipment along the route from the Port of Lewiston, across Idaho on Highway 12 and up through Montana to Canada for its Alberta oil sands project. A Korean firm also has contacted ITD about sending dozens more giant loads along the same route.

ExxonMobil has made substantial improvements along the route at its own expense, including reconstructing turnouts and removing foliage, to prepare for its big loads, which are proposed to run for a year but don’t yet have permits.

The giant loads would travel at night, take four days each to traverse the 175 miles from Lewiston to the Montana line at Lolo Pass, and pull off at turnouts during the day.

Though ITD and Conoco argued that the opponents really are concerned about the Exxon project and other future projects, Clark ruled that holding contested-case hearings on the four Conoco mega-loads “will not unduly broaden the issues, because the issues are limited only to the four permits sought by applicants, and evidence that others may seek overlegal permits at some future date is not relevant and will not be considered in this contested case proceeding.”

Six comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  munsemj on November 24 at 4:24 p.m.

  Absolutely Ridiculous - At what point will pius environmental groups realize the contradictions they speak by one week arguing for independance from foriegn oil and the next week doing everyhting in they’re power to limit production here and in nearby Canada. Not only do they have to bring in out of touch groups from other states that have already severely ruined commerce and progress on their home ground but also try and dictate what Canada does with they’re operations? How extremely arrogant and of no help to solving a problem whatsoever. Instead of costing everyone money with lawsuits and production delays why not put that negative energy into something beneficial like working towards a greater goal while using what we have here responsably(which i would argue relentlessly is being done today). Instead of jumping on the pius bandwagon that mistakeningly leads people to believe they are helping a greater cause, I wish people would people would use their brains for a minute and realize this nonsense benefits no one. Just as the carbon trade was a scam. Meanwhile lets hold up shipping of gas to Idaho until this is resolved so they can see the true impacts.

• 

  straighttalk on November 24 at 4:40 p.m.

  Arrogant, just how arrogant do you think Conoco was to bring 4 mega loads into Idaho without a permit, without even a signed application for a permit. The handling of this controversial issue, outside and circumventing the public, by ITD is shameful of a public agency doing the public’s business while avoiding public input. ITD has been adjusting rules and regulations, as well as making changes to US12, for over 2 years to facilitate these loads with public funds, as well as Conoco funds, all outside public scrutiny to circumvent public concerns.

  Whomever headed this project for Conoco should be fired for allowing Conoco to fund this without a permit or an application in place. Likewise, ITD should be held accountable.

  Stop shipping gas to Idaho — big deal — 7% of Idaho’s fuel comes from the Billings Conoco.

• 

  munsemj on November 24 at 4:54 p.m.

  Straighttalk, apparently you don’t understand how bigrig permitting works. Notwithsatnding, It is hardly a controversial issue to move 4 trucks down a highway after ample planning and discussion has taken place(You state 2 years-I think thats plenty). As far as gas is concerned, Exxon makes up an additional 18% of of Idahos gas. Big deal? I’d like to see the public reaction to a gas hike of $1 or more all from the misdirection of a few enviromental groups with too much time on there hands.

• 

  suprbird on November 24 at 5:00 p.m.

  They should allow these loads to Montana. What right does a couple of bigots have to say about it. One lives across the river from the highway so what input does that have. I lived down there for years and its a hassle to do anything down there without somebody pissing and moaning about everything that happens along the river road. Apparently they would like to see 750 people out of work.

• 

  straighttalk on November 24 at 5:45 p.m.

  Superbird, 750 people out of work — according to Conoco approximately 400 people would be temporarily laid off if these 4 mega loads are delayed. BTW, all the other such mega loads have been delivered via Gulf of Mexico for some time.

  I’m surprised to read you call it a river road because it is US12 travled 24/7/365 days a year for private and commercial travel. These megal loads would be rolling roadblocks on that “river road.”

• 

  oneanddone on November 25 at 10:23 a.m.

  I don’t think there should be a big problem with the loads going only to Montana. We’re all one country, except of course for gimme indians, and states should work together to prosper. However, that doesn’t apply to Canada. This country gets nothing from anything shipped through Idaho, other than the future opportunity to buy fuel at an ever increasing price. This equipment is going to Canada, any production tax is going to Canada, and no one can tell me Canada will only let these companies sell oil to us if we bend over now. Any equipment headed to Canada should be routed through Canada OR there should be one hell of a price to pay. And, the money should go to the citizens of each affected state, not into the pockets of legislators, as usual.