Oil Transport in Washington and a Call to Action to Protect Coastal Waters

Let’s not mince words. Transporting crude oil by marine vessel or railroad is a risky business, and one in which accidents are commonplace.  In 2013, a train carrying crude oil through Quebec derailed, rolled down a hill and exploded, leaving 47 people dead and a town largely destroyed.  That same year, approximately 1.6 million gallons of crude oil were spilled into the environment via train derailments in Alabama and North Dakota (Dokouphil,T., 2015).  Though the volume of oil spilled in 2014 was reduced to less than 2 tank cars worth of oil (according to Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration), the frequency of train-related “unintentional releases” increased to a shocking 141 spills compared to the yearly averages from 1975-2012 of about 25 spills (Dokouphil,T., 2015).

In 2014, a train carrying 100 cars of crude oil also derailed beneath the Magnolia Bridge right here in Seattle, and though no spills were reported in relation to this derailment (Mapes, 2014), the risk is obvious and already in our backyard.  The question is: How is Washington State addressing these concerns, and what can citizens do to get involved? House Bill 1449 has recently been passed but new oil terminal proposals in Grays Harbor are open for public comment - read further to find out more.

Washington State Responds: House Bill 1449

In response to public concern about the proposed increases in transport of crude oil through Columbia Gorge, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound via tanker ships and railroads, House Bill 1449, or “Oil Transportation Safety Now”, was introduced by the Environmental Priority Council, a coalition of more than 20 in-state environmental organizations (WEC, 2015).  The bill sought to strengthen safety regulations to better protect our waterways and our communities.  While this bill is a step in the right direction toward greater transparency for the industry, several amendments heavily influenced by oil companies were also made which undercut some of the environmental protections the bill had hoped to implement (McHugh, 2015). A modified version of the bill passed through the legislature on April 24th and took effect July 1, 2015. Let’s cover just a few points included (and perhaps more importantly, not included) in the bill.

Some of the Wins

• If a facility is receiving crude oil by a railcar, the owner must give the state advanced notice and include the route taken to the facility within the state, if known, and the scheduled time, location, volume, region per bill of lading, and gravity of the crude oil. (§8 (1)(a))

• The state board of pilotage commissioners is authorized to adopt rules requiring tug escorts for oil tankers within a 2 mile radius of Grays Harbor pilotage district (§12(1))

• The state must receive biannual reports for pipelines transporting crude oil regarding the volume and state or province of origin of the oil (§8(1)(b)).

• The state Utilities and Transportation Commission are authorized to set safety standards for private railroad crossings (to inspect rail crossings and push for repairs to degraded rail infrastructure (McHugh, 2015) (§21).

• The Department of Ecology, in consultation with emergency first responders, oil spill response cooperatives, representatives from the oil and rail industries, and businesses that are recipients of liquid bulk crude oil shall evaluate the oil spill emergency response and firefighting equipment and resources available for oil spill and hazardous material response activities throughout the state. Through these assessments, they will award financial grants to areas with the greatest need for oil spill/hazardous material response and firefighting equipment. However, these will be subject to the availability of amounts appropriated for this specific purpose (§26 ).  

Some of the Compromises

• Tug escorts will not be immediately required elsewhere outside of Grays Harbor, but the Department of Ecology must conduct an assessment of marine vessel traffic and safety around the mouth of the Columbia River by December 2017 to determine whether tug escorts of tankers are necessary in that area and make other safety recommendations (§11 (1-3)).

• The original bill proposed increases to the oil spill response tax and an oil spill administration tax (which go into the state Oil Spill Response Account and Oil Spill Prevention Account) levied against owners who receive crude oil or petroleum products from a vessel at a marine terminal or at a terminal from a tank car. These taxes, also called “barrel tax”, have existed at 5 cents per barrel since 1991, and the proposed increase to 10 cents was rejected by the legislature.  What did pass was an extension of the barrel tax to cover oil transported by rail (§14).

• There will be no requirement for railroad facility operators to provide an oil spill prevention plan while transporting oil over rail lines of this state (§4(3)).

Although the bill achieved several wins, our work as activists is not complete--many key environmental protection measures were cut out or diminished considerably in order to pass the bill.  One of the requirements of the bill is that before the start of the 2016 legislative session, the Senate Energy, Environment, and Telecommunications Committee must hold a joint meeting with the House of Representatives Environment Committee to discuss the international transport of liquid bulk crude oil (§27). The committees may also invite any interested/affected parties from the U.S. and Canada. The date and time of this meeting is yet to be determined, and will definitely be something we are keeping an eye out for through the WA State Legislature Joint Meeting Schedule.

Potential Oil Terminals in Grays Harbor

Environmental groups have fought, and continue to fight, to keep the Pacific Northwest from becoming a major oil transport hub.  A coalition group called Stand Up To Oil was formed in association with Washington Environmental Council and continues working against increasing oil terminals in the state. Several groups, including Surfrider, were crucial in initiating an environmental review process for the Westway and Imperium oil terminals proposed in Grays Harbor.  The Draft Environmental Impact Statements for these terminals are now released to allow citizen involvement.

Stand Up To Defend Grays Harbor and the Washington Coast!

Want to make your voice heard?  Join Surfrider as we take action to keep Washington coasts and clean and healthy!

The 60-day public comment periods for the Westway and Imperium oil terminals is now open and will remain so until October 29- you can submit your comment here. There will be public hearings to address the Draft Environmental Impact Statements on October 1st in Elma and October 8th in Aberdeen.

Register your email on the right hand side of our website to receive newsletter updates for action opportunities. For more information, please contact WA Field Manager Brice Boland: bboland@surfrider.org or WA Policy Manager Gus Gates: ggates@surfrider.org

By Colleen Crotty - September 4, 2015

References

Dokouphil, T. “Oil Train Spills Hit Record Level in 2014.” NBC News. 26 Jan. 2015. 

H.B. 1449, 64th Legislature. (2015)(enacted).

Mapes, L. “Oil Train Derails in Interbay in Seattle, No Spills.” The Seattle Times. 24 July 2014. 

McHugh, K. “Weakened Oil Transportation Bill Set to Pass State Legislature in WA.” Washington Environmental Council. 24 April 2015. 

Washington Environmental Council (WEC)(2015). “Oil Transportation Safety”.