Casselton, N.D. train explosion in December.

OLYMPIA, Feb. 11.—Two bills that aim at public concern over oil-by-rail shipments and those ripsnorting mid-continent train explosions appear headed for a collision at the statehouse. But as legislative blowups go, there is something mighty strange about this one.

Senate and House face the same problem. The state really can’t regulate rail safety – that’s a federal matter. So the Senate bill does its best to fill in the gaps, launching studies, requiring contingency planning in case of disaster and providing money to train and equip hazardous-waste response crews. The House bill, written by a coalition of environmental groups, finds an even more creative solution. It attacks boats.

“They keep on talking about rail, but they keep aiming at tankers,” says State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale, sponsor of the Senate version of the bill. “I say we should address the emerging issue, which is rail, and that is where we are investing our time and resources.”

Environmental groups, meanwhile, say their approach is best – certainly that oil will be loaded on ships and barges when it reaches its destination. But the real problem seems to be that everyone seems to see a problem, and it’s one they can’t do much about. Seems like a classic case of an issue in search of a bill – and the race is on.

The House version, HB 2347, cleared the House Appropriations Committee on a mostly party-line vote of 18-12 Monday and appears headed for a vote on the House floor. The Senate version, SB 6524, got a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee Monday and appears headed for a committee vote today.

Shipments are Booming

As the Bakken field is developed in the Midwest, Washington is looking at the equivalent of a rather fat pipeline by rail – as much as 800,000 barrels a day, arriving by train at terminals along the Columbia River, Grays Harbor and the coast, for shipment to refineries on Puget Sound and in California. Meanwhile the rapid growth of Canadian oil fields is prompting a plan to triple the amount of oil that will be sent through the Trans Mountain pipeline to Vancouver, B.C., from there to be transferred to ships that will ply the waters of Puget Sound.

And boom is right, particularly as the lighter, more volatile Bakken crude is transported – as was discovered with tragic result in the town of Lac-Megantic in Quebec, where the explosion of a runaway oil-train last summer killed 47. In December a train collision near Casselton, N.D. offered a graphic depiction of the problem when photos and video of the ensuing fireball were disseminated nationwide. A third oil-train derailment in Philadelphia last month closed the busy Schuylkill Expressway, but no explosion took place.

That’s enough to whip towns along the line into a state of alarm – high among them the city of Spokane, whose council last week passed a resolution calling for more controls on rail shipments. Spokane City Councilwoman Amber Waldref reminded a Senate hearing last week that the Burlington Northern Santa Fe mainline passes through the heart of downtown. “I just dropped off my two-year-old this morning two blocks away – that’s where she goes to daycare, right by the rail line. An oil-train accident like what has occurred throughout the country, in Quebec, Philadelphia or North Dakota, would have disastrous consequences for the city of Spokane.”

House Bill Focuses on Shipping

Rep. Jessyn Farrell, D-Seattle.

For all the talk about rail safety, the House measure has an odd way of getting at the issue. Crafted by green groups and endorsed by the state’s influential Environmental Priorities Coalition, it appears only tangentially to deal with trains. Its main focus is on the maritime shipping of oil, a subject that consumed vast amounts of legislative time some two decades ago following the Exxon Valdez disaster. Oil-spill prevention launched a thousand news conferences, caused task forces to be formed, gave environmental groups a cause to rally around – and ultimately produced what lawmakers and interest groups of all stripes call one of the most stringent state regulatory programs in the country. New rules last year required tanker operators to make big investments in spill-response equipment and imposed planning requirements and other technical mandates.

Now environmental groups say it’s time to get tougher. Though federal rules preempt the state in sone areas, the latest version of the measure offers a broad grant of authority for the Department of Ecology to write rules for tugboat escorts on Puget Sound – meaning that it could require two tugs instead one of one. It also would be enabled to require tugs for vessels on the Columbia and in Grays Harbor. Other provisions would allow state regulators to write other rules for tanker conduct on state waterways. Basically, there would be no waiting for the Legislature to act. “The goal of the bill is to take action this year,” said state Rep. Jessyn Farrell, sponsor of the bill in the House.

Where rail is concerned, the House bill would require a study by Washington State University of oil-transport hazards. But the only direct effect on rail transport is a somewhat generic requirement that Washington-state refiners disclose the contents, routes and amounts of oil that is shipped to their facilities. Backers call it a community right-to-know initiative. Yet because of security concerns, rail-shipment plans would not be disclosed beforehand. Supporters say the information would be of value to emergency response crews; exactly how is unclear. Lobbyist Clifford Traisman, representing the Washington Environmental Council and the Washington Conservation Voters, said disclosure of rail-shipping after the fact would help communities understand “the new lay of the land as it relates to rail transport. There have been a lot of exploding trains around the region and the country. It is a scary proposition.”

Senate Bill Provides Money

State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale.

The Senate measure is considerably different – its focus is trains. Ericksen, chairman of the Energy, Telecommunications and Environment Committee, would launch two studies, one of rail and the other of maritime transportation, but there is no talk of new rules for tankers. Another key difference is that his measure provides money, $10 million, for a grant program for local emergency-response training and equipment. “We invest in rail safety on the ground – that’s something you don’t see in the other bill,” he says.

His bill also requires that regional contingency plans be developed along major rail lines, and it directs the Department of Ecology and the Utilities and Transportation Commission to convene a symposium on hazardous-material spill response and prevention. Ericksen, whose district includes the refineries of Cherry Point near Bellingham, argues that the state can’t ignore the issue, but its options are limited. “We all know the modes of transport are changing rapidly and they are changing now, and we need as legislators to get out on front on this and make sure we are making investments where they need to be made.”

Ericksen’s committee also has passed a memorial urging Congress to accelerate efforts to replace older crude-carrying rail tank cars with more robust tankers manufactured to more stringent standards adopted in 2011.

Maritime Operators Confused

Mike Moore, vice president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, says he wonders how the shipping industry found itself in the middle of this one. The House bill obviously tackles oil tankers and barges when rail appears to be the biggest concern. “If the question is about rail, then focus on what you want get answered about rail,” he said. As for the Senate’s maritime study, Moore says there seems to plenty of studying going on already, from agencies that range from the Coast Guard to the state Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Partnership. In the rush to pass a bill, there seems to be potential for plenty of overlap, he says.

“What questions are these bill really trying to answer?” he asks. “What is the driving factor here?”

Sounds like neither bill could be considered a finished product, and there will be plenty of dickering to do once each chamber passes its bills. Ericksen says he is dubious of the broad grants of authority to the Department of Ecology, particularly when it is unclear what the state ought to be doing with regard to maritime shipping; he says the Legislature should remain involved in any rewrite of shipping rules. The Western States Petroleum Association argues that the House measure does not provide enough safeguards for the confidentiality of rail-shipping information. And environmental groups’ hackles are raised by the funding source in Ericksen’s bill – the state Model Toxics Control Act account, funded by a hazardous substance tax that is paid largely by oil refiners. Though $400 million flows into the account every two years, environmental groups hope to keep that money earmarked for other programs they favor. Says Ericksen, “if you want to dedicate $10 million to a priority, we could easily get that from MTCA.”

Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.