To: Interested Parties
Fr: Dan Leahy
Re: Inslee's Draft Marine and Rail Oil
Report: A Study in Mis-direction.
I've waded through the October 1st
draft of Governor Inslee's study. I do find it extremely insulting
that there is no mention of the significant statewide municipal,
community, farm, union and tribal opposition to his proposed oil
terminals, expanding oil refineries, explosive oil trains and the
misuse of our public ports.
I've come to believe that the only
force capable of saving our land, labor and commonly held resources
is an alliance of sovereign tribes, organized labor, farmer unions
and community based resistance groups working in concert with their
local governmental jurisdictions.
Hopefully the Spokane and Olympia
hearings on the 28th and 30th will build
toward this alliance.
How Can Inslee's Study be Used?
The study can be an opportunity to
create a love fest for the “beleaguered green governor” who
pleads that he has no authority to regulate rail and wants us to back
a doomed legislative agenda to expand agency study budgets while oil
terminals get approved, oil refineries get expanded, and our rail
system is turned into a permanent carbon corridor for the export of
Alberta tar sands and Bakken crude.
Or, the study can be an opportunity to
present a sharp critique of Inslee's refusal to support community
demands by opposing state sponsored oil terminals, expanding
refineries and a state bureaucracy collaborating with BNSF's mission
to export through our public ports global pollution from the broken
earth of Northern Alberta and North Dakota.
What's the purpose of Inslee's
Study?
Mis-direction. It defines the
problem as a federal issue and calls upon the US Coast Guard and the
Federal Railroad Administration to do something. The USCG actually
regulates marine traffic, but the FRA is an industry dominated entity
with the current capability of inspecting less than 1% of rail
activity and a policy of imploring railroads rather than regulating
them. Calling upon the FRA to
regulate rail would be like calling upon BNSF's owner Warren Buffett
to stop making money. It's not what they do.
Worse,
the study's authors wait until the very end of the report (p. 82)to
tell us that “... the potential ways in which the crude by rail
system and the increase in port activities with new facilities
affects tribal treaty rights, the environment and the regional
economy” are “ancillary”and not the “direct topic” of the
study.
This
study process is attempting to cap the direction of our movement and
trade our future for a false climate agenda based on mitigating at
the margins.
The same state agency who on Inslee's
watch issued declarations of non-significance for two of the three
proposed oil terminals at Grays Harbor, Inslee's Department of
Ecology. Community groups had to overturn the Ecology's ecology.
His Department of Ecology then hired a
BNSF “Senior Citizens Club” (Mainline Management, Inc.) as the
study's only rail consultant where all three principals and all three
associates had long corporate careers with BNSF. By the way, the
BNSF which is the dominant Class I railroad in this state, is only
mentioned twice in the entire study.
The same administration, Inslee's,
whose Department of Transportation, State UTC, Freight Mobility
Strategic Investment Board and Community Economic Development Board
implement programs with BNSF as one of its main beneficiaries and to
the detriment of expanded and current passenger service.
This Department of Ecology and the
administration that appointed it has less integrity than the BNSF
consultants they hired.
What's the Main Refrain of the
Study?
The phrase, “for
decades”, really stuck with me. I think the study's authors are
trying to tell us all this risk is normal so there is no particular
reason to get upset.... it's just some new risks.
“Tribal risks from spills currently
exist in all areas of the state and have for decades.” (36)
“The environmental risks from spills
already existed in all areas of the state for decades.” (38)
“While diluted bitumen has been
transported into Washington for decades,” (38)
“The socio-economic risks from oil
spills has already existed in all areas of the state for
decades.” (40)
But, of course,
the scale of extraction of these “non-conventional” crudes has
NOT been happening for decades nor have we experienced the consequent
level of threat to our communities, our natural and treaty resources
and our economic infrastructures. Inslee's study assumes all this
extraction and transportation can be mitigated. They refuse to
exercise the precautionary principle in the face of existing
catastrophic consequences. The study's authors need to visit downtown
Lac Megantic or watch the film, Petropolis, showing the devastation
from the Alberta tar sands.
What's the Study's Value?
It indirectly Supports the Demand
for an Immediate Moratorium on Crude by Rail. The study lists in
excruciating detail how totally exposed everyone in this state is to
the explosive danger of the existing crude by rail traffic.
The Washington State Council of Fire Fighters is right. We
need an immediate halt to this oil train traffic.
“Nearly 3 million Washington state
residents live in 93 cities and towns on or near crude by rail
trains routes” (or, as we would say, are in the “blast zone.”)
(30)
“Current tank car placarding
standards for the transportation of hazardous materials are
insufficient in providing First Responders timely and important
information. “ (51)
“None of the current crude by rail
are subject to requirements for comprehensive response plans,”
“Railroad spills are not currently
covered by state approved oil spill contingency plans (67)
“Washington has not established
financial responsibility levels for facilities which include both
fixed and mobile facilities and rail as a facility. (68)
“The current state regulatory
definition of oil may not include certain heavy oils, diluted
bitumen, synthetic crudes, and other crude oils produced in Canada
that are transported in Washington. (68)
“Currently, the state does not have
means to gather information on the type or volume of oil being
shipped through Washington.” (69)
62% of the state's 278 fire districts
“believe that their departments are not sufficiently trained or do
not have the resources to respond to a train derailment accompanied
by fire.” (70)
An overwhelming majority of first
responders surveyed “are not aware of the response strategies or
resources in place by railroads should an incident take place.”
(71)
There is “not a comprehensive
inventory of the equipment location that would aid in locating and
sharing equipment when it is needed.” (72)
“Training for first responders in
Washington State is currently insufficient and is not uniformly
coordinated, and what training is currently available is at risk of
reduction due to reduced federal grants. (72)
A Geographic Response Plans for oil
spills to water “have not been developed for most of the rail
corridors through which crude by rail trains are transiting....”
(73)
I had a conversation with a person
several months ago who described the small Lewis county rail towns of
Vader, Winlock and Napavine as “sacrifice zones.” More recently
I drove the BNSF track in Eastern Washington. I now think the rail
towns of Cheney, Sprague, Ritzville, Lind, Hatton, Connell and Mesa
are also “sacrifice zones.”
Increasingly, I've come to believe that
our entire state is being made a sacrifice zone to the extractive
madness of the big oil and that the state government is currently
facilitating its creation. I just don't think they will get away with
it as long as our movement stays grounded and building.
PO Box 602
Olympia, Washington 98507
No comments:
Post a Comment