In Our View: Keep Focus on Oil Trains

While it might seem as though the news has been filled with a never-ending dialogue about oil trains, the reality of the danger involved calls for no end to the discussion. Until all precautions are exhausted, oil-train safety will remain near the top of our community’s list of concerns.

So it is that officials at the local, state, and federal levels have focused their attention on safety and on ways to limit the kinds of catastrophes that have been witnessed in many locales. Need a reminder? Well, in February, a 109-car oil train derailed and caught fire near Mount Carbon, W.Va., leaking oil into a river and burning a home to its foundation; last year, 15 cars derailed and sent flames skyward in Lynchburg, Va.; and, most notably, in 2013, a derailment and explosion in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killed 47 people. There have been others, as well, but the point has been made.

Because of that, it is notable that the National Transportation Safety Board this week issued recommendations calling for tank cars to be fitted with protective systems better able to withstand fire than the bare steel construction now widely in use, and that Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray of Washington have helped propose legislation to further strengthen safety regulations. As NTSB Chairman Christopher Hart said, “The longer we wait, the more we expose the public to the problems of these cars that aren’t especially robust.”

All of this is particularly relevant in Clark County in the wake of a proposed oil-by-rail terminal at the Port of Vancouver. State regulators are assessing the proposal and will forward a recommendation to Gov. Jay Inslee, who eventually will either approve or deny the application.

Fueled by an oil shale boom in North Dakota and Montana, the number of rail cars carrying crude oil in this country has ballooned from 9,500 in 2008 to 493,126 in 2014, leaving regulators and the oil and rail industries playing catch-up in dealing with safety concerns.

BNSF Railway, which operates the rail lines that run parallel to the Columbia River in Washington, last month announced another round of safety improvements. These include a speed limit of 35 mph for oil-bearing trains traveling through cities with more than 100,000 people, and increasing track inspections near waterways. How the speed limit helps protect residents in Camas, Washougal, and other small cities is unclear, but at least BNSF has noted the vast media attention given to the issue.

Yet while federal regulators and railroad operators are taking steps to appease public concern, the Washington Legislature has been derelict in its duties. Bills relating to train safety were introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate during the current session but have thus far failed to garner the necessary support. Most notable is a proposal for a 5-cent-a-barrel tax that would direct money toward cleanup in the event of an oil spill and would help to clarify the question of who pays for a disaster.

The inability of the Legislature so far to effectively address the most important issue facing Clark County residents — and to provide taxpayers with financial protection in the event of a catastrophe — points out the fact that much work remains when it comes to dealing with oil trains. Whether or not a terminal gets built in Vancouver, oil trains will travel through the area and will create an ever-present danger.

Given that reality, the discussion will continue until all protective measures have been enacted.