Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 5, 2016)
10 CapitalPress.com February 5, 2016 Crude oil rules spill over to vegetable oil Rule hard for farm lobbyists to digest By DON JENKINS Capital Press OLYMPIA — A new state law rooted in the crude oil boom and fears of iery train derailments will create more regulations for hauling vege- table oils and animal grease, unless legislators intervene and amend a bill they passed last year. Legislators approved the multi-part oil-transportation bill following a study by the Washington Department of Ecology on the environmental and public dangers posed by an inlux of crude oil coming from the Bakken ields. Some provisions in the bill speciically addressed crude oil, but a section on planning for spills simply referred to “oils.” As a result, rail compa- nies that transport crude oil and non-petroleum oils, such as canola and sunlower oils, must have crews and equip- ment on standby to clean up spills, according to regulations proposed by the Washington Department of Ecology. DOE’s preparedness section manager, Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, said including vegetable oils makes sense and is what lawmakers intended. She noted that a warehouse ire last summer in Lewis County released vegetable oil into a creek and killed thou- sands of ish. “It sounds like a benign thing, but it can cause dam- age,” she said. The 75-page rule is being Capital Press photo The Washington Department of Ecology has proposed non-petro- leum oils, such as vegetable oil, be included in new transportation rules motivated by an inlux of rail tankers hauling crude oil through the state. circulated for public comment and is expected to take effect in November. DOE has not yet estimat- ed how much the regulations would cost rail operators, which would have to train to respond to spills and submit a response plan to the state. DOE has proposed that rule violations be punished by a $100,000 ine. Legislators have introduced bills in the House and Senate to exclude vegetable and ani- mal oils from the inal rule. One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Matt Manweller, R-El- lensburg, ridiculed extending the law to vegetable oils last week in a talk to port oficials. “I haven’t in my life en- countered a huge canola oil explosion, maybe in a popcorn facility,” he said. “I don’t think the agricultural community weighed in, thinking there wasn’t a realistic chance (veg- etable oil) was going to be reg- ulated the same way as crude oil.” The oil-safety bill last year went through many revisions and was passed late in the ses- sion. At one point, the legis- lation would have added new safety rules for transporting fertilizer, a provision that farm groups lobbied against and was removed. “I think we thought that transporting vegetable oil wouldn’t be affected,” Wash- ington Farm Bureau lobby- ist Scott Dilley said. “It’s not a hazardous substance. It’s something people eat.” Patrick Boss, a lobbyist for short-line railroads that trans- port agricultural goods, said he doesn’t blame DOE for in- cluding vegetable oils in the spill-planning rule, but that the regulations are unneeded. “I would say there is a big difference between a vegeta- ble oil spill and an oil spill,” Boss said. “There’s no doubt a vegetable oil spill could cause problems, but having it under a petroleum oil bill makes no sense.” Wildire bill calls for quick response by DNR Landowner scares off wolves that had surrounded dog Record-breaking fire season still burns By DON JENKINS Capital Press OLYMPIA — Washington’s mil- lion-acre wildire season has lawmakers again looking at the Department of Nat- ural Resources’ ability to help local ire districts stop small blazes from becom- ing large ones. Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark has asked lawmakers for an- other $24 million for training, equip- ment and ire prevention as soon as pos- sible. Some legislators, however, have asked pointed questions about how well the state is deploying what’s available now. The 1,005,423 acres that burned last summer far surpassed the record-set- ting 372,137 acres that burned in 2014. Fighting the ires cost the state $164 million. The cost increases to $343 mil- lion by adding the money spent by the federal government and tribes. Goldmark told legislators recently that the ires exhausted DNR’s capabil- ities. Some 47 states and Australia and New Zealand sent ireighters and equip- ment to help, he said. “I don’t want to continue to call peo- ple from afar. I want enough in-state, on-call resources to be able to fulill the state’s need,” he said. “By the time you get people from distant nations, the ires are big, and we don’t want big ires.” Lawmakers grilled Goldmark on DNR’s use of volunteers, crop dusters and bulldozers. Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wau- conda, sought assurance that DNR would use local residents to attack ires. He said some people with equipment have become discouraged because they haven’t been called upon to ight ires in their community. “It’s a huge tool in the rural part of the state, and I’m worried we’re losing them. I hope that’s a focus going for- ward, to make those people a big part of the effort,” Kretz said. Goldmark said DNR would accept the help. “I agree with you. We need every- body he can,” he said. “I’m totally in favor of using local resources.” After 2014’s severe ire season, law- makers passed legislation to improve By MATTHEW WEAVER Capital Press Don Jenkins/Capital Press Washington Public Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark, right, walks with Gov. Jay Inslee during a wildire itness test June 10, 2015, in Olympia. Goldmark has asked for $24 million to prepare for the upcoming ire season, but has faced questions from lawmakers about how well the Department of Natural Resources uses volunteers and works with local ire districts. coordination between DNR and local ire districts. The bill took effect too late for the 2015 ire season. A new proposal, House Bill 2596, would require DNR to answer requests for help from local ire agencies within 30 minutes. If DNR couldn’t send ire- ighters, local ire districts would be able to muster whatever resources they could at state expense. The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Mary Dye, R-Pomeroy, said ire districts would be able to get what they need to keep wildires from getting out of con- trol. The Washington Farm Bureau backed the bill Tuesday at a hearing held by the House Agriculture and Natural Resourc- es Committee. “Too many stories have been heard about how a delayed response led to a catastrophic ire that led to loss to lives, homes, pastures, orchards and sage grouse habitat,” the bureau’s govern- ment relations director, Tom Davis, said. “We need to do something to increase our rapid response capabilities.” DNR neither endorsed nor outright opposed the bill. Seamus Petrie, a lob- byist for the Washington Public Em- ployees Association, the union that rep- resents DNR ireighters, said the bill didn’t provide enough oversight over how state money is spent. Kretz said criticized the union’s op- position. “We’re all for getting on these things (ires) quick. Getting them out. Keep them small. And I really think there’s a lot of promise in this,” he said. After the meeting, committee chair- man Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, said lawmakers may need to both increase funding and make policy changes. “I think that after the two years we’ve had everyone realizes we have to step back and work together rather than point ingers at each other,” he said. A homeowner in northeast- ern Washington state used a ri- le to scare off ive wolves that had surrounded his dog, the state Department of Fish and Wildlife reported. Members of the Dirty Shirt wolf pack confronted a female Great Pyrenees at a home northeast of Chewlah, Wash., in Stevens County on Jan. 25. The resident, who was not identiied by the department, reported to the Stevens Coun- ty Sheriff’s Ofice that at least ive wolves surrounded his fe- male Great Pyrenees in a ield outside his home on Burnt Valley Road shortly after dark, according to wolf policy lead Donny Martorello. The resident and his wife became alarmed when the wolves approached the dog, according to the update. The wolves surrounded the Great Pyrenees and “there was pos- turing and jumping,” Martorel- lo stated. The owner’s other dog, a German Shepherd-mix, was nearby and also approached the group, according to the up- date. The man got his rile and ired two or three shots over the heads of the wolves and dogs. At that point, the wolves moved away from the house and the dogs went inside. Martorello said a drop of blood was found at the site, but the dogs were not injured. “We take it as a very serious incident,” Martorello told the Capital Press. “It’s one where wolves were very clearly on their private property. It could have turned out much worse if the owners of the dogs weren’t on site and able to haze that wolf away.” The incident occurred in the portion of the state where wolves are not listed as en- dangered under the feder- al Endangered Species Act. Given the imminent threat to the dogs, the dog owners had the right to shoot one of the wolves but did not, Martorel- lo said. The department conirmed four attacks between July 5 and 10 in which wolves from the Dirty Shirt pack killed livestock. The use of nonle- thal tactics seemed to stop ad- ditional attacks on livestock, Martorello said. The situation with the dogs “may be a bit different,” he said. Wolves and dogs view one another as “the same crit- ter” and “territorial disputes” occur. “Typically, when dogs and wolves come together in that kind of encounter, dogs are usually not able to defend themselves,” he said. “Wolves can easily injure or kill dogs. In this case, the owners did everything right and were able to keep that from occurring.” Martorello advises rural residents to be aware that wolves are keying in on sheep and cattle, which are present in smaller numbers during the winter. “Pay attention to tracks in the snow, any of those kinds of signs that tell you the wolves might be in that immediate vi- cinity,” he said. “If you have an encounter, please call us immediately.” Martorello said the depart- ment will continue to monitor the pack’s movements closely to determine if they are near pets or livestock. If so, the de- partment will tell landowners. “(We’ll) be as proactive as we can to avoid any further in- teractions,” he said. EEOC, Evans Fruit settle sex harassment cases By DAN WHEAT Capital Press 6-4/#4N YAKIMA, Wash. — One of the nation’s largest apple producers, Evans Fruit Co. of Cowiche, has agreed to pay $272,000 to 20 claimants to resolve sexual harassment and retaliation claims that were pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Ap- peals. The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, which iled the original civil lawsuit in June 2010, issued a news release claiming vic- tory, but the fruit company’s attorney called the settlement a “colossal failure” for the EEOC and Northwest Justice Project. The original lawsuit al- leged numerous women farmworkers were sexually harassed in company or- chards over several years. The EEOC won a temporary restraining order and prelim- inary injunction against Ev- ans Fruit and orchard man- ager Juan Marin for allegedly threatening and intimidating individuals who assisted in EEOC’s investigation. In September 2011, EEOC iled a second lawsuit alleg- ing retaliation against work- ers. The Northwest Justice Project represented retalia- tion claimants who joined in the suit. In April 2013, a U.S. Dis- trict Court jury found the EEOC failed to prove the allegations of sexual harass- ment in the irst suit and a federal judge subsequently dismissed the second suit. The EEOC then appealed them to the 9th Circuit. Evans Fruit was coni- dent it would have prevailed against the appeals but the settlement “was just too good a deal to pass up,” said Bren- dan V. Monahan, the Yakima attorney for Evans Fruit. EEOC dropped its appeals and other issues it had with Evans Fruit for the $272,000 for 20 claimants. It is far less than Evans Fruit would have spent had litigation contin- ued, Monahan said.
