States concerned about proposed Coast Guard rules’ impact on oil spill preparedness
Zack O’Leary, right, carries bags filled with oil-covered wood debris down a Vashon Island beach near Neill Point on Oct. 15, 2004 following an oil spill. As the U.S. Coast Guard moves to reassert its federal authority over maritime issues, officials in Washington, Alaska, Oregon and other states are alarmed by what it may mean for states’ rights in preparing for oil spills and regulating boats. — The Associated Press
By Phuong Le
The Associated Press
Print This | Email This
Most Popular this week
‘No one should have to die the way she did’: Daughter of woman brutally killed in Joyce home seeks justice
4th UPDATE: 2 reported dead in Marysville school siege — including shooter who was a homecoming king [Tomorrow's Clallam Bay game canceled.]
2ND UPDATE — Authorities lose track of high-risk child rapist during pursuit in woods south of Sequim
State officials in Washington, California and New York have asked the Coast Guard to withdraw rules it proposed in December.
They said the rules would limit the states’ role in protecting citizens from vessel accidents and pollution.
In December, the Coast Guard released proposed rules that outline a number of regulations that it said would override state and local law.
The proposal clarifies the Coast Guard’s federal authority over areas such as vessel safety and inspection, small passenger vessels and marine accident reporting, among matters.
But in comments to the federal agency, some state officials said the rules are too broad and sweeping.
The rules would interfere with or create confusion about state-specific laws regarding spill reporting, tug boat escorts or oil spill contingency plans, they said.
For example, Washington requires tug escorts for all tankers entering the Strait of Juan de Fuca and headed for Washington ports.
But under the proposed rules, the state would be prevented from requiring those escorts, said Maia Bellon, the state’s Ecology Director.
“This is not acceptable to protect our waters,” she said at a hearing last month.
In Alaska, officials are worried the proposal would take precedence over state regulations requiring tanker escorts for Prince William Sound.
The rules also create uncertainty about whether state-required oil spill contingency plans for tankers would be pre-empted by federal authority, Larry Hartig, commissioner of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation told the Coast Guard in a May letter.
The Coast Guard said it is simply restating its position and clarifying existing law, not creating new regulations.
Agency officials said they want to make clear to the public which existing regulations take precedence over state and local law.
“It doesn’t create any new regulations that impact the state’s ability to regulate and protect their waterways,” Capt. Jason Hamilton, staff judge advocate at the U.S. Coast Guard, said at a hearing in Seattle last month.
Many states such as Washington have passed additional requirements related to oil spills, including requiring that oil spills be reported immediately to state officials.
“The Coast Guard’s view of existing law fails to respect states’ rights, leaving states with little if any authority to exercise their historical police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens,” several California state officials told the agency in a May letter.
Environmental groups in Washington, Alaska and Massachusetts have raised concerns, but others said the proposal would bring needed clarity and predictability to maritime rules.
Skip Volkle, vice president and general counsel of Seattle-based Foss Maritime, the largest coastal tug and barge operator in the U.S., backed the Coast Guard’s position.
He said his company operates vessels on a daily basis that travel up and down the West and East coasts.
“We cannot engage in interstate commerce if every state gets to regulate what equipment has to be on our vessels, how long it has to be, how deep it can be, how wide it can be, what materials can be made,” he said at last month’s hearing.
Last modified: June 15. 2014 6:42PM