Tag Archives: Hazmat notification

Tacoma Editorial: Washington should impose per-barrel fees like California

Repost from The News Tribune, Tacoma, Washington

Paying to protect ourselves from North Dakota crude

EDITORIAL, The News Tribune, July 1, 2014
Tank cars loaded with crude oil head east at Hurricane, West Virginia, on May 11. Oil trains have become an increasingly common sight traveling through South Sound communities – and their numbers are projected to continue growing. CURTIS TATE — MCT

There’s good news about the explosive oil tankers rolling through our communities: We can finally find out what the bad news is.

Until Tuesday, the public knew only that the state had suddenly become a magnet for thousands of antique tanker cars, each filled with 680 barrels of volatile crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken region.

We’ve all seen them: huge black tanks topped with what look like black caps. Their design is a half-century old. The National Transportation Safety Board has been yelling for years about their tendency to split open and explode in crashes.

Federal regulators finally took the risk seriously after one oil train — more or less identical to countless others — exploded in Quebec last year and incinerated 47 human beings.

The new gusher of North Dakota crude has sent a storm surge of tankers across the continent. The rail industry and some states haven’t been eager to tell the public where the trains are going and how many there are.

One particularly specious claim is the information might fall into the hands of terrorists — as if any terrorist with time on his hands couldn’t simply stand by the track in a given locale and count.

The U.S. government last month declared that the train movements aren’t state secrets. Washington state’s emergency preparedness people last week released the details. In Pierce County, for example, BNSF Railway is currently moving 11 to 16 major oil trains through University Place, Tacoma and other communities.

The typical train pulls about 100 cars. Trains that pull fewer than 35 or so aren’t reported. Keep in mind: Shipments are still curving up. In 2011, zero crude was sent to Washington refineries by rail. In 2013, that zero had grown to 29 million barrels.

It’s crucial that the public have this information. Without it, we couldn’t assess either the threat or the preventive measures.

BNSF appears to be trying to get ahead of the problem. (As common carriers, railways are legally obligated to carry oil trains.) It is upgrading its tracks aggressively and is funding training for the state’s first responders.

Railway companies don’t normally deploy cars of their own, but BNSF is buying a small fleet of modern, much-safer oil tankers. Credit where it’s due.

Washington is reacting to the surge faster than the federal government did. This year’s Legislature appropriated nearly $1 million to develop response plans. State agencies are on task.

Unfortunately, lawmakers failed to take one obvious step: imposing a per-barrel fee on rail-borne oil, as California does and as this state already does with the seaborne crude that arrives at our refineries. As a result, taxpayers are footing the bill for much of the emergency preparation.

Heaven knows how many oil barons and CEOs are enriching themselves by rolling these potential bombs through our cities. It’s galling that we have to pay to protect ourselves from them.

Sacramento Bee editorial: First steps on oil train safety, but more to do

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: The Bee’s editorial board hit the nail on the head, but not hard enough.  Which is to say, the editors have joined with the chorus of legislators who want a good patch job for train wrecks that they presume are unstoppable.  Oil train safety would be best guaranteed by pressing the federal government to ban oil trains.  Allowing these “bomb trains” to rumble through our communities approaches criminal recklessness, and should be stopped.  Big business does not – or at least should not – dictate the direction we take as a nation.  – RS]

Editorial: First steps on oil train safety, but more to do

By the Editorial Board   |  Jun. 19, 2014
G092G6L04.3Staff Photographer
Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento announced legislation in April to require more disclosure to emergency officials of oil shipments by rail. Randall Benton

These are not all the steps that are needed, but it’s good to see the Legislature trying to get ahead of a potential (oil) train wreck.  As part of the budget they approved Sunday, legislators added seven rail safety inspectors. They also included a 6.5-cent fee proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown on each barrel of crude oil that comes to California by rail. The $11 million or so raised annually will be used to prevent and clean up oil spills, especially in inland waterways.

On Monday, the state Senate passed a resolution urging the federal government to pass laws and rules to protect communities from oil train accidents, including tougher standards on tank cars, and to put “safety over cost effectiveness.” That sends an important message because so far, federal officials have not required enough of railroads and oil companies – either in safety measures or public disclosure – to keep pace with a rapid increase in rail shipments of oil extracted through hydraulic fracturing, especially in Canada and North Dakota.

But there’s more that California officials can do.

Sens. Jerry Hill of San Mateo and Lois Wolk of Davis have a bill for a second as-yet unspecified shipping fee on oil companies to fund training and equipment for firefighters and other first responders. A recent state report found that 40 percent of local firefighters are volunteers who generally don’t have the resources to handle major hazardous material spills.

First responders often don’t have all the information they need, either, as reporting by The Sacramento Bee has made clear. Assemblyman Roger Dickinson of Sacramento is pushing a bill to require companies to tell emergency officials about crude oil shipments. The latest version does away with an exemption from the state public records law; instead it says reports would be deemed “proprietary information” that could only be shared with “government personnel with emergency response, planning or security-related responsibilities on a need-to-know basis.”

Time is of the essence since oil trains could be running through the Sacramento region later this year. Valero Refining Co. is seeking approval to route two 50-car oil trains a day through Roseville, Sacramento, West Sacramento and Davis to its refinery in Benicia.

An environmental impact report released Tuesday offers some reassurances but no guarantees. The draft report concludes that while a crash or spill could be catastrophic, the likelihood of an incident is “very low.” The probability of a spill of 100 gallons or more along the 69 miles between Roseville and Benicia is calculated at once every 111 years.

Yet, it has happened elsewhere – six major oil train crashes in North America just in the last year, including the horrific fireball in Quebec that killed 47 residents.

More than 135,000 people in Sacramento and 25,000 in Davis live within a half-mile of rail tracks, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported Wednesday. They’re counting on legislators to do all they can to make sure oil trains pass safely through our cities.