Tag Archives: Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF)

California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Hazmat notification

CAL Energy Commission workshop: ‘wake up call’ on crude by rail

Repost from The Contra Costa Times
[Editor: Significant quote for Benicia and others along the Union Pacific rail line: “Union Pacific Railroad Spokeswoman Liisa Lawson Stark said the company is not transporting any Bakken crude into the state, but it is bringing in other types of oil.”  – RS]

California trying to catch up to dangers of crude oil shipped on railroads

By Doug Oakley, Oakland Tribune, 06/25/2014

BERKELEY — California agencies have very little authority to regulate a massive increase in crude oil shipments by rail, and only now are they realizing the magnitude of the potentially explosive situation, according to state officials speaking Wednesday at a workshop sponsored by the California Energy Commission.

“It’s a wake up call when you look at the projections,” said commission Chair Robert Weisenmiller. “We have to plan for the worst case.”

Only in the last month, thanks to an order by the U.S. Department of Transportation, have railroads begun to disclose to the state Office of Emergency Services shipments of 1million gallons or more of highly flammable Bakken crude oil. Before that happened May 7, nobody knew anything about the shipments or where they were going, Weisenmiller said.

The Valero Refinery is seen in Benicia, Calif. on Monday, May 6, 2013. The Bay Area’s five refineries have moved toward acquiring controversial
The Valero Refinery is seen in Benicia, Calif. on Monday, May 6, 2013. The Bay Area’s five refineries have moved toward acquiring controversial Canadian tar sands crude through rail delivery. (Kristopher Skinner/Bay Area News Group)

Crude oil rail shipments have increased 506 percent in 2013 to 6.3 million barrels, according to a report by the state Interagency Rail Safety Working Group released June 10. That number could increase to 150 million barrels of oil in 2016, it said. Petroleum spills on railroads in California increased from 98 in 2010 to 182 in 2013, according to the Office of Emergency Services.

In California, crude goes by rail to the cities of Richmond, Sacramento, Bakersfield, Carson, Long Beach and Vernon, according to the energy commission.

The only thing state and local governments can do to try and prevent a catastrophic disaster is to enforce federal rules and prepare local first responders, officials said. The regulatory effort falls on the California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey.

“I’m not enthusiastic about having tens of thousands of tank cars running around California because accidents are inevitable,” Peevey said at the workshop. “There’s been a huge increase in volume and we have to step up our awareness and activities, in cooperation with the federal government, but the feds have the ultimate responsibility.”

The commission recently added seven rail safety inspectors who look at rail cars, railroad lines, bridges and shipping requirements, bringing the total to 59 inspectors statewide, which Peevey said was adequate for this year.

Peevey dismissed criticism that the PUC has been too easy on industry it is supposed to regulate, and assured the public it is up to the task.

“We’ve been pretty darn tough,” he said.

Weisenmiller said the state first needs to identify the areas most at risk for crashes and make sure the tracks are maintained. He acknowledged there is no way to prevent shipments from coming into the state, but the state can “get its act together and reach out to communities near rail lines and provide first responders with information and technical expertise,” so they can respond to an accident.

As the state tries to catch up and wrap its collective mind around the increased shipments, oil companies are attempting to add projects that would bring in more oil by rail.

Valero Refining Co. is planning on 100 cars per day to its Benicia facility by the first quarter of 2015; West Pac Energy is planning 70 cars per day to a facility in Pittsburg; Phillips 66 is planning a crude-by-rail project in Santa Maria that could bring shipments through the Bay Area; Alon USA is planning 200 cars a day in Bakersfield and Plains All American is planning for 200 cars a day in Bakersfield, according to the Oil by Rail Safety in California report.

Union Pacific Railroad Spokeswoman Liisa Lawson Stark said the company is not transporting any Bakken crude into the state, but it is bringing in other types of oil.

But Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway is bringing in nine full train loads of Bakken per month into California, said spokeswoman LaDonna DiCamillo. She did not know how many tank cars each train has or what the actual volume is.

Lawson Stark said that even though railroads are now required to report shipments of the highly flammable Bakken crude oil to the Office of Emergency Services, the information most likely will not be available to the public. A spokesman for the office did not immediately return phone calls.

Bakken Crude, California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Hazmat notification

California wants details on crude oil shipments by railroad

Repost from The Riverside Press Enterprise
[Editor: This Southern California newspaper regrets that rail routing information about its Inland Area has so far not been made available to first responders or the public.  Significant quote: “So far the Office of Emergency Services has received two letters from BNSF Railway, dated June 6 and 13, which say that one train carrying plains crude went through Sacramento County and eight other counties during the week of June 5 to 11, and none entered California during the previous week….Union Pacific submitted a letter May 29 to the state office, saying the company was ‘compiling and reviewing the data.’”    – RS]

California wants details on crude oil shipments by railroad

It’s unclear whether any oil trains have passed through the Inland area, but officials want to know so they can plan for possible accidents.
By David Danelski, June 26, 2014
A BNSF Railway train hauls crude oil near Wolf Point, Mont. Montana officials intend to release details next week on oil trains passing through the state despite efforts by railroads to keep the information from the public. FILE PHOTO: MATT BROWN , AP
A BNSF Railway train hauls crude oil near Wolf Point, Mont. Montana officials intend to release details next week on oil trains passing through the state despite efforts by railroads to keep the information from the public. FILE PHOTO: MATT BROWN , AP

Disclosures from railroad companies about volatile crude oil shipments from the Northern Plains are starting to be made public after the Obama administration last month ordered that such information be shared with states.

But so far only a trickle of details about the dangerous cargo has been shared with California’s emergency response agency. Initial information from one railroad showed that some of the oil has been shipped into Northern California.

“We are working with them to provide more information so our first responders can better prepare for accidents and derailments,” said Kelly Huston, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services.

It remains unclear whether any of the shipments of crude oil have passed through the Inland area

So far the Office of Emergency Services has received two letters from BNSF Railway, dated June 6 and 13, which say that one train carrying plains crude went through Sacramento County and eight other counties during the week of June 5 to 11, and none entered California during the previous week.

Union Pacific submitted a letter May 29 to the state office, saying the company was “compiling and reviewing the data.”

BNSF Railway spokeswoman Roxanne Butler said her company is complying with the federal order, which pertains only to crude shipments since May that have come from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana.

Most of the crude oil coming into California by rail is from Canada, according to 2013 state data.

Butler added that the railroad industry is sponsoring emergency response training in Colorado this summer for firefighters and other professionals who may have to deal with accidents involving trains hauling crude oil. Numerous emergency responders in California have signed up to participate, she said.

Railroad officials in the past have carefully guarded information about about toxic cargo shipments, including times and routes of tank cars loaded with potentially deadly chlorine and ammonia gases, citing security concerns. Such shipments routinely pass by Inland homes, schools and businesses.

In its two letters to the state, BNSF reiterated that crude oil shipment data should kept confidential and released only to “those people with a need to know.”

Huston said state attorneys determined that the BNSF information could be released to the public.

The letters were in response to U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx’s order last month requiring the nation’s railroads to provide states with information about crude shipments from the oil fields in the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana.

Crude oil from shale rock formations below the plains has been involved in most of the major rail accidents as the crude-by-rail industry rapidly expanded in the past several years, The Associated Press reported.

The AP learned this week from public records requests that dozens of the trains are passing weekly through Illinois and the Midwest and up to 19 a week are reaching Washington state.

Crude By Rail, State regulation

When a Public Hearing Isn’t for the Public; Oil Train Hearing in Spokane Leaves Public Frustrated

Repost from Huffington Post

When a Public Hearing Isn’t for the Public; Oil Train Hearing in Spokane, WA Leaves Public Frustrated

Bart Mihailovich, Spokane Riverkeeper   |   06/18/2014

Earlier this week, members of the Washington State Senate’s Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee held a public hearing on oil trains and oil transport safety in Spokane, WA in the Spokane City Council chambers at Spokane City Hall. The hearing was organized by Senators Mike Baumgartner (R-Spokane) and Doug Ericksen (R-Bellingham) who during last year’s legislative session proposed SB 6524 that called for more studies in regards to the safety of the transport of hazardous materials through the state. The bill was quite a bit weaker than a bill proposed by the Washington Environmental Priorities Coalition, and was often referred to as the industry bill.

The significance of such a hearing being held in Spokane shouldn’t be understated as these hearings are typically held in Olympia at the Capital, but also because of all the cities in the state of Washington, Spokane the greater Inland Northwest are significantly more at risk to an increase in oil trains due to the proximity and quantity of rail lines through the community.

Spokane Riverkeeper, and many others in attendance, attended the hearing with a goal of hearing from Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen about their bill and any possible (or hopeful) changes that they may be thinking going forward, and to testify concerns about the aforementioned bill for not being strong and specific enough, and to testify general and / or specific concerns about Bakken crude oil trains traveling through Spokane and surrounding communities.

Little did many of us in attendance know, though I suppose we should have expected, that Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen planned an extremely frustrating two hours of stalling and industry speak with very little public testimony and barely any mention of Spokane and the impacts shipping crude oil poses to Spokane and surrounding communities.

Representatives from the North Dakota Petroleum Council and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) took up roughly 100 of the 120 minutes of the hearing with occasional questioning and comments from other members of the Senate committee. And with those questions, industry rarely answered with specifics and almost always pivoted away to comfortable talking points.

Frustrations from those in attendance in the Council Chambers started appearing almost immediately as the rep from the North Dakota Petroleum Council went very deep in to a PowerPoint presentation disputing claims about Bakken crude oil is more flammable or more dangerous using complicated slides and numbers about flash points and chemistry factors.

Spokane City Councilman Jon Snyder took to Twitter to express frustrations: [jonbsnyder@jonbsnyder  State Senate hearing on Oil Trains in Spokane: more of a chemistry lesson than a safety discussion. Thx @andybillig for good questions.  11:11 AM – 17 Jun 2014]

At one point during the extremely long, boring and not particularly on topic presentation from the oil industry, Senator Mike Baumgartner spoke up and asked for the rep to speak in layman’s terms and say yes or no, Bakken Crude oil is more flammable and more dangerous than other types of products. To which the rep responded, “no, it’s the same”, and which also provided the Republican Senate staffer who was live Tweeting the hearing a very likable and shareable tweet to attribute to Senator Baumgartner who conveniently enough is in the midst of a reelection campaign. More on this convenient irony later.

But more importantly, the claim that Bakken crude is not as dangerous is not only controversial, but also on the wrong side of not only public perception but regulatory movement, as can be seen in a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announcement from earlier this year.

Next up were a few suits from BNSF who spent most of their time lauding investments that BNSF is or has made to make their company and their equipment safer, for themselves, and little or no time talking about how to make Spokane or surrounding communities safer.

Then the kicker was BNSF often repeating that 2013 was their safest year to date, when in fact it was wildly reported earlier this year that more oil was spilled in 2013 from BNSF trains than the previous 38 years total.

With the 18 minutes that were left in the hearing, members of the public, those with persistence, were given an opportunity to speak to the Committee and those who spoke almost all testified to concerns for shipping dangerous Bakken crude through Spokane and the Inland Northwest, especially given the litany of recent oil train accidents and the increasing and louder call for more transparency, more safety and more certainty. A recap of concerns can be found via this news article from The Spokesman-Review.

If this truly was a hearing for Spokane, by Spokane, we most certainly would have seen, and would have been right to expect to see presentations or statements from various response or regulatory agencies in the area who would be responsible if something were to happen in Spokane. Nowhere or at no time did we hear from any of those agencies or representatives. Which leads me to conclude that this was never intended to be any more than a highly politicized campaign opportunity for two Senators in heated reelection bids.

Yes, it was a big deal, or could have ben a big deal that the Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee came to Spokane for this hearing. But I couldn’t help to think that right off the bat the whole thing was stacked against the public. The hearing was at 10:30 a.m., a very difficult time for members of the public and concerned citizens to participate . I found it funny that Senator Baumgartner used his welcome address to say, “this is good for Spokane as many folks here find it difficult to travel to Olympia to participate in the process like this.”. To which I would say, Senator Baumgartner, this hearing didn’t make anything easier. A quick glance around the Council Chambers also showed that there were far more more lobbyists, industry staffers, and other “paid to be there” attendees than members of the public.

Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen are both very savvy politicians. Oil train shipments through Spokane and the state of Washington is a very heated issue. Their bill last year was an industry bill at best, offering nothing more than more studies and more hearings and little in the way of what residents of this state want which is transparency, safety and some level of assurance. Being their both in reelection mode, having this hearing in Spokane, completely loaded with industry jargon to stall and delay public concerns gave them an opportunity to look like the good guys who are tackling an issue that the constituents want them to. Having the state Senate Republican party there live Tweeting the event to make it look like Baumgartner and Ericksen were getting to the bottom of the public’s concerns was almost too good to be true.

And you know what, it worked. Coverage of the hearing was picked up by news outlets around the state and the region, and all of the coverage painted Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen as the leaders of the concerns. When in fact it was the mere 18 minutes of testimony from the public and questions from other members of the Senate committee that elevated the concerns and asked the questions important to Spokane.

Amazing how much influence the public had with 18 minutes. Imagine if this really was a public hearing.