A recent article (“More oil train crashes predicted,” Feb. 23) by The Associated Press says it all: “The federal government predicts that trains hauling crude oil or ethanol will derail an average of 10 times a year over the next two decades, causing more than $4 billion in damage and possibly killing hundreds of people if an accident happens in a densely populated part of the U.S.”
Crude oil transport by rail must be stopped in New York state, immediately. In light of the report by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the recent crude oil train derailments and explosions in Illinois and West Virginia, state Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens and Gov. Andrew Cuomo can no longer hide behind the mantra that crude oil transport by rail is the federal government’s problem and the state has no authority in the matter.
The governor and commissioner are legally required to protect the health, safety, welfare and property of citizens. U.S. Sens. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., as well as Larry Mann, principal author of the Federal Railroad Safety Act, have publicly stated crude oil by rail is dangerous and potentially deadly. A summary abatement order by Martens to ban all rail transport of crude oil until it is proven that such transport is safe is well within Martens’ power.
The people cannot wait for another catastrophe before our leaders take action.
Dominick Calsolaro Albany Former Albany Common Council member
Since summer 2014, the League of California Cities has been carefully monitoring transport of crude oil and other hazardous materials by rail. Staff has researched this issue as part of an ongoing effort to educate our members, and to better advocate for improved rail safety.
To that end, the League has taken the following actions on this issue:
September 2014: Hosted a meeting on Oil by Rail, as part of the proceedings of the League’s Annual Conference in Los Angeles, to update members on recent state legislative and budgetary actions geared toward improving rail safety and improving first responder capability to address derailments involving hazardous materials
September 2014: Issued a Comment Letter to the Department of Transportation on the pending federal rulemaking on rail safety improvements. In that letter, the League called for improved information flow to, and improved training for, first responders, as well as requiring improved safety features for tank cars transporting crude oil, which had already been recommended by federal regulatory agencies.
October-November 2014: Held a series of educational webinars for League members (see links below). The goals of these webinars were to enhance members’ understanding of the transport of hazardous materials by rail generally, the extent of federal pre-emption of rail safety regulations, and the narrow remainder in which local governments are allowed to regulate. Finally, staff shared with League members the League’s draft policy for safety recommendations to help guide local advocacy efforts on this issue with federal agencies and the relevant federal representatives.
February 2015: Featured in Western City, the League’s monthly magazine, a cover article on this issue, entitled “A Growing Risk: Oil Trains Raise Concerns” by Cory Golden.
February 20, 2015: The League Board of Directors approved the draft Recommendations for Improved Rail Safety as the League’s official policy. These recommendations were based on common themes that arose in multiple state regulatory entities’ comment letters, including the Office of Emergency Services, the California Interagency Rail Safety Working Group, and the California Public Utilities Commission.
March 6, 2015: League of California Cities Executive Director Chris McKenzie issued a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, submitting ten key recommendations for improving rail safety based on the League’s newly adopted policy, and requested expedited action on their implementation. The letter emphasized that the requested changes be implemented as mandates, rather than recommendations to the relevant industries, that they be accompanied by hard deadlines, and finally, that they be included in the final rule for the Safe Transportation of Crude Oil and Flammable Materials currently under consideration by federal authorities.
Below are links to many of the items referred to above, as well as a sample letter for local jurisdictions to use in advocating to their federal elected officials and to Transportation Secretary Foxx.
A group of North Dakota legislators have introduced legislation aimed at gutting two of the state’s most significant regulatory decisions involving oil and gas. A bill could nullify requirements to ratchet down the massive wasteful flaring of natural gas and to impose standards to make crude oil less volatile before shipment by rail. It also would risk forfeiting $112 million in revenues during a two-year budget period. The question is why?
House Bill 1187, whose primary sponsor is Rep. Keith Kempenich, R-Bowman, is a naked attempt by a handful of legislators to override the executive function of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, comprised of the governor, attorney general and agriculture commissioner, all elected by voters statewide. Members of the Industrial Commission — after lengthy consideration and input from industry and the public — imposed regulations that will force industry to curb the massive, wasteful flaring of natural gas and to make crude oil less explosive.
Kempenich, in trying to justify his sweeping bid to weaken executive authority, complains that the Legislature was “left out of the loop” in decisions that are squarely before the North Dakota Industrial Commission as ultimate overseers of oil and gas. He glibly dismissed the flaring reduction goals — standards based on lengthy testimony with considerable input from industry — as “arbitrary,” and wants to make them go through a rule-making process that would involve lawmakers.
Where is the public clamor to roll back gas flaring? Halting progress on reducing flaring would cost an estimated $18.8 million per biennium in lost revenues. The state’s top staff regulator has said reaching the next tier of flaring reduction goals will be a “real stretch,” but officials say the Industrial Commission has leeway to grant flexibility in implementing its order, if deemed reasonable.
Where is the public outcry for softening standards to reduce the volatility of explosive Bakken crude oil? Not in Casselton, which last year dodged a massive explosion after an oil train derailment near the town. The order to “condition” oil before shipment carries an estimated cost of just 10 cents per barrel. But failure by the state to make oil safer for shipment could trigger more costly federal regulations that also could deprive the state of $93 million in revenues over a two-year budget cycle.
There is, of course, no public outcry to reverse either of these orders and send them through a legislative sideshow. Instead, Kempenich and his legislative accomplices have their ears attuned to the oil industry, which wants to exploit the drop in oil prices as an excuse to roll back sound regulations. The stewardship of North Dakota’s natural resources — and especially the safety of its citizens — shouldn’t be put in jeopardy. Lawmakers should kill Kempenich’s boondoggle.
A Republican proposal has already gotten a hearing, and a Democratic one is ready to roll.
By John Stang, January 15, 2015
Tank cars hours after they derailed under the Magnolia Bridge in Interbay. Bill Lucia
Two competing oil-train safety bills have come into quick play in the Washington Senate.
A Republican measure, proposed by Sen. Doug Ericksen of Ferndale, received a hearing on Thursday before the Senate Environment, Energy & Telecommunications Committee, which he chairs. Also on Thursday, Democratic Sens. Christine Rolfes of Bainbridge Island and Kevin Ranker of Orcas Island introduced a bill to cover what Gov. Jay Inslee wants to do.
A preliminary Washington Department of Ecology study, released late last year, said that rapid increases in the amount of oil moving by rail in the state require new measures to protect the public and the environment.
Both bills increase per-barrel oil taxes to cover emergency response and planning expenses. Rolfes’ bill would impose charges on both crude and refined oil, while Ericksen’s addresses solely crude oil. Rolfes’ bill requires advance notice to the state of crude and refined oil going by rail, pipe or ship. Ericksen’s bill does not have those provisions.
Ericksen’s bill pays considerable attention to mapping out oil-emergency response plans by region across the state. And the Ericksen measure has more detailed provisions about providing state grants to emergency-service responders.
Thursday’s hearing had railroad, port and oil representatives supporting Ericksen’s bill, while environmental groups contended it did not go far enough.
Bruce Swisher of the Sierra Club argued that the bills must make information about upcoming oil train shipments available to the public as well as emergency departments. “The communities, not just the first responders, need transparency about what goes through their communities,” Swisher said.
Johan Hellman, representing the BNSF Railroad, said the company spent $125 million on track and crossing upgrades in Washington in 2013 and another $235 million in 2014. The railroad has also trained roughly 4,000 first responders in Washington on dealing with train derailments, he said.
In a statement, Ericksen said, “We’re trying to identify the gaps in existing programs and fill them.”
In 2013 and 2014, the United States had four oil train accidents that produced fires — one in North Dakota, one in West Virginia and two in New England. Closer to home, three 29,200-gallon oil cars on a slow-moving train derailed without any spills or fire beneath Seattle’s Magnolia Bridge last July. Looming over this entire issue is a July 2013 oil train explosion in Quebec that killed 47 people.
The report by experts hired by the state Ecology Department mapped out the oil transportation situation in Washington and the United States. Nationally, the number of rail cars transporting crude oil grew from 9,500 in 2008 to 415,000 carloads in 2013. In 2013, 8.4 percent of oil arriving at Washington’s five refineries came by rail, although the report indicates that the volume of oil shipped by rail to the refineries here was insignificant until 2011.
