Category Archives: Hazardous cargo transparency

Report shows increase in Central Oregon oil trains

Repost from The Bulletin (Serving Central Oregon)
[Editor: Significant quote: “The company’s (BNSF) most recent report shows a change in data format.  In the first two reports, BNSF reported the actual number of trains passing through Central Oregon during a specific week. While the new report still focuses on a specific week, the company is now giving a estimated number of oil trains.”  – RS]

Report shows increase in Central Oregon oil trains

BNSF: 100-car Bakken trains passing through Bend

By Dylan J. Darling / The Bulletin / Oct 14, 2014 

While a state-released report by BNSF Railway about the number of large Bakken crude oil trains passing through Central Oregon shows a potential notable increase, a company spokesman said Monday the actual number of trains is less than detailed in the report.

Following relatively new federal rules about reporting oil trains, BNSF Railway Co . sent a Sept. 30 report to the Oregon Office of the State Fire Marshal showing that an estimated zero to three oil trains carrying more than 1 million gallons of crude oil each pass through Deschutes and Jefferson counties per week.

A report earlier this year showed one such train passed through Central Oregon weekly.

“The real number is one every 12 days,” said Gus Melonas, spokesman for BNSF. That works out to three or four of the trains per month going through Redmond, Bend and beyond. He said the trains are carrying the oil to refineries in California.

The trains going through Central Oregon and the Columbia River carry crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota, oil that has proved to be more volatile than other crude oil. Bakken oil train derailments have led to dramatic explosions in Canada and North Dakota. Last May, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency order requiring railroads to provide information to state emergency responders about large train shipments of Bakken oil.

The BNSF rail route through the Gorge, bringing crude oil to refineries near Portland and in Washington, sees two to three oil trains per day, Melonas said. He said the route through Bend is “not a high volume line.”

The reporting rules pertain to trains carrying 1 million or more gallons of crude oil, the equivalent of about a 35-car train.

“If they have a train carrying less than a million crude, they don’t have to report it at all,” Rich Hoover, community liaison for the Office of State Fire Marshal, said Monday.

Melonas declined to give details on whether there are trains carrying less than a million gallons of crude oil rolling through Central Oregon, citing security and customer information concerns. If there were, he said, the oil cars would be hauled with cars carrying other commodities.

“We don’t put out specifics,” he said.

Each time a railroad company has an increase or decrease of 25 percent or more in the number of trains passing through an area, the rules require it to send a report to the state. Since May, BNSF has sent three reports to Oregon.

The company’s most recent report shows a change in data format. In the first two reports, BNSF reported the actual number of trains passing through Central Oregon during a specific week. While the new report still focuses on a specific week, the company is now giving a estimated number of oil trains.

Hoover said the state goes by what the company states in its reports , which the Office of State Fire Marshal posts to its website.

“What you see and read is exactly how much we know,” he said.

Melonas described the trains traveling through the region as “unit trains,” meaning they haul one commodity, and each train has about 100 tanker cars. The trains hold 70,000 to 80,000 barrels of crude oil each, or about 2.94 million to 3.36 million gallons of crude oil.

Concerned about the possible catastrophic results of an oil train derailment, Sally Russell, Bend city councilor, said it is a good thing the railroad is having to supply information to the state.

“Knowledge and the ability to response and react are critical,” she said.

If the number of large oil trains passing through Central Oregon is going up, it means the potential for a situation necessitating an emergency response is increasing, Bill Boos, deputy chief of fire operations for the Bend Fire Department, said Monday.

He said he’d like to have information on oil trains, large and small, rolling through Bend.

“It would be nice to know if there were smaller quantities coming through and if that was increasing,” he said.

While concerned about the dangers of train derailment and fire in towns, Michael Lang, conservation director for Portland-based Friends of the Columbia Gorge, also worries about the risks of an oil spill into the Deschutes River. The rail line through Central Oregon follows the river north of Bend. Along with towns, the large oil trains pass through a section of designated Wild and Scenic River.

“It’s not safe,” Lang said. “It endangers our communities, it endangers our environment. … And we are really concerned about it.”

Norfolk Southern sues to block disclosure of crude oil shipments

Repost from McClatchy DC

Norfolk Southern sues to block disclosure of crude oil shipments

By Curtis Tate, McClatchy Washington Bureau, July 24, 2014 
A Norfolk Southern crude oil train barrels east through Columbia, Pa., on March 22, 2014. The train runs parallel to the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania and Maryland on its way to the PBF Energy refinery in Delaware City, Del. On Wednesday, the railroad sued the state of Maryland to prevent the disclosure of information about the shipments, including their routes and frequencies. McClatchy and the Associated Press had requested the documents through the state Public Information Act. CURTIS TATE — McClatchy

— A major hauler of crude oil by rail has sued the state of Maryland to stop the public release of information about the shipments, according to court documents.

The suit was filed Wednesday, the same day the U.S. Department of Transportation announced proposed rules to improve the safety of crude oil shipments by rail. Several serious oil train accidents resulting in spills, fires and fatalities have increased scrutiny on the industry.

Rail companies prefer to keep details about crude oil shipments confidential and some states have agreed, but others have decided that the records can be made public.

Several states – including California, Washington, Illinois and Florida – have fulfilled open records requests from news organizations and others. Though rail companies didn’t want the information made public, none had pursued a legal challenge to block its release.

The Maryland suit, triggered by a state Public Information Act request from McClatchy and the Associated Press, appears to be the first time a railroad has gone to court over the issue.

Norfolk Southern, a major Eastern rail company based in Norfolk, Va., filed the suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to seek a temporary restraining order and a permanent injunction to prevent the release of the information the two news organizations requested.

The Maryland Department of the Environment had given the railroad until Thursday to challenge its decision to release the information. In a letter to McClatchy, the department wrote that it expected a similar lawsuit from CSX, a rival Eastern rail carrier.

Norfolk Southern declined to comment.

In May, following a series of derailments that involved crude oil from North Dakota’s Bakken shale region, the USDOT required rail companies to notify state emergency management officials about shipments of 1 million gallons or more of Bakken oil within state borders.

The notifications were intended primarily to help fire departments better prepare for potential derailments. Railroads asked state officials to sign confidentiality agreements _ citing concerns about security and competition _ and initially, the USDOT advised states to comply.

But in response to numerous state open-records requests, the department eventually conceded that no federal law protected the information from public disclosure.

According to the suit filed by Norfolk Southern, Thomas Levering, the director of emergency preparedness and planning for the Maryland Department of the Environment, signed such a confidentiality agreement May 28.

McClatchy filed a Public Information Act request for the information on June 10.

On June 13, the railroad received a letter from the office of Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler voiding the confidentiality agreement. It said Levering had “no legal authority” to sign the agreement and that it was in conflict with the state open records law. Gansler’s office declined to comment for this story.

On June 27, Norfolk Southern sent a letter objecting to the attorney general’s claims. The railroad argued that the crude oil shipment information enjoyed “mandatory protection” under state law because it contained “confidential commercial information.”

The railroad also wrote that state law protects information that could “jeopardize the security of a facility or facilitate the planning of a terrorist attack.”

The federal government has nearly sole jurisdiction over rail transportation and transportation security, and neither the USDOT or the Transportation Security Administration considers information about crude oil shipments by rail “security sensitive.”

The Norfolk Southern suit provides a glimpse of the rail industry’s thinking on the issue. In an affidavit that accompanies the injunction request, the railroad concedes that much of the information in the crude oil notifications is already publicly available.

Michael McClellan, Norfolk Southern’s vice president for industrial products, wrote that information about rail lines and the customers they serve is available from various sources, including rail enthusiast websites and the railroads themselves.

He also noted that information about the processing capacity of oil refineries and rail terminals can be found on Wikipedia. But he said specific knowledge about crude oil routes and volumes would give an advantage to the railroad’s competitors, including other train lines, as well as trucking, pipeline and marine vessel operators, potentially reducing Norfolk Southern’s market share.

In another affidavit, Carl Carbaugh, the railroad’s director of infrastructure security, wrote that terrorist Internet postings and publications have identified the U.S. freight rail network as a potential target.

Carbaugh wrote that “understanding where and when trains operate is difficult to discern without routing information or knowing type and volume of commodity shipped,” and publicizing such details “undercuts an inherent strength” in the industry’s risk profile.

But he also conceded that it’s impossible to build a fence around 250,000 miles of track across the country. The biggest security problem most railroads face is from trespassers and theft of consumer goods from stopped trains.

Of the roughly 16 major derailments involving shipments of crude oil or ethanol since 2006, none was the result of a terrorist attack. Though some of those accidents are still under investigation, most were caused by mechanical failure or human error.

Senator Wolk wants more timely disclosure of crude-by-rail information

PRESS RELEASE – CALIFORNIA SENATOR LOIS WOLK
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 25, 2014, Contact: Melissa Jones

Senator responds to delayed release of report on crude-by-rail shipment

Wolk urges timely disclosure to state, communities to aid planning and response

SACRAMENTO—State Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) pressed for timely disclosure of crude oil shipments by railroad shipping companies, following today’s release by the State Office of Emergency Services of a report disclosing a shipment of 1 million gallons or more crude oil through Northern California by BNSF Railway, the largest crude-by-rail transporter, earlier this month.

BNSF’s June 13th disclosure of an earlier shipment followed an order last month by the U.S. Department of Transportation that railroads must begin sharing information about large shipments of crude oil with state and local officials. The federal order denied longstanding claims by railroads that this information should remain confidential, claiming the information includes “proprietary and confidential trade” secrets and poses security concerns.

“While I applaud the Office of Emergency Services’ release of BNSF Railway’s after-the-fact disclosure of a crude-by-rail shipment through nine Northern California counties earlier this month, what the public wants and what local responders need is information regarding future shipments of crude oil by rail, in order to better prepare any necessary response in the event of any potential accident or mishap with this hazardous cargo,” said Wolk. “I call on the federal and state government to require railroads to provide advance notice regarding hazardous material shipments through our communities.”

To aid planning and response by local governments to increasing shipments of these dangerous materials, Senator Wolk is authoring legislation (SB 506) with Senator Jerry Hill to provide funding to help communities like Benicia provide adequate emergency response to accidents and spills involving rail transports of crude oil and other hazardous materials.

###

Feds: Oil train details not security sensitive

Repost from Associated Press

Feds: Oil train details not security sensitive

By Matthew Brown  |  Jun. 18, 2014

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — U.S. transportation officials said Wednesday that details about volatile oil train shipments are not sensitive security information, after railroads sought to keep the material from the public following a string of fiery accidents.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has ordered railroads to give state officials specifics on oil-train routes and volumes so emergency responders can better prepare for accidents.

Railroads have convinced some states to sign agreements restricting the information’s release for business and security reasons.

But the Federal Railroad Administration determined the information is not sensitive information that must be withheld from the public to protect security, said Kevin Thompson, the agency’s associate administrator.

Thompson added that railroads could have appropriate claims that the information should be kept confidential for business reasons, but said states and railroads would have to work that out.

Montana officials said they intend to publicly release the oil-train information next week.

The move is mandated under the state’s open records law and will help protect public safety by raising community awareness, said Andrew Huff, chief legal counsel for Gov. Steve Bullock.

“Part of the whole reason the federal government ordered that this information be given to states is to protect the communities through which these trains roll,” Huff told The Associated Press. “If there’s not some federal pre-emption or specific regulation or statute that prevents release of this information, then under our records laws we have to release it.”

Washington state officials also have said the oil-train details should be made public under state law. Last week, they gave railroads 10 days to seek a court injunction challenging the release of the information.

An oil-train derailment and explosion in Quebec last July killed 47 people. Subsequent derailments and fires in Alabama, North Dakota, Virginia and New Brunswick have drawn criticism from lawmakers in Congress that transportation officials have not done enough to safeguard against further explosions.

In response to the accidents, Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said in last month’s order that railroads must provide the details on routing and oil-train volumes to states. The order covered trains hauling a million gallons of oil or more from the Bakken region of North Dakota, Montana and parts of Canada.

The Bakken’s light, sweet crude is more volatile than many other types of oil. It’s been involved in most of the major accidents as the crude-by-rail industry rapidly expanded during the past several years.

Some states have agreed to requests from BNSF Railway, CSX and Union Pacific to keep the information confidential after the railroads cited security concerns. Those include California, New Jersey, Virginia, Minnesota and Colorado.

Officials in New York, North Dakota and Wisconsin said they still were weighing whether restrictions on the information would violate state open-records laws.

State officials who questioned the confidentiality agreements sought by the railroads have said the notifications about oil trains were not specific enough to pose a security risk.

BNSF — the main carrier of crude oil in many western states — was notified late Tuesday of Montana’s intentions. A representative of the Texas-based company had said in a June 13 letter that BNSF would consider legal action if Montana moved to release the details on oil shipments.

“We must be cognizant that there is a real potential for the criminal misuse of this data in a way that could cause harm to your community or other communities along the rail route,” wrote Patrick Brady, BNSF’s director of hazardous materials, in a letter to a senior official at the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

Company spokesman Matt Jones said Wednesday that at this time BNSF has no plans to ask a court to intervene.

While it’s important for emergency planners to have the information, Jones added, BNSF will “continue to urge discretion in the wider distribution of specific details.”

A second railroad, Montana Rail Link, submitted notifications earlier this month revealing that its tracks were carrying three oil trains a week along a route from Huntley, Montana, to Sandpoint, Idaho. The railroad said the trains pass through as many as 12 counties across southern and western Montana and through Bonner County in Idaho, according to copies of the documents obtained by the AP.

U.S. crude oil shipments by rail topped a record 110,000 carloads in the first quarter of 2014. That was the highest volume ever moved by rail, spurred by the booming production of shale oil from the Northern Plains and other parts of the country, according to the Association of American Railroads.