Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Economy
In reply to the discussion: Oil Train Safety Megathread. Updated July 30, 2023 [View all]mahatmakanejeeves
(60,993 posts)67. Hazardous Materials: Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements
Hazardous Materials: Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements
....
Supplementary Information
I. Application for a Preemption Determination
The State of North Dakota and the State of Montana have applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal hazardous material transportation law (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts the State of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By RailVapor Pressure. Specifically, North Dakota and Montana allege the law, which purports to regulate the volatility of crude oil transported in Washington state for loading and unloading, amounts to a de facto ban on Bakken (1) crude.
North Dakota and Montana present two main arguments for why they believe Washington's law should be preempted. First, North Dakota and Montana contend that the law's prohibition on the loading or unloading of crude oil with more than 9 psi vapor pressure poses obstacles to the HMTA because compliance with the law can only be accomplished by (1) pretreating the crude oil prior to loading the tank car; (2) selecting an alternate mode of transportation; or (3) redirecting the crude oil to facilities outside Washington state. Accordingly, North Dakota and Montana say these avenues for complying with the law impose obstacles to accomplishing the purposes of the HMTA. Similarly, they contend that the law's pre-notification requirements are an obstacle. Last, North Dakota and Montana contend that Washington's law is preempted because aspects of the law are not substantively the same as the federal requirements for the classification and handling of this type of hazardous material.
In summary, North Dakota and Montana contend the State of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By RailVapor Pressure, should be preempted because:
It is an obstacle to the federal hazardous material transportation legal and regulatory regime; and
It is not substantively the same as the federal regulations governing the classification and handling of crude oil in transportation.
....
....
Supplementary Information
I. Application for a Preemption Determination
The State of North Dakota and the State of Montana have applied to PHMSA for a determination whether Federal hazardous material transportation law (HMTA), 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq., preempts the State of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By RailVapor Pressure. Specifically, North Dakota and Montana allege the law, which purports to regulate the volatility of crude oil transported in Washington state for loading and unloading, amounts to a de facto ban on Bakken (1) crude.
North Dakota and Montana present two main arguments for why they believe Washington's law should be preempted. First, North Dakota and Montana contend that the law's prohibition on the loading or unloading of crude oil with more than 9 psi vapor pressure poses obstacles to the HMTA because compliance with the law can only be accomplished by (1) pretreating the crude oil prior to loading the tank car; (2) selecting an alternate mode of transportation; or (3) redirecting the crude oil to facilities outside Washington state. Accordingly, North Dakota and Montana say these avenues for complying with the law impose obstacles to accomplishing the purposes of the HMTA. Similarly, they contend that the law's pre-notification requirements are an obstacle. Last, North Dakota and Montana contend that Washington's law is preempted because aspects of the law are not substantively the same as the federal requirements for the classification and handling of this type of hazardous material.
In summary, North Dakota and Montana contend the State of Washington's Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5579, Crude Oil By RailVapor Pressure, should be preempted because:
It is an obstacle to the federal hazardous material transportation legal and regulatory regime; and
It is not substantively the same as the federal regulations governing the classification and handling of crude oil in transportation.
....
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
76 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The stuff was getting scattered. I was impressed by progree's analysis
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2015
#2
One year after Lynchburg train wreck, booming Bakken still fuels concerns
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2015
#12
EIA: Rail delivered 52 percent of East Coast refinery supply in February
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#14
FRA freezes on tank car sloshing; DOE oil volatility bombshell drops like a dud
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#20
Vancouver (Washington) Columbian Three-Part Series About Port Oil Terminal Deal
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2015
#22
UW-Madison researchers hope frac-sand impact study will help railroads improve ballast maintenance
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#26
Canadian Pacific asks judge not to approve Lac-Megantic derailment settlement
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2015
#29
FRA Announces Final Rule to Prevent Unattended Trains from Rolling Away
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#32
Federal Railroad Administration to RRs: Notification of Crude Oil Trains to States Must Continue
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2015
#33
Officials: Broken rail missed on 2 inspections caused fiery West Va. train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2015
#34
Federal Railroad Administration Issues Final Rule to Improve Rail Flaw Detection {January 2014}
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2015
#36
Washington state transportation commission adopts crude-by-rail safety rules
mahatmakanejeeves
Feb 2016
#45
NTSB report: Broken rail likely caused 2014 Lynchburg train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2016
#46
Minnesota legislators want railroads to open books on emergency response
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2016
#47
Oil-by-rail safety concerns likely to reignite after Oregon derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Jun 2016
#49
2 ND rail inspectors receive certification from the Federal Railroad Administration
mahatmakanejeeves
Oct 2016
#51
NTSB releases dashcam videos of December 30, 2013, Casselton, North Dakota, oil train derailment
mahatmakanejeeves
Mar 2017
#52
Wilmington News Journal - Delaware Online: Rail safety questioned as fuel shipments likely to go up
mahatmakanejeeves
May 2017
#53
National Academy Study Touts Oil-by-Rail Safety But Supports Weakening Regulations
mahatmakanejeeves
Nov 2017
#55
Tar Sands Crude Shipments Quietly Increased In Oregon, With Regulators In the Dark
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2019
#66
Hazardous Materials: Washington Crude Oil By Rail-Vapor Pressure Requirements
mahatmakanejeeves
Aug 2019
#67
BNSF says it can handle more crude-by-rail shipments if Dakota pipeline is shut
mahatmakanejeeves
Apr 2021
#70
Moffat Tunnel lease could become part of fight over Uinta Basin Railway
mahatmakanejeeves
Jul 2023
#74
6 months after the East Palestine train derailment, Congress is deadlocked on new rules for safety
BumRushDaShow
Aug 2023
#76