August 26, 2010

Governor Schweitzer

Office of the Governor

State Capitol

P.O. Box 2000801

Helena, Montana 59620-0801

Dear Governor Schweitzer:

This is a follow-up to previous correspondence regarding the Conoco and Exxon proposed megaloads of oil refining equipment that these companies wish to move through Highway 12 in Idaho and then on into Montana.  Judge John Bradbury revoked the permits that would have allowed Conoco to ship their loads to Bills.  His decision criticized the Idaho Transportation Department for its decision to ignore regulations that require traffic behind large loads to pass every 10 minutes and opt instead of 15 minutes.  Bradbury's decision recognizes the importance of the livelihoods and lifestyles of North Idaho residents as well as the responsibility of state agencies to serve citizens.  Conoco has filed an appeal that will be heard in the Idaho Supreme Court.

Following the notice to the Idaho Transportation Department of an impending lawsuit regarding the issuance of a permit for the ConocoPhillips transports on U.S. 12, Governor Otter announced he would require ConocoPhillips and Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil to each post a $10 million bond against possible damage to U.S. 12, including the many bridges these gargantuan loads must cross. ITD had earlier claimed they could not require such a bond. This action by the governor serves as a reminder of his commitment to make these shipments happen. The bonds, however, comprise another part of the disinformation being provided to the public regarding these shipments. Consider the following:

1. ITD and Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil personnel, and the governor himself, have long claimed these shipments are completely safe and would do absolutely no damage to the highway or bridges. After all, the 300+ ton loads would impact the highway "about as much as a 1-ton pickup" according to the governor. Now the State of Idaho finds a $10 million bond necessary "to mitigate any potential risk or any chance of anything going wrong as they go about moving these shipments."

2. While these loads could possibly break a bridge (like Fish Creek Bridge) or collapse a weak shoulder into the river, most damage from over-legal loads occurs over time and may not appear for months or years. For an excellent non-technical explanation of how heavy loads damage roads and bridges, see the following summary from the Washington State Department of Transportation at

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/mats/Folios/TruckLoadsFolio.pdf

Note that the damage done by an axle load above the legal limit of 20,000 lbs is exponential. A 40,000 lb axle load, for example, does 16 times the damage of a legal load. ConocoPhillips' axle loads of 43,900 and 45,104 lbs will predictably cause significant damage to the road surface and substructure. The fact that each load will have 12 to 14 axles compounds, rather than diminishes, the problem, since each axle damages the roadway. Hence, the more axles, the more damage.

3. As recently reported to the governor's task force on highway funding, the Federal Highway Administration knows the impact on a highway of one 20,000 lb axle load is equivalent to the wear of 10,000 cars. Thus a single shipment of the massive loads of ConocoPhillips and ExxonMobil would equate to approximately 120,000-140,000 automobiles if their loads were transported on axles with legal loads. Now consider the exponential rate of damage that will be done by 43,000-45,000 lb axle loads.

4. A six-year study by ITD on the impact of oversized loads on highways (up to 129,000 lbs total weight) concluded it is impossible to determine responsibility for increased wear on a highway caused by such loads due to the presence of other private and commercial traffic using the same road. In other words, when Highway 12 needs resurfacing five years ahead of the normal schedule, or when weight restrictions must be applied to a bridge because of stress fractures, which in turn could negatively impact both private and regular commercial trucking, the State of Idaho would have a most difficult time proving the damage was done by ConocoPhillips or Imperial Oil/ExxonMobil.

5. The $10 million bond proposed by Gov. Otter addresses only damage to the road surface and bridges. Such a bond does not address economic damage to privately-owned businesses along the route, or possible loss of life or limb when an EMT is detained while responding to a highway accident or an individual is delayed in a private vehicle while being transported to a hospital emergency room.

The possible delay of firefighting equipment to respond to forest, farm, or building fires because of the mega-equipment has also been expressed as a major concern.

6. And for perhaps the greatest insult to the public's intelligence regarding the $10 million bond, consider this statement in the ConocoPhillips transportation plan, which ITD apparently accepted since they announced on Tuesday they had intended to issue travel permits for the giant CP loads.

"The road has been subjected to detailed and extensive design checks based on the construction plans supported by condition surveys. These design checks are based on the actual loads imposed and will be verified by certified weighing procedure prior to the start of the transport operation. All of these checks have been performed by the State of Idaho. 

In other words, ITD has apparently certified the Highway 12 road surface, subsurface, shoulders, and bridges completely adequate for the 300+ ton loads. Thus if something happens to one of the trucks or loads, the oil companies could sue the State of Idaho for providing them with incorrect information.

I recommend that you study these issues closely before issuing permits for transporting these megaloads of oil refining equipment across Montana.  

Sincerely

Rep. Tom Trail