Monthly Archives: September 2014

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Fracking, Hazmat notification, State regulation, Tar sands crude

Gov. Brown Approves New Rules On Crude Oil Shipments

Repost from KPIX5 CBS San Francisco
[Editor: See also Bloomberg.  – RS]

Gov. Brown Approves New Rules On Crude Oil Shipments

September 26, 2014
A KPIX 5 crew captured this video of Bakken crude oil getting unloaded from a train at a rail yard in Richmond. (CBS)
A KPIX 5 crew captured this video of Bakken crude oil getting unloaded from a train at a rail yard in Richmond. (CBS)

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX 5) — Earlier this year, KPIX 5 reported on crude oil being brought into the Bay Area by rail. Until now, companies haven’t been required to give cities a heads up, but that’s about to change.

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law new rules requiring oil shipments to be disclosed. This means that companies have to tell state and local agencies that potentially explosive crude oil is headed their way.

The rules would allow agencies to have their emergency responders ready, in case there is an accident.

KPIX 5 has reported on plans to bring crude by rail into the East Bay, mainly Pittsburg. And we’ve recently learned it has also been going on in Richmond.

Last year’s rail disaster in Canada has prompted the push for new regulations. A train carrying crude oil derailed and caused a massive explosion and fire, killing 47 and mostly flattening the town of Lac-Mégantic.

Brown also signed into law a requirement for oil companies to reveal more details about the fracturing process.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Public Utilities Commission, Derailment, Draft EIR, Rail routing, Risk Assessment, Tank car design, Valero Crude By Rail

Vallejo Times-Herald: State officials say Benicia underestimated oil train risks

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald

State officials say Benicia underestimated oil train risks

Officials urge city to redo Valero refinery project safety analysis
By Tony Burchyns, 09/25/2014

State officials say Benicia has underestimated the risks of running oil trains through Roseville and other parts of Northern California to the Valero refinery.

In letter to the city last week, officials from the state Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Office of Spill Prevention and Response and the Public Utilities Commission called on the city to redo its safety analysis before allowing the refinery to receive two 50-car oil trains a day.

The letter follows similar critical comments from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, the cities of Davis and Sacramento and the University of California at Davis. Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council and San Francisco Baykeeper also have sent letters to Benicia expressing concerns about the project.

The state officials’ letter said that total potential derailments attributable to the plan, including those outside California, should be considered in the risk study. Officials also said that the city’s draft environmental impact report paid insufficient attention to train accidents other than derailments.

“The analyses of environmental impacts, including the risk and consequences of derailments, should not be limited to the section of track between Roseville and Benicia, and track at the refinery itself,” officials wrote. “The analyses should also cover the many miles of track, the distance of which will vary depending on entry point into the state, between the state border and Roseville.”

Valero’s project description identifies North America, Texas and other locations as possible sources of crude, but direct routes through Southern California and other areas of the state and country are not analyzed.

City officials have said their analysis was limited to the Union Pacific line between Benicia and Roseville because the other rail routes are unknown or haven’t been disclosed.

The letter also criticized the city’s finding that the risk of train spills of more than 100 gallons between Rosville to Benicia would be once in 111 years. Critics have said the analysis is flawed because it relies on rail safety data that predates the nation’s crude-by-rail boom.

The letter asserts that the city’s derailment and accident rate calculations are problematic and the legal enforceability of Valero’s commitment to use tank cars that meet that highest safety standards is unclear.

Benicia has declined to comment thus far on the numerous letters received during the report’s public comment period that ended Sept. 15. However, the city plans to respond to the comments before the project’s next public hearing, which has yet to be set.

Crude By Rail, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Rail traffic, US Government Accountability Office

GAO report on rail shipping trends and community congestion

Repost from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
[Editor: RESEARCHERS TAKE NOTE…this newly released GAO report has significant findings regarding the upsurge in rail shipments of crude and its impact on traffic congestion on the rails and at crossings.   Unfortunately, the data is only as of 2012.  Still, the 75-page report itself is rich with references to crude by rail and charts that might prove useful.   – RS]

Freight Transportation: Developing National Strategy Would Benefit from Added Focus on Community Congestion Impacts

GAO-14-740: Published: Sep 19, 2014. Publicly Released: Sep 26, 2014

What GAO Found

Recent trends in freight flows, if they continue as expected, may exacerbate congestion issues in communities, particularly along certain corridors. As of 2012, the latest year for which data were available, national freight rail and truck traffic had approached levels of 2007 prior to the economic recession. Certain trends related to specific commodities have affected rail flows, including increases in domestic crude oil production [emphasis added].  A key negative impact of increasing freight flows is congestion at highway-rail grade crossings, where road traffic must wait to cross the tracks when trains are passing. For example, a Miami-area study found that rail crossings in the area caused delays of roughly 235,000 person-hours per year at a cost of $2.4 million. Although several communities we visited had documented long-standing concerns over freight-related traffic congestion, state and local stakeholders we met with had varying levels of quantified information regarding the extent of the impacts or costs to the community. For example, in contrast to the Miami study, another study we reviewed included some information on train counts, but did not document hours of delay or any costs associated with such delays.

The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) efforts to implement the freight-related provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) are still underway but so far do not fully consider freight-related traffic congestion. MAP-21’s freight policy goals do not explicitly include addressing freight-related traffic congestion, but MAP-21 requires DOT to identify best practices to mitigate the impacts of freight movement on communities in a national freight strategic plan, which is due in October 2015. MAP-21’s requirements and DOT’s efforts so far do not fully establish the federal role or identify goals, objectives, or performance measures in this area, which may limit the usefulness of the National Freight Strategic Plan . For example:

DOT issued for comment a required draft primary freight network, but according to DOT and other stakeholders, MAP-21’s lack of defined purpose for the primary freight network and mileage limit of 27,000 miles hampered DOT’s ability to include in this draft network some types of roads where local traffic congestion impacts of national freight movements are often experienced, such as roads connecting ports to freeways. The significance of the 27,000 mileage limitation is not clear. DOT released a surface transportation reauthorization proposal in April 2014 that proposed establishing a multimodal national freight network with a defined purpose and with no mileage limit.

DOT is currently developing the Freight Transportation Conditions and Performance Report , which is to support the National Freight Strategic Plan . For this and other documents, DOT established a broad goal to reduce freight-related community impacts. However, DOT did not identify clear goals, objectives, or measures related to freight-related traffic congestion in local communities due to a lack of reliable national data. Thus, a clear federal role has not been established. High-quality data are essential to supporting sound planning and decision-making. Without reliable national data, it will be difficult for DOT to establish goals and objectives and to define the extent of freight-related traffic congestion and measure performance.

Why GAO Did This Study

Projected increases in the transport of freight by rail and truck may produce economic benefits but also increase traffic congestion in communities. MAP-21, which contains a number of provisions designed to enhance freight mobility, is currently before Congress for reauthorization. GAO was asked to review trends in freight flows and any related traffic-congestion impacts.

This report addresses among other things: (1) recent changes in U.S. rail and truck freight flows and the extent to which related traffic congestion is reported to impact communities, and (2) the extent to which DOT’s efforts to implement MAP-21 address freight-related traffic congestion in communities. GAO analyzed rail data from 2007 through 2012 and highway data from 2010 and 2012 and reviewed 24 freight-related traffic congestion mitigation projects at 12 locations selected on the basis of different geographical locations and sizes. The results are not generalizable. GAO also reviewed federal laws and interviewed freight stakeholders.

What GAO Recommends

Congress should consider clarifying the purpose of the primary freight network and, as relevant to this purpose, revising the mileage limit requirement.

DOT should clarify the federal role for mitigating local freight-related congestion in the National Freight Strategic Plan , including a strategy for improving needed data. DOT concurred with the recommendations.

For more information, contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-4431 or flemings@gao.gov.
Crude By Rail, Oil Industry, Oil train contents, Rail Safety

Oil industry sets voluntary rail rules

Repost from The Hill
[Editor: an end run around new federal rules?  an industry signal intended for rulemakers?  See the new oil industry guidelines here.  – RS]

Oil industry sets voluntary rail rules

By Timothy Cama – 09/25/14

Facing potential new federal regulations restricting how it can move crude oil by rail, the oil industry is setting its own voluntary standards for safety.

The American Petroleum Institute (API), which acts both as a lobbying group for the oil sector and a standard-setting body, published the 46-page guidelines Thursday.

“This particular standard is one element of a much broader approach to safety improvement,” Jack Gerard, president of API, said in a statement.

“A comprehensive effort that addresses accident prevention, mitigation and response is essential to achieving our goal of zero incidents for crude by rail shipments,” he said.

Following a string of disasters involving oil train explosions, the Transportation Department proposed a set of new rules for oil transport by rail in July.

While those standards and similar ones in Canada seek to phase out old rail cars that are often blamed for the most dangerous explosions, environmentalists and safety advocates have pushed for more action.

API did not take a stand on that proposal. But in Thursday’s standards, the oil industry is pulling out ahead of the issue with its own actions.

The new standards focus heavily on properly testing crude oil for classification to prepare it for shipment. But the standards also dictate how to fill tank cars so they are not overfilled.

API said it wants to help the industry to comply with Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) rules.

“Proper testing, classification and handling are important when shipping any material subject to PHMSA regulations, and crude oil is no exception,” Gerard said.