Derailed train cars dangle over Youghiogheny River
Jun 8, 2014
PITTSBURGH (AP) – A couple train cars are hanging partly off a suburban Pittsburgh trestle above the Youghiogheny River after derailing, scaring people below who thought the train was ready to plunge into the river.
CSX said about 12 cars of a train derailed around 11 p.m. Saturday in McKeesport while heading from New Castle to Connellsville.
It said the 88-car train was carrying mixed freight, including carrying scrap metal and “light petroleum.”
CSX spokesman Gary Sease says the petroleum didn’t leak. No injuries were reported.
The McKeesport Marina was evacuated and McKeesport Deputy Fire Chief Don Sabol said there’s a lot of damage to the tracks. CSX said it’s not sure yet what caused the derailment.
Regulation & Environment: Canada’s aggressive on crude oil by rail regs; the US, not so much
By Herman Wang | June 9, 2014
It has been 338 days since the explosive derailment of a train carrying crude oil killed 47 people in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec.
Meanwhile, 227 days have passed since an oil train derailed and exploded in Alabama, spilling 750,000 gallons of crude, and 161 days since another oil train ignited in North Dakota, spilling 400,000 gallons and forcing the evacuation of the town of Casselton.
And yet, despite these and several other recent accidents attributed to the spike in North American crude-by-rail traffic, US officials have yet to publicly unveil any new comprehensive safety regulations and tank car specifications. Those rules are not likely to be revealed until later this summer—and possibly not finalized until year’s end—thanks to the US’ lengthy, consultative rulemaking process.
That puts the US far behind Canada, which typically follows the US’ lead on rail regulations.
Canada on April 23 set an aggressive deadline of May 2017 for the total removal or retrofit of all legacy DOT-111 tank cars used to ship crude oil and ethanol from Western Canada to refineries and also ordered the immediate removal of 5,000 “substandard” tank cars without continuous bottom-level protection layers.
Canada was able to move relatively quickly on its crude-by-rail safety rules because of a requirement that the government respond within 90 days to any recommendation by the country’s investigatory Transportation Safety Board, which in January had called for more stringent DOT-111 standards in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic accident.
The US has no such requirement, and despite the US National Transportation Safety Board having recommended since 2012 more robust tank car requirements, regulators are still muddling through their rulemaking, much to the dismay of safety advocates who would like to see quicker action. About 650,000 carloads of crude are expected to be shipped by rail in 2014, according to the rail industry, compared to just 9,500 carloads in 2008.
The US Department of Transportation on April 30 did submit a crude-by-rail rulemaking package, including tank car specifications, to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review, but no details of the regulations are publicly available, leading to much speculation on what they might contain.
——————————–
The White House, under processes outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, typically reviews “significant” regulations for up to 90 days, including performing an economic analysis. The DOT estimates that the crude-by-rail review will conclude by mid-July, at which time, the DOT would unveil the draft proposal in the publicly viewable Federal Register.
A 60-day public comment period would follow, after which the DOT may incorporate some of those comments into a final rule. That final rule would then be submitted to the White House for another review, before it is finalized, published in the Federal Register and made effective.
The intent of the exhaustive US rulemaking system is to gather as much stakeholder input as possible and to allow for careful cost-benefit analyses and alternative solutions to be explored, inefficient though the process may be. And it is not unheard of for controversial rulemakings to be mysteriously delayed until a less politically sensitive time, such as after an election has passed.
For crude-by-rail, the regulations look on pace to be finalized by the end of the year or perhaps early 2015, though DOT officials have pledged to accelerate that timetable. In the meantime, the DOT has issued a handful of orders regarding speed limits for oil trains, routing protocol and proper classification of crude oil cargoes.
“We’re working as hard as we can to get the rule out as soon as possible,” Cynthia Quarterman, the head of the DOT’s Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, testified at a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing last week.
Pressed by lawmakers on whether the US would match Canada’s phase-out of legacy DOT-111 tank cars, she responded: “Canada has the advantage of being able to say in a public forum that they can remove those cars in three years. Because we have a rulemaking, we can not say anything comparable on the record until it goes through the rulemaking process.”
But, in perhaps a hint to what the rules may contain, she added that US officials are working closely with their Canadian counterparts and that “we applaud their move to remove the DOT-111s in three years time.”
Should the US require a similar fast-track phase-out schedule for DOT-111 tank cars, the oil industry is sure to be upset, as it has warned of potential shortages in tank cars and limited capacity to build new ones.
But speculation will remain speculation, until the White House finishes its review of the DOT proposal.
Several local refinery permits and associated Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are currently pending approval. For instance, Westpac in Pittsburg wants to receive, store and distribute explosive Bakken and toxic tar sands crude-by-rail at an old PG&E tank farm right next to homes and schools.
The Valero refinery in Benicia wants to bring to town daily 100 car unit trains of the same. Phillips 66 seeks to increase their volatiles storage and transportation in Rodeo and also enormously expand crude-by-rail traffic through our rail corridor to feed their San Luis Obispo facility. Finally, Shell wants to revamp the Martinez refinery to process lighter, sweeter crudes like Bakken. They will ship crude by rail from North Dakota to Bakersfield then by pipeline to Martinez, or by rail from North Dakota to a Washington State marine terminal that will load tankers bound for Martinez. Other plans are in the works.
So the debates ensue. I’d like to frame the discussions in a different context.
A common way to compare corporate apples to country oranges is by looking at corporate revenues as compared to national gross domestic product (GDP). According to the Fortune 500, the combined parent corporate revenues of the five major refiners in this area – Valero, Chevron, Shell, Phillips 66 and Tesoro – was $1.1 trillion in 2013. That ranked them 16th of 187 countries in the world in GDP according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). If California was a country it would be 8th in the world, at over $2 trillion. You might imagine that the economic power of Contra Costa County and Martinez ranked somewhat lower.
So, Mr. Big Oil, would you say we have a level playing field?
At public hearings, you have Power Point presentations. We have pieces of paper.
You meet in corporate back rooms. We meet in neighborhood back yards.
You have professional political operatives. We operate with volunteer political naiveté.
You sponsor political junkets and infomercials. We do flyers and lawn signs.
You have a PR budget. We pass the hat for printing.
You have PACs. We have potlucks.
According to Citizens United and the Supreme Court, we are equal. I think not.
The EIR process, despite the original best of intentions, is skewed in your favor.
You get to frame the discussion with the help of consultants, lobbyists and lawyers. Fly in whomever you need. Your political relationships are built on bucks, your policies on billions.
Your vast assets steer the political discourse, whether through direct political contributions, lobbying to de-fund government oversight and regulation, or by endowing non-think-tanks and pseudo-public forums that aim to skew legitimate science towards your view.
Our interests are more than what you narrowly consider to be of public concern. We value social, ethical, moral, esthetic, environmental, family, property, public health and safety issues that go beyond your narrow economic focus.
We live here.
So who gets to call the shots?
The trains, or the towns the trains run through? The refiners and oil producers, or the communities in their midst?
Who should pay for oil industry impacts? The locals that bear the brunt, or the producers that reap the billions?
I’m sorry, but if we don’t like your proposals, as local residents/citizens, we have a right to reject them. We have to work hard to overcome your advantage, but … the Supreme Court has spoken, Mr. Citizens United. You get your vote, we get the rest.
(If you want to stay updated on these issues and learn how to get involved, please go to http://mrtenvgrp.com/category/meetings).
Crude-oil trains through Davis: It’s time for action
By Lynne Nittler | June 08, 2014
Tank cars carrying crude oil roll through downtown Davis as paradegoers gather on Picnic Day in April. Richard McAdam/Courtesy photo
I’m proud of our city. The Davis City Council took on crude-by-rail transport through our community, just as I have seen it tackle other difficult issues — with the willingness to look beneath the surface, find out what is important and then figure out what to do.
I’m sure the council members would have preferred shrugging off the crude-by-rail problem, leaving it for the federal government to handle, but we citizens pressed them, and to their credit, they became regional leaders.
The problem: The issue isn’t abstract for Davis. If two proposals are approved down-rail from us, we soon could be seeing 180 tank cars coming right through our town every day, carrying the highly volatile North Dakota Bakken crude oil in the older, unsafe DOT111 cars.
A proposed rail terminal at the Benicia Valero refinery would bring 70,000 barrels a day, which equals a train of 100 cars, and a proposed rail spur at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery in San Luis Obispo County would bring another 80 cars per day through Davis on the Capitol Corridor route.
When a group of local citizens approached the Davis Natural Resources Commission in January with our concerns, we found a receptive audience. Those concerns are numerous: unsafe tank cars prone to rupture, uninspected rails, the nature of volatile crude oil and dirty tar sands, oil train exclusion from the right-to-know laws, substantially increased numbers of serious oil train accidents and spills, and skyrocketing projections for the number of oil trains entering California.
The commission elevated the citizen recommendations to the City Council.
City goals: The council listened, and noted that Spokane, Bellingham and Seattle, Washington, and, more recently, Berkeley and Richmond, had all passed resolutions protesting crude-by-rail transport through their cities. They assigned staff to prepare a report and later adopted broad goals including to:
* Actively participate in regional planning activities;
* Assure top-quality fire, police, emergency and other services to promote the health, safety and well-being of all residents and neighborhoods; and
* Create and maintain an environment that promotes safety and well-being.
Based on these goals, on Earth Day, April 22, the Davis City Council took a strong stand and adopted Resolution 14 opposing transportation of crude oil through the city of Davis and adjacent habitat, thus including the Yolo Causeway with its trestle tracks. It is well worth reading the whole document, posted at www.yolanoclimateaction.org or at www.cityofdavis.org under the City Council agenda for April 22. Other cities and counties in our region have requested copies of the Davis resolution as they prepare their own.
Leading the region: Meanwhile, Mike Webb, the staff member assigned to research crude-by-rail, along with City Attorney Harriet Steiner, contacted neighboring jurisdictions of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Dixon and Yolo and Solano counties to alert them also to the dangers. Together, our staff convinced the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to hold a meeting on oil trains on April 17, and that group put the item on the agenda for the next full SACOG meeting.
The jurisdictions divided up the various tasks, mostly focused on public safety, but also on siding storage and getting more information/assistance from Union Pacific, the California Public Utilities Commission and even the refineries. The SACOG representatives who attended the Capital-to-Capital meetings in Washington, D.C., last month took our regional concerns directly to our California elected officials, Reps. Doris Matsui and John Garamendi.
Additionally, our city is pursuing with Union Pacific a high-sensitivity rail situation in Davis where there is a curve and also crossover switches, both requiring an unusual —and dangerous — slower speed of 10 mph.
Comments: The next step is an opportunity for cities and organizations to study the draft environmental impact report for the Valero Project, which will be released Tuesday for public review. Written comments are admitted to the record, and the report authors must respond to each comment, although similar comments may be grouped together. Those who respond have 45 days, probably extended to 60 to 90 days, to submit written comments.
The city of Davis isn’t waiting for the EIR release; it is already planning its comments and inviting neighboring jurisdictions to join them. SACOG members are working together now. We citizens can be grateful that our city is speaking up on behalf of our safety.
The city manager of Lynchburg, Virginia, did not even know that trains of Bakken oil were passing through his town. On April 30, 17 cars derailed and the ensuing flames shot up eight stories high while three cars leaked 25,000 gallons of crude into the James River, a source of drinking water. Fortunately, Davis is taking proactive steps to avert such accidents.
A number of environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Earth Justice, Oil Change International and others will be weighing in on the draft EIR as well, with sharply focused comments on safety, health, water and air contamination, and whatever other weaknesses or unmitigated concerns they find in the EIR.
Time for action! Democracy is, above all, about each of us voicing our concerns. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the draft EIR provides every individual affected by a decision with a chance to be heard. Every comment letter becomes a part of the EIR document and receives a response in the final EIR.
Therefore, we have serious work to do to become informed about the impact of unit trains of crude oil passing through Davis and to read all or significant parts of the draft EIR document. The time we invest in expressing particular concerns could make a difference in terms of mitigations granted or possibly influence whether the Benicia Planning Commission, and ultimately the Benicia City Council, vote for or against the Valero rail project.
There is a helpful resources document posted for those who wish to read up on crude-by-rail transport at www.yolanoclimateaction.org
Yolano Climate Action will host a workshop on how to respond to a draft EIR, including an instructional PowerPoint presentation by Mike Webb plus tips and discussion on commentary topics for the Valero project DEIR, on Wednesday, June 18, from 7 to 9 p.m. in the Davis Community Church Fellowship Hall, 421 D St.
Looking ahead: The draft EIR for the Santa Maria rail spur project is expected to be released in July, offering a second chance to use newly honed skills!
— Lynne Nittler is a Davis resident and environmental activist.
You must be logged in to post a comment.