In addition to many individual comments, you will find comments from 4 public agencies:
Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
County of Yolo Board of Supervisors
California Department of Transportation and
California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
The public has until September 15 to submit comments on the DEIR. For resources in framing your comments, see http://safebenicia.org/basic-information/downloadable-resources/. The DEIR itself may be studied here, and an extensive library of previously submitted public comments may be studied here.
CN derailment near Plaster Rock has left family living in tents
Caleb Levesque and family say CN is to blame for the ongoing issues with their home
CBC News, Aug 08, 2014
Investigators at the scene of the CN derailment in Wapske, near Plaster Rock. (Transportation Safety Board/Twitter)
Family members in Wapske, N.B., say they have been living in tents on their front lawn for more than a month after their house was ruined following a freight train derailment near Plaster Rock in January.
They say CN Rail is to blame.
Caleb Levesque, the son of the property owner, and his family, say their house remains unlivable due to damage from a train derailment back in January.
Jeff Levesque and his son Caleb, whose home was damaged in the CN derailment near Plaster Rock in January, say a carpenter hired by CN has done a botched job of repairs. (CBC)
Levesque says a carpenter hired by CN Rail to fix their house following the derailment left the house worse than before due to poor craftsmanship.
The initial heat of the train derailment melted much of the siding on the house. The carpenter replaced the siding but Levesque says the carpenter CN Rail hired didn’t do it right.
“So all the siding is falling off, buckling. So we’ve been getting a lot of water when it rains,” he said.
Levesque said when post-tropical storm Arthur arrived, the water came right through the new siding, leaving puddles on the floor.
“Completely soaked it, just big puddles on the floor. The inside of the house is soaked, damaged. It’s ridiculous,” he said. “It smells so bad you don’t even want to go in the house.”
Residents wary of mould
Levesque says the most concerning thing now is the mould throughout the house.
He says so far CN Rail has refused to fix the ongoing problem.
Levesque is staying in a tent with his girlfriend, their dog and cat. His father is in another tent, all on their front lawn.
Trains are rolling again through the section that had been closed due to the derailment. (Matt Bingley/CBC)
To shower and launder, they’ve been driving to the house of a family friend. For cooking, they’ve made due with just a barbecue, without the use of a stove or fridge.
“It sucks. It’s not so bad when you’re just camping, but when you have to do it for over a month … it’s hard,” said Levesque.
He says CN Rail officials should acknowledge the unacceptable conditions their hired carpenter left the home in, and pay to make it right.
“They took the responsibility on when the train went by our house and derailed, they took the responsibility to fix everything that they had damaged,” said Levesque.
The Levesques got an initial quote on the damage from restoration specialist Nicholas Mann, of ServiceMaster Restore.
Mann estimated it would cost about $160,000 to fix the home properly. Levesque said CN Rail offered him $2,500 after receiving the report.
“Right now all we want is to get our house fixed and everything that was in the house replaced,” said Levesque. “We just want our house fixed so we can go home.”
Levesque says his lawyer hopes to meet with CN Rail in September to sort out a solution.
Train jumped the tracks
A 122-car train derailed on Jan. 7 with 19 cars and a locomotive jumping the tracks.
Five derailed tanker cars were carrying crude oil from Western Canada to an Irving Oil refinery in Saint John, N.B., while four other tankers carried liquefied petroleum gas.
About 150 people living within a two-kilometre radius of the crash site were forced to leave their homes for several days.
A Transportation Safety Board investigation found one of the wheels on the 13th car broke from “fatigue.”
Repost from Railway Age [Editor: Check out rail industry insider perspectives on the DOT’s proposed new safety rules, and a few of their hoped-for changes before the rules become final. – RS]
DOT crude oil NPRM: Will cooler heads prevail?
August 7, 2014, by William C. Vantuono, Editor-in-Chief
A recent call-in forum on crude by rail conducted by Cowen and Company Managing Director and Railway Age Contributing Editor Jason H. Seidl “helped affirm our view that the final version of the DOT’s safety rules may include some changes to the ones proposed on July 23.”
“We believe that the final draft of the [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on High-Hazard Flammable Trains and DOT 111 tank cars] could be more friendly to shippers than the first proposal,” said Seidl. “This, along with the removed uncertainty, could put a more positive spin on regulations that are sure to add costs for the industry.”
Retrofitting tank cars to 9/16-inch-thick steel is “a tall order,” said Seidl. “A railcar manufacturing executive on our panel suggested that retrofitting existing 7/16-inch-steel cars to 9/16-inch layers would be a problematic task, as the technology for implementing the conversion may not be currently available. Additionally, such an undertaking may be restricted by tight steel supplies, which could disrupt and prolong production for months. This would exacerbate concerns about the two- to five-year proposed compliance period, which is already viewed as insufficient by many players in the industry. According to our panelist, a more realistic retrofitting of the existing 7/16-inch-steel car fleet would take five to seven years and consist of other improvements, such as top fittings and thermal jackets. If retrofitting to a 9/16-inch-steel layer is ultimately adopted in one or more of the paths to compliance, the Greenbrier Companies could benefit as it already applies this standard to its “Tank Car of the Future” group of tank cars. That being said, we believe that the final version of the rules will include some key changes to the ones proposed on July 23.”
The Cowen panelists agreed that reducing crude oil train dwell time would make more sense than reducing speed. “The consensus opinion seemed to be that enforcing broad speed restrictions may not be the right approach,” noted Seidl. “The panelists indicated that emphasis should be placed on reducing the total time that High Hazard Flammable Trains (HHFTs) spend in populated areas, and slower trains do just the opposite. Additionally, reduced train speeds would require more cars and detrimentally impact the supply chain, potentially resulting in higher dwell times in populated areas. One panelist suggested that CBR regulators should communicate with the groups that have created regulations for other rail-transported hazardous materials, such as chlorine. Such regulations, which rely in large part on reducing dwell time in densely populated areas, appear to have been effective in improving transportation safety.”
Repost from Politico [Editor: Significant quote: “For ‘higher-consequence events’ — such as the one in Lac-Mégantic — ‘it appears that no amount of coverage is adequate,’ the analysis says. That’s because the maximum amount of coverage available on the market is $1 billion per carrier, per incident….’You should know the railroads are used to running bare — without adequate insurance,’ said Fred Millar, an independent rail consultant who has criticized the government’s oversight of oil trains.” – RS]
DOT: Rail insurance inadequate for oil train accidents
By Kathryn A. Wolfe | 8/6/14
The maximum amount of coverage available is $1 billion per carrier, per incident. | AP Photo
Most freight railroad insurance policies couldn’t begin to cover damage from a moderate oil train accident, much less a major disaster. And the Department of Transportation’s own database of oil train incidents is flawed because some railroads and shippers provide incomplete information that far understates property damage.
Those conclusions come from a DOT analysis of its own rule proposed to address the series of troubling derailments across North America as shipments of oil by rail surge.
The department issued the analysis Aug. 1, the same day it published its proposed oil train safety rule that is meant to create what Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx calls a “New World Order” in oil trains regulations, including by requiring sturdier tank cars, tightened speed limits and improved brakes for the trains carrying an ever-greater amount of crude oil through communities from Southern California to Albany, N.Y.
The rule would not expressly address the insurance issue, except to cite the general liability landscape as part of the need for the rule, which seeks to prevent the worst disasters from happening and mitigate damages from those that do.
Gaps in insurance coverage became an issue after the July 2013 disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which occurred when a train that had been left unattended careened down an incline, derailed and charred much of the downtown area, killing 47 people. The damages from that wreck could stretch into the billions of dollars, but the railroad responsible for the derailment carried only $25 million of insurance and wound up declaring bankruptcy.
DOT’s analysis says most of the largest railroads commonly carry around $25 million in insurance, though that can rise to as much as $50 million for trains hauling certain kinds of hazardous chemicals. Smaller railroads — such as the one in the Lac-Mégantic disaster — often carry much less than that.
But the agency’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration estimated that the average derailment that spills crude oil will mean $25 million in total costs — bumping up against most of even the largest railroads’ current insurance limits.
For “higher-consequence events” — such as the one in Lac-Mégantic — “it appears that no amount of coverage is adequate,” the analysis says. That’s because the maximum amount of coverage available on the market is $1 billion per carrier, per incident.
“You should know the railroads are used to running bare — without adequate insurance,” said Fred Millar, an independent rail consultant who has criticized the government’s oversight of oil trains. “And the situation that is described in the [analysis] from Lac-Mégantic is only just the tip of the iceberg. The railroads basically know that they have cargoes that can cause massive, enormously greater death and destruction than what happened in Lac-Mégantic.”
Devorah Ancel, an attorney for the Sierra Club, said insurance coverage “needs to catch up with the heightened risk that is part of this industry now,” because otherwise “taxpayers end up covering it.”
The Association of American Railroads declined to comment, saying the group is still reviewing the pending rule and its supporting documents, including the regulatory analysis, and the American Petroleum Institute said it would file its comments as part of the public comment period.
“We are working closely with regulators and the rail industry in a comprehensive effort to enhance safety through accident prevention, mitigation and response,” API said.
But railroads know they’re underinsured and have groused about the status quo, particularly considering the fact that energy companies that ship oil and ethanol largely do not bear any liability for an incident once their product is loaded onto a train. And under “common carrier” regulations, railroads cannot refuse a shipment any kind of material assuming it meets proper regulations.
Warren Buffett’s BNSF railroad, the pioneer in the oil train industry, has been requesting that railroads get some of the same protections now afforded to the nuclear power industry, using the Price-Anderson Act as a model. That law requires power companies to contribute to an insurance fund that would be used in the event of an accident, and it also partially indemnifies the nuclear power industry.
The DOT analysis also points to a systemic weakness in the way the federal government collects data on derailments of crude oil and ethanol trains. In the section dealing with the probability of major rail accidents, the analysis observes that it’s “impossible to isolate the derailment rate of only crude oil and ethanol trains” due to “limitations in the reported data.”
That’s because PHMSA requires an incident report to be filed only if the incident led to the release of a hazardous material — so derailments that did not result in a spill aren’t included. As a result, even some dramatic accidents aren’t included in the database — for instance, one earlier this year that resulted in a crude oil train dangling over Philadelphia’s Schuylkill River.
Separately, DOT’s Federal Railroad Administration maintains data on derailments, including how much hazardous material was released — but doesn’t identify what type of substance it was. “As a result, it is impossible to use FRA data to identify crude and ethanol derailments,” the department said.
And the data that is reported, particularly to PHMSA, is often inaccurate, largely because it is self-reported by railroads or shippers, according to the analysis. And these self-reports often underestimate the damages done in spill incidents.
According to the analysis, damage information reported to PHMSA is typically “only the most basic costs” such as the value of spilled petroleum and damage to tracks and cars.
“PHMSA believes that response costs and basic cleanup costs, when they are reported, do not represent the full costs of an accident of the response,” the report said.
Underreporting damages, particularly for environmental cleanup costs, ends up hiding the true impact of a spill from policymakers, Sierra Club’s Ancel said. She hopes the pending rule will address the issue.
“It is extremely important that the industry is required to adequately report — and there should be some sort of mechanism in the rule where the agency has inspectors that are ensuring that they are,” she said. “So not only should the industry be on the hook for reporting, but the agency needs to be able to have the resources to ensure that they are.”
