With little ado, the Putnam County Legislature last Wednesday (April 8) opposed two train-transit practices, one involving freight traffic — the unsafe shipping of incendiary crude oil along the Hudson River; and the other involving commuter lines — the levying of taxes to support the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, whose trains carry numerous county residents to work every day.
By 8-0 votes (with one member absent), the legislature urged New York State to revoke permits that allow volatile oil to travel on the Hudson and to reverse its finding that expanding an Albany oil transportation terminal raises no “significant” concerns. It likewise sought the repeal of the MTA taxes on payrolls and vehicles.
In other business at its formal monthly meeting, the legislature unanimously opted to legalize limited use of sparklers, popular Fourth of July “pyrotechnic” devices.
Barges and ‘bomb’ trains
In addressing the so-called “bomb” train question, the all-Republican legislature added its voice to a growing, bipartisan chorus of local governments in the Hudson Valley opposing the use of rail lines along the river, as well as barges, to move highly explosive oil without adequate safeguards. The legislature devoted much of a committee meeting in February to a background discussion of the issue. (See County Committee to Draft Call for Action on Bomb Trains.)
Its resolution, to be sent to Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state legislative officials, refers to use of “unacceptably dangerous” rail cars to move Bakken shale oil and heavy tar-sands oil, which originate in North Dakota and Alberta, Canada, and are more hazardous than other forms of fuel. The resolution says that daily two to three oil trains, each with 3 million gallons, travel down the western side of the Hudson, opposite Putnam. It points out that recent oil-train derailments in the United States and Canada caused “loss of property and significant environmental and economic damage” as well as, in one case, 47 deaths.
The resolution notes that one oil company, Global Partners LP, proposes to expand its oil terminals in Newburgh and New Windsor, across the Hudson from Putnam County, which could “double the number of trains and marine vessels” carrying such dangerous fuel along the Hudson, despite the presence of designated Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats in the Hudson Highlands, Fishkill Creek and elsewhere. A similar expansion is proposed for an Albany facility, the legislature stated.
The resolution also declares that:
Under present laws, “no collaboration must take place between the railroads and the towns through which these rail cars [go].”
“There have been no spill-response drills in Putnam County waters.”
“Putnam County’s shorelines include private residences and businesses, public parks, and critical public infrastructure at significant risk in the case of a crude-oil spill” and that “tourism based on a clean environment is an important part of Putnam County’s economy.”
The legislature asked the state “to immediately revoke permits … allowing for the transport of up to 2.8 billion gallons per year of crude oil on the Hudson River [and] order full environmental impact studies, including the potential impacts of a crude oil spill in the Hudson River affecting Putnam County shoreline property, environmental resources, and drinking water.”
It similarly urged the state to rescind a “negative declaration of significance” on expansion of Albany oil operations and “order a full, integrated environmental impact study of the proposed expansion” of oil terminals in New Windsor and Newburgh, as well as Albany. Under present laws, “no collaboration must take place between the railroads and the towns through which these rail cars [go].”
“It’s not understood” how much risk the transport of volatile oil brings, said Carl Albano, the legislature’s chairman. “It’s a major, major issue in our backyard.”
Legislator Barbara Scuccimarra, who represents Philipstown, observed that the “bomb” trains run along the Hudson “over crumbling bridges and through towns and villages,” compounding the potential for devastation.
“There are really no safeguards in place and it’s scary. If we were to have an explosion, it would be catastrophic,” Legislator Dini LoBue added.
Alberta’s Greatly Anticipated Tar Sands Tailings Ponds Framework Falls Short
By Jennifer Skene, March 13, 2015
A new Tailings Management Framework released by the Government Alberta unfortunately enables industry to sidestep taking meaningful action on one of the most pressing environmental issues of tar sands development. For years, Alberta’s political leaders have promised to finally address the harmful legacy of the toxic tar sands tailings problem. But this latest framework is not likely to compel industry action to clean up the tailings in a meaningful way, especially given its lack of meaningful enforcement mechanisms. This, in fact, makes the new framework a step in the wrong direction since the previous regulation, Directive 074, had concrete means of enforcement. Furthermore, Alberta’s history of unfulfilled promises to protect Canadian citizens and wildlife from the devastating effects of tailings ponds casts doubt on the framework’s true efficacy. This framework, without evidence of successful, speedy reclamation efforts, should not serve as a shroud obscuring the Canadian government’s inaction on tar sands and tailings ponds. It is further demonstration to U.S. officials that Alberta isn’t ready for serious action. The failure of the Alberta government to finally release a comprehensive, framework that stops the growth of tailings adds to the urgency to calls for a halt to an expansion of the tar sands industry.
The Problem of Tailings Ponds
Tailings ponds are a blight upon Alberta’s landscape that endanger both wildlife and Canadians. These ponds, which consist of the bitumen, napthenic acids, heavy metals, and other toxic substances left over from tar sands mining, kill and deform wildlife and poison downstream communities. There are currently 976 billion liters of tailings in the mineable region in Alberta–the equivalent of 390,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools–and this number is steadily growing. The dangers of the tailings ponds have been well illustrated. In addition to the recent tailings pond spills in Alberta and British Columbia, there is significant evidence that the ponds are leaking into groundwater, which could be placing wildlife and communities at risk (see video below).
This new tailings framework released by the provincial government is the latest effort to address the unrelenting growth of these tailings ponds and to hold tar sands companies accountable for taking steps to reclaim tailings. However, Alberta’s history and the framework itself provide plenty of reason to doubt that it will be effective.
Alberta’s History of Unfulfilled Promises
Canadian leaders have been heralding the creation of an effective tailings policy for years, but tailings volumes continue to grow. While Alberta has touted its environmental leadership, it has largely failed to protect its environment and citizens from the effects of tar sands tailings ponds. In 2010 Premier Ed Stelmach called for the elimination of tailings ponds, stating that the province would have to “get more aggressive” with mining companies to ensure that they reclaimed their waste. In April 2013, even as Alberta was failing to enforce existing tailings laws, Premier Allison Redford promised, “tailings ponds [will] disappear from Alberta’s landscape in the very near future.” This new framework’s timeline would not eliminate tailings in the “very near future,” nor would it constitute “get[ting] more aggressive” with the tar sands industry. In fact, if anything, it is a capitulation to the industry after they failed to carry out their obligations under Directive 074.
Tailings emptying into a pond in Alberta Photo by Rocky Kistner, NRDC
The previous tailings framework, Directive 074, was a failure, largely because it was not enforced. Directive 074, passed in 2009 by Alberta’s now-defunct Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), required tar sands companies to reclaim a certain amount of tailings every year, beginning in 2010. By July 2012, companies were obligated to reduce 50% of its tailings every year thereafter, and tailings ponds had to be ready for reclamation within five years of the mine’s closure. The tar sands companies universally failed to meet the Directive’s requirements, and in 2013 the executive manager of the ERCB declared that Directive 074 was “overly optimistic” and that the ERCB would not take any actions to enforce it.
What’s In the New Framework
The new tailings framework – generally weaker than the previous Directive 74 – should not be construed as a solution to address the growing problem of tailings nor its enormous legacy on the northern Alberta landscape. Under the new framework, the Tailings Management Framework for the Mineable Athabasca Oil Sands:
Companies are still able to generate large volumes of toxic tailings over the lifetime of a mine.
Companies are given a lengthy window of time while they ramp up mining operations before they are required to start limiting tailings production.
Because the Government of Alberta has not clarified what is means to “clean up” tailings, there may be a loophole for companies to dump the legacy tailings into end pit lakes.
Companies have a significant amount of time to fully clean up tailings even after a mine closes.
There are no provisions in the framework for enforcement.
The framework sets up tailings reclamation as a trapezoid (see figure below). Tar sands companies will be allowed to accumulate tailings to the extent that they would be able to be within range of an “End of Mine Life Target.” This target will vary based on the project. Companies are given a discretionary 3-10-year period during which they can accumulate tailings. After that time, they will be expected to maintain a constant tailings volume until the end of the mine’s life. Within ten years after the mine’s closure, the company will have to reclaim the entirety of the tailings.
One of the most immediate issues with the new framework is the discretionary period companies are given to accumulate tailings prior to having to engage in any reclamation efforts. It is unclear why the companies are being provided with this window, which will only lead to further accumulation. Furthermore, while the framework would reduce the total quantity of tailings on the landscape, the company is allowed to keep its tailings volume constant until the end of the mine’s life. Many mines last up to 50 years, meaning that full reclamation efforts, other than maintenance of a set amount of tailings, may not even begin for several decades and may not be completed until years after the mine closes. If the company goes out of business in that time, there may be no recourse to clean up the remaining tailings. Reclamation would also be further delayed because the framework provides projects with a ten-year window following the end of the mine’s life until the entirety of the tailings needs to be reclaimed.
Additionally, the framework allows companies a certain percentage deviation from their fixed accumulated tailings volume, referred to as a “Profile Deviation Trigger,” but this number is not specified. It will be up to the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) to decide upon this percentage, along with each project’s tailings limits and end of life mine targets. However, the AER’s decisionmaking process is unclear, and it is uncertain whether stakeholders would be allowed to voice their concerns before the AER, leaving the basis for these quantities unknown.
Perhaps most significantly, given Alberta’s history with Directive 074, there is little provision in the framework for enforcement. If tar sands companies fail to abide by these more relaxed regulations, it is uncertain how they would be held accountable. The framework states that there will be a “compliance levy” if they deviate from their maximum permitted tailings, but the exact penalty and how it would be carried out, and whether it would be high enough to incentivize reclamation, are uncertain. Additionally, there is no mention of penalties related to tailings pond leakages into groundwater, leaving this crucial issue unregulated.
The framework also leaves vague what constitutes reclamation, stating only that “the land must be reclaimed to a resilient and functional boreal forest ecosystem.” This means the public is not given any guarantee as to whether toxic tailings will ever be cleaned up. The more established definition of reclamation is that it means returning the land to the thriving, vegetated region it was prior to the mine’s construction. Alberta regulators, however, have recently approved the use of end pit lakes as a mechanism for “reclamation.” These end pit lakes store tailings waste at the bottom, which is then capped or covered by fresh water. End pit lakes are largely terra incognita or, rather, lacus incognita.Their safety and effectiveness are unproven; it is uncertain how long, if ever, it will take for the freshwater layer to be free of toxins, or whether the tailings will seep into the surrounding land and water. Thus, even if the framework were effective and enforced, it may still be possible for companies to avoid more proven methods of reclamation.
Implications for the Future of Tailings
While Alberta regulators could certainly point to how the current framework improves upon Directive 074 in that it regulates both past and future tailings, the larger issues identified above loom large. Alberta’s historic lack of enforcement and the ambiguities in the law will give the tar sands industry an easy means of sidestepping any meaningful action on this major issue in the foreseeable future, making it difficult to imagine any scenario in which this framework achieves any substantial regulation of tailings ponds.
Trevor Robb, QMI Agency, March 22, 2015 8:41:21 EDT PM
EDMONTON — The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) says 20 cars carrying potash derailed just north of Wetaskiwin, Alta., around 9:09 a.m. Sunday near Highway 13.
Pictures from the scene show piles of potash, which is mostly used in fertilizers, spilling onto the ground.
2. Near Denver: 27 coal cars jump tracks in train derailment; no injuries
Raquel Villanueva, KUSA 5:49 p.m. MDT March 22, 2015
At least 27 freight cars derailed and lost their cargo in Hudson on Sunday. (Photo by 7NEWS, via Heidi Schreiner Gotto)
HUDSON, Colo. (AP) — A train jumped its tracks early Sunday, dumping tons of coal from more than two dozen cars near the northern Colorado town of Hudson.
No injuries were reported, but there was significant damage to the tracks, which have been shut down for repairs and cleanup…. [MORE]
Crude by rail unsafe; Valero should withdraw its application
To the Editor of The Benicia Herald, and published there on Mar. 12:
Many thanks to Dr. James Egan for his thoughtful letter of March 10, “Timely decision on crude by rail warranted: Deny Valero’s application.” His local voice amplifies a growing national sentiment, that crude by rail is simply too dangerous at this time.
As Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity wrote this week, “Before one more derailment, fire, oil spill and one more life lost, we need a moratorium on oil trains and we need it now. The oil and railroad industries are playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and our environment, and the Obama administration needs to put a stop to it.”
Even as officials in Washington DC are dealing with this crisis (much too slowly), Benicia has a powerful role to play. We can do our part by denying Valero’s permit. In fact, Valero can do its part – by acknowledging the horrendous piling up of recent derailments and explosions, the failing infrastructure and the unsafe tank cars, and withdrawing their application for the time being. That would show real leadership in the oil industry.
Dr. Egan covered most of the issues extremely well, but didn’t mention that the tar-sands crude produced in Alberta Canada has proven volatile on trains as well, with two recent derailments resulting in spills and huge fires within 23 miles of each other outside Gogama, Ontario. Tar-sands crude starts out as a sticky thick bitumen, and must be diluted with volatile and toxic fluids in order to be pumped into rail cars, a mix that can explode and burn just as Bakken crude explodes and burns when a tank car is ruptured. The first train exploded outside Gogama on Feb. 14, and the second on March 7. Those poor folks in Gogama are holding their breath, as the track runs right through town, and the First Nation people who live even closer to the derailments are in shock. Valero has admitted that it wants permission to ship Bakken crude and tar-sands dilbit by train.
In addition to those two crashes in Ontario, we have seen conflagrations in West Virginia on Feb. 16 and in Illinois on Mar. 5. You can’t have missed those. Four “bomb train” explosions in three weeks!
In January 2014, I started a personal blog to keep an eye on crude by rail in the news. At first, there wasn’t much beyond our local efforts to stop Valero’s proposal “in its tracks.” Increasingly, the regional and national media have awakened to the health and safety issues that can destroy communities along the rails. You can’t imagine the absolute flood of media coverage this last three weeks. I can’t keep up anymore. I’m picking and choosing which stories to repost [at BeniciaIndependent.com].
The economy of Benicia may very well take a tumble if Valero’s proposal is permitted: housing values may fall and businesses may look to safer locations and relocate. According to Valero’s own analysis, the few jobs created by introducing oil trains here will be taken up by residents of other Bay Area towns. New hires will spend most of their money where they live, not here in Benicia.
We need to take the long view – Valero can continue to process crude oil brought in on ships. The multi-billion dollar industry will weather this minor setback.
By Jennifer Skene, March 13, 2015
