Repost from McClatchyDC [Editor: Reporter Curtis Tate of McClatchy DC was honored last week with a National Press Foundation award for his reporting on crude by rail. The Benicia Independent has reposted many of Tate’s reports, and joins the NPF in honoring him for his many excellent contributions. – RS]
Analysis forecasts derailment every other year if oil train terminal is built
HIGHLIGHTS
• Wash. state facility would receive 4 trains a day
• Just one fire department in state said it was ready
• BNSF among clients of firm that wrote spill study
By Curtis Tate, November 24, 2015
More oil trains could bring more oil train derailments to Washington state, a draft environmental impact statement predicts. Bellingham Herald
WASHINGTON – A proposal to build the largest oil train terminal in the Pacific Northwest could result in a derailment every two years and an oil spill from a derailment once every 12, according to a draft analysis by a Washington state agency.
The document, released Tuesday, indicates that most fire departments along the oil trains’ rail route are not prepared for a spill or fire that could accompany a derailment. Out of the 12 departments that responded to the survey request, only one indicated its firefighters are trained and equipped for such an incident.
Further, only half the departments said they knew the locations of BNSF Railway’s specialized firefighting equipment closest to their jurisdiction. And while three-quarters of them reported having access to personal protective equipment, firefighting foam and foam applicators, only a quarter said they had access to oil spill containment booms.
The draft environmental impact statement from the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council said that BNSF would bring four oil trains a day to the Vancouver Energy facility at the Port of Vancouver, Wash., with the loaded trains mostly following the path of the Columbia River and the empty trains returning east via Tacoma, Auburn and Stampede Pass.
With those four daily trains, carrying 100 or more cars each of either light crude from North Dakota or diluted heavy crude from western Canada, the agency forecast “a derailment incident might occur once every two years with a loaded train, and once every 20 months with an empty train.”
The document noted, however, that not all derailments would result in a spill.
Tina Barbee, a spokeswoman for Vancouver Energy, said the company was reviewing the document and “will be able to address specific issues and respond to more detailed questions over the coming weeks.”
Courtney Wallace, a spokeswoman for BNSF, said the railroad had trained 800 firefighters in Washington state this year, and that included giving them the location of BNSF’s specialized firefighting resources.
She said BNSF has equipment and personnel staged in Everett, Seattle, Longview, Wishram, Pasco and Spokane.
“We will continue to work with first responders to ensure they have information about BNSF’s resources,” Wallace said.
EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE
There have been seven derailments of oil trains in North America this year that have resulted in spills or fires. Though none of those events took place in Washington state, derailments in West Virginia, Illinois, North Dakota and Montana released hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil.
The rail spill analysis portion of the Washington state draft document was written in part by three consultants who are former employees of BNSF and its predecessor, Burlington Northern. In addition to the state agency for which they prepared the analysis, their clients include BNSF and the Port of Vancouver.
Neither the state agency, nor its consultants could be reached to comment late Tuesday.
Wallace, the BNSF spokeswoman, said she knew of no work or input from the railroad on the rail spill analysis.
By Kat Eng, Honor the Earth volunteer, 11/23/2015
Train derailment, Alma, Wisconsin << CBS Minnesota
It’s hard to believe Andy Cummings, spokesperson for Canadian Pacific Railway, when he says CP Rail feels it is “absolutely” safe to resume the transportation of oil in the wake of the three derailments last week in Wisconsin.
The first derailed (BNSF) train hurled 32 cars off the tracks outside of Alma, Wis., pouring more than 18,000 gallons of ethanol into the Mississippi River upstream of Winona. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report notes that ethanol (denatured alcohol) is flammable and toxic to aquatic organisms and human life — and it’s water soluble. Though the EPA and Wisconsin DNR admitted they could not remove the toxic product from the water; site coordinator Andy Maguire claims that since they cannot detect concentrated areas of ethanol, it is not negatively impacting the surrounding aquatic life. This was the third derailment on the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife Refuge in the last nine months, according to the community advocacy group Citizens Acting for Rail Safety (CARS).
The next day, 13 DOT-111 tankers with upgraded safety features derailed in Watertown, Wis., spilling crude oil and forcing residents to evacuate from properties along the CP tracks. Four days later, another train derailed a mere 400 feet from that spill site.
How can we possibly feel safe with ever-greater amounts of toxic products hurtling down inadequately maintained infrastructure every single day? A report released last week by the Waterkeeper Alliance found that “[s]ince 2008, oil train traffic has increased over 5,000 percent along rail routes … There has also been a surge in the number of oil train derailments, spills, fires, and explosions. More oil was spilled from trains in 2013 than in the previous 40 years combined.”
Emergency management has become routine rather than remedial. Teams show up, “contain” the spills, replace some track, and the trains roll on. With forecasts that Canadian oil production will expand by 60,000 barrels per day this year, and an additional 90,000 barrels per day in 2016, toxic rail traffic shows no signs of decreasing.
Energy giant Enbridge has taken this as its cue to size up northern Minnesota and plot pipeline (through Ojibwe tribal lands and the largest wild rice bed in the world) between the North Dakota Bakken oil fields and refineries in Wisconsin and Illinois. Its momentum depends on us puzzling over the false dichotomy of choosing to move oil by pipeline or by rail. At the June 3 Public Utilities Commission hearing, it admitted the proposed Sandpiper/Line 3 pipeline corridor will not alleviate railway congestion but rather potentially reduce “future traffic.” It uses this assumption of unregulated growth to make people today think they have no choice but to sell out the generations of tomorrow.
Proponents of the line want us to choose our poison: will it be more explosive trains or more explosive trains and leaky pipelines? What if an oil tanker derailed on Huff Street in the middle of rush-hour traffic and we became the next Lac-Mégantic (where an oil train exploded downtown killing 47 people)? What if a hard-to-access pipeline spewed fracked crude oil into the headwaters of the Mississippi River?
The real harm is in the delusion that we should accept and live with these risks. It is delusional that despite repeated derailments and toxic spills, business should continue as usual. It is delusional to think the oil and rail industry have our communities’ best interests at heart.
We have the vision, the intelligence, and the technology to choose a way forward that does not compromise our resources for the generations to come. As Winona Laduke says, “I want an elegant transition. I want to walk out of my tepee, an elegant indigenous design, into a Tesla, into an electric car, an elegant western design.” Fossil fuels are history. We need to keep them in the ground and pursue sustainable energy alternatives or risk destroying the water and habitat on which all our lives depend.
Repost from Public Source [Editor: Although the emphasis here is on Pennsylvania, this article gives some detail on state laws regulating crude oil trains in several other states. – RS]
Can Pennsylvania officials do more to address crude oil train safety?
Other states with heavy crude-by-rail traffic have passed various laws to address safety. Pennsylvania legislators have not.
By Natasha Khan | PublicSource | Nov. 22, 2015
Legislators in states with an uptick in crude-by-rail traffic have passed laws and changed policies. But not in Pennsylvania. (iStock photo)
They hug rivers, breeze by farms and cross 100-year-old bridges. They chug past hospitals, schools, stadiums and many, many homes. And sometimes, they derail.
As shipments of crude oil by train have increased nationwide, anxiety over the chance of a derailment happening in a big city, like Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, has grown.
Philadelphia Energy Solutions, a refinery, is the nation’s largest consumer of fracked oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale, which makes Pennsylvania a top destination for oil trains.
PublicSource reported in March that 1.5 million Pennsylvanians live within a half-mile of tracks that haul crude oil — the federally recommended evacuation zone for oil train fires.
While the railroad industry says that 99.99 percent of shipments of oil by rail safely make it to their destinations, there have been at least seven derailments of trains carrying crude oil involving spills or fires in North America this year; the latest spill was earlier this month in Wisconsin.
So far, only minor derailments have occurred in Pennsylvania. Some say it’s only a matter of time before the state experiences a big crash.
Regulating railroads is mostly under the purview of the federal government, which recently issued new safety standards for older tank cars and braking systems. But legislators in some states with heavy crude-by-rail traffic have passed laws and changed policies out of fear of what a major derailment could mean for their states.
While Gov. Tom Wolf has taken some action on the issue — most notably commissioning a rail safety expert to assess ways to lower risks of derailments — no laws addressing prevention or emergency response have passed, or been introduced, by state legislators in Pennsylvania.
“There have been bills introduced in New Jersey, New York, Minnesota, Washington state and California, and I haven’t seen squat out of Pennsylvania,” said Fred Millar, an independent hazardous materials consultant in Washington, D.C.
Laws passed in other states vary and offer several paths for Pennsylvania to consider.
In 2014, Minnesota passed a law that raises millions of dollars a year to fund emergency response initiatives, state studies on infrastructure improvements and rail inspectors.
“I feel like there’s a huge responsibility for state and even local governments to be laying down these issues and challenging the railroads,” said the law’s sponsor, state Rep. Frank Hornstein (D-Minn).
In May, Washington state passed a law requiring railroads to show oil spill response plans and how they would pay cleanup costs for a worst-case spill. The law also placed a fee on barrels of oil entering the state to help pay for more emergency response programs. Additionally, the law required more public disclosure of crude oil train shipments.
A few days after Wisconsin experienced two train derailments in early November, state lawmakers introduced rail safety legislation that addressed prevention and response.
‘Evaluating options’
A group of Pennsylvania state senators have been exploring oil train safety issues.
“As far as legislative action, we are in the process of evaluating options,” said Nolan Ritchie, assistant executive director of the Pennsylvania Senate Transportation Committee, which is looking at the issue along with the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.
Sen. John Rafferty, R-Berks/Chester/Montgomery, chairman of the transportation committee, did not want to comment until they have something they plan to introduce, according to Ritchie.
Ritchie said they’re looking at safety precautions taken by railroads, what the governor has done and laws in other states, while also making sure Pennsylvania doesn’t overstep legally.
“Pennsylvania really cannot add additional regulations that would basically be under the jurisdiction of the federal government,” he said.
Some states are testing that idea. Similar to Washington’s law, California passed legislation in 2014 requiring that railroads provide emergency response plans and proof they can pay oil spill cleanup costs. Two railroads and an industry group sued claiming federal law preempts state rail laws.
In June, a federal court dismissed the case because the state hadn’t started enforcing the law, and railroads couldn’t challenge it if it hadn’t yet been enforced. The law is now in effect.
Part of the issue for railroads is the inconsistency of having to follow different rules in each state with oil trains moving across the country.
“It’s a national system that needs to be managed as a national system,” said Grady Cothen, a retired Federal Railroad Administration safety official. “And you really can’t lay on [state officials] for regulating the safety of railroad operations. If you do, it’s a very inefficient patchwork and you end up with railroads lobbying legislatures all over the United States… ”
Prevention and response
A train carrying crude oil can be identified by a red triangle-shaped placard on tank cars with the code 1267. It is a U.S. Department of Transportation classification code that identifies the hazardous material for emergency responders. (Photo by Molly Duerig/PublicSource)
Matt Stepp, policy director at environmental group PennFuture, said there are legislative steps that can be taken now in Pennsylvania.
He said the state should find or create revenue streams to pay for oil spill prevention plans and more robust emergency response initiatives.
“They need to come up with a consistent revenue stream where they put some money … to double, if not triple, the number of inspectors the state can deploy to the areas with a lot of traffic,” Stepp said.
Washington state’s 2015 oil train law put oil refineries on the hook for a 4-cent per barrel spill prevention tax and 1-cent oil spill response tax on oil moved by rail in bulk. The funds are put toward emergency response programs in oil train communities. Washington’s law also increased a state tax on railroads that helped pay for eight new rail inspectors.
In August, Wolf released a rail safety report recommending the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission [PUC] add rail inspectors. PUC Chairman Gladys Brown said the commission has filled one vacancy for an inspector since the report and is currently looking to fill another.
Brown said they hope to have the funds to hire two more after that to work with the Federal Railroad Administration to monitor the tracks. Railroads also hire their own inspectors.
To create more funding for cleanup and response programs in California, legislators approved a 6.5-cent fee on oil companies for every barrel of oil that comes into the state by rail.
Pennsylvania State Planning and Policy Secretary John Hanger said these kinds of fees are something Wolf’s administration is “open to,” but that they would likely require legislative action.
Within the last year and a half, Washington state and New York have increased funding for oil spill response funds.
At the national level, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa, has proposed a bill that would put a $175 fee per shipment on each older DOT-111 tank car, which have been known to catch fire or spill when trains derail and are being phased out. The money generated by the bill would go to oil spill cleanup costs, training emergency responders and hiring railroad inspectors.
Stepp said state legislators also should create a cleanup fund that communities can tap into if an accident happens. Pennsylvania doesn’t have one, although there is a federal oil spill fund that states can access.
“Whether you’re talking about a big city like Philly or a county, none of them are necessarily prepared for taking on such a kind of accident [crude oil derailment] and the long term impacts of that accident,” he said.
Railroad and oil companies would “play a role” in cleanup costs, Stepp said, but that can take time and sometimes doesn’t cover all the mitigation costs. “Taxpayers tend to be on the hook for at least some of it,” he said.
Railroads say safety first
Officials from CSX and Norfolk Southern also testified at a hearing with the two state Senate committees on how they’ve advanced safety for crude oil transport. The officials focused on how they’ve trained first responders across Pennsylvania, supported tougher federal tank car standards and invested billions to improve track conditions.
“We are investing in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to further enhance safety and efficiency as we move the goods that move America,” David Pidgeon, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, wrote in an email.
“Safety is CSX’s highest priority,” CSX spokesman Rob Doolittle wrote in an email.
You can use this map to explore Bakken crude oil train routes within Pennsylvania. Use the search bar to zoom in and see whether your house, workplace or school is located within the federal half-mile evacuation zone.
Their safety precautions aren’t always sufficient. In February, a CSX oil train derailed in Mount Carbon, W.V. The crash caused explosions and people were evacuatedfrom their homes. Regulators discovered a contractor twice found a flaw in a rail in the months before the accident.
But the railroad didn’t repair it and the rail cracked, causing the derailment of 27 cars on the 107-car oil train. Local residents are suing the railroad for failing to properly inspect the track.
In October, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) fined CSX and announced new track guidelines, including calling for railroads to improve inspections.
Doolittle said CSX is working with the FRA to develop additional inspection processes to more quickly and accurately identify rail flaws.
State rail safety report
The state rail safety report was prepared by Allan Zarembski, a University of Delaware railroad engineering professor and an expert in railway track and structures. He focused on how railroads could prevent track and railcar wheel failures.
The report lists 27 steps that can be taken by railroads and state agencies to reduce the risk of a derailment in the state.
Spokesmen for Norfolk Southern and CSXwouldn’t talk to PublicSource about whether they have adopted the recommendations. Instead both sent statements listing what they’ve done to improve safety and said they’re open to working with state officials to address the issue.
“The railroads are currently meeting some, but not all, of the recommendations,” Jeff Sheridan, Wolf’s spokesman, wrote in an email.
For instance, both railroads have refused to adopt a 35 mph speed limit for oil trains through cities with populations of more than 100,000, requested by the governor and Casey. They run them at a maximum of 40 mph.
“The administration continues to pursue this recommendation and absolutely feels that this is [an] important step to reduce the chances of a derailment,” Sheridan wrote.
Hanger said the recommendations aimed at state agencies have almost all been adopted.
These included steps the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) can take to improve response initiatives.
Ruth Miller, a PEMA spokeswoman, said the agency has focused on crude-by-rail emergency planning and is studying where more training and response materials may be needed.
“PEMA plans to provide opportunities for additional exercises as may be requested or needed (as funding is available),” she wrote in an email.
Emergency response coordinators in Cambria, Dauphin and Huntingdon counties told PublicSource that first responders have received more training regarding crude oil trains — some of it paid for by the railroads and some by state grants — but more is needed.
Lancaster County emergency response managers testified in June that the Legislature should expand the law on hazardous materials emergency planning to create more funding.
“The emergency services are prepared for a small-scale incident,” said Lancaster County Commissioner Scott Martin at the hearing, “but the amounts involved in a train spill or fire would be quickly overwhelming.”
Retired Templeton fire chief: Do not understate risk of oil trains
HIGHLIGHTS
• Despite training, emergency responders may not be able to prevent hundreds of fatalities in a derailment
• Highly flammable Canadian crude more dangerous than California crude
• Project should be denied if safety requirements can’t be enforced
By Greg O’Sullivan, October 23, 2015
Columnist John Peschong in his Aug. 23 column “Local responders are up to task” describes the extensive training and dedication of our emergency responders. This (in his opinion) means “emergency medical technicians and fire crews stand ready to protect us from any disaster,” including an oil train derailment and fire.
Greg O’Sullivan, Retired Templeton Fire Chief
Having retired from the fire service after 38 years in the profession, as well as being a qualified hazmat technician and hazmat incident commander, I feel I can speak with greater authority about the ability of local responders to respond to an oil train derailment involving a fire and/or spill.
Mr. Peschong is correct when he states that many hours and dollars have been spent to train our emergency responders and they are capable of mitigating most emergencies. What he doesn’t explain is that an oil train derailment involving multicar fires in a highly populated area could result in hundreds of deaths, despite herculean efforts of first responders. For the incident commander of a hazmat incident, the team’s first responsibility is the safety of the public and our responders. In the case of a multiple car derailment involving fire, evacuation would be the highest priority.
If a life hazard exists, efforts focus on fire suppression to protect rescue operations. The area is isolated, and mutual aid as well as other authorities are notified to assist in the emergency. If evacuation has been successful and no further life hazard exists, then, and only then, could tactical decisions be made concerning whether or not fire suppression should be attempted, or whether the fire should be allowed to burn. It should be noted the closest Type 1 or 2 hazmat team is in Santa Barbara County.
Phillips 66 recently delivered beautifully designed surveys to some area residents expounding the virtues of its oil train project. But nowhere does it explain that approval of the project means five oil trains per week coming through San Luis Obispo County, each train pulling 80 tank cars filled with highly flammable Canadian crude oil. (That would be 500 million gallons per year.)
Al Fonzi in his Oct. 9 Viewpoint “Fear campaign against Phillips” declares that the tar sands crude oil (dilbit) Phillips 66 wants to transport from Canada is no more dangerous than the California crude from San Ardo that has been transported through the county by train for several decades. Mr. Fonzi bases this claim on the fact that the Canadian crude and San Ardo crude have similar vapor pressures.
Vapor pressure is only one measure of the hazard of a liquid. Fire professionals are far more familiar with flash point as the main determinant of flammability of a liquid. The flash point of California crude, like that found in San Ardo, ranges 199 to 232 degrees Fahrenheit (MSDS Product 94-0007-02). In contrast, the flashpoint of Canadian crude is reported to be minus 30 degrees (MSDS Heavy Crude/Diluent mix), comparable to gasoline at minus 42 degrees, both of which are considered highly flammable.
An oil train derailment involving multicar fires in a highly populated area could result in hundreds of deaths, despite herculean efforts of first responders.
Suppose a derailment involves only a spill. What would a single car rupture spilling 30,000 gallons of oil in the Salinas River do to the water supply of Atascadero, Templeton and Paso Robles? The train tracks parallel the Salinas. Mr. Fonzi says opponents of the oil trains are running a “cynical campaign to terrorize the public.”
It is unfair and inaccurate to label the many organizations and individuals who oppose the Phillips 66 oil train project as uninformed, fearful citizens. Opponents of the oil train project include such well-respected bodies as the League of Women Voters, National Education Association and 40 public bodies including city councils, school boards, fire chiefs’ organizations and elected officials, as well as the editorial board of The Tribune.
The final Environmental Impact Report is nearing completion, which will bring the project before the Planning Commission. Because of the serious local and regional safety issues of the project, I agree with and support the League of Women Voters that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors must “insist upon full and enforceable mitigations” for all risks, and that if these safety requirements cannot be enforced by the county, the project should be denied.
As a retired fire service professional, I believe protecting the safety of communities along the rail corridor outweighs any perceived benefit of the project. Don’t be misled by PR firms (similar to the one John Peschong represents) who are paid to spin the topic for Phillips 66. Please take the time to get the facts for yourself.
Greg O’Sullivan spent 38 years in the fire service, including 12 years as Templeton fire chief. After retiring, he served four years on the Board of Directors of the Templeton Community Services District.
You must be logged in to post a comment.