Tag Archives: Crude by Rail

Crude By Rail, Derailment, Fire, Human error, Rail infrastructure, Rail inspection

To boost the safety of moving oil by rail, focus on the tracks, paper argues

Repost from the Houston Chronicle

To boost the safety of moving oil by rail, focus on the tracks, paper argues

Infrastructure report says broken rails and human error are also problems as shipments of crude increase

By Jennifer A. Dlouhy, August 6, 2015
A train hauls crude oil in Seattle last month. Railroads and regulators can leverage technology to make existing inspection programs more efficient and effective, says a white paper by the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure.on Wednesday, July 15, 2015. The highly controversial trains haul rail cars loaded with oil brought from the oil fields of North Dakota and Montana. (Joshua Trujillo, seattlepi.com) Photo: JOSHUA TRUJILLO / SEATTLEPI.COM
A train hauls crude oil in Seattle last month. Railroads and regulators can leverage technology to make existing inspection programs more efficient and effective, says a white paper by the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure.on Wednesday, July 15, 2015. The highly controversial trains haul rail cars loaded with oil brought from the oil fields of North Dakota and Montana. (Joshua Trujillo, seattlepi.com) Photo: JOSHUA TRUJILLO / SEATTLEPI.COM

WASHINGTON – More can be done to boost the safety of moving oil by rail by focusing on the tracks themselves, according to a white paper released Thursday by a group promoting infrastructure investments.

New rules requiring more resilient tank cars are an important step, the Alliance for Innovation and Infrastructure said, but regulators, railroads and shippers now need to do more to combat the leading cause of derailments, including broken rails and human error.

From integrity sensors to measurement systems, an array of technologies can help ensure tracks are sound, said Brigham McCown, chairman of the alliance and a former head of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

‘Proactive engagement’

“We tend to be reactionary. Something happened, so what are we going to do to fix it?” McCown told reporters Thursday. “We focus on the accident, rather than focusing on a long-term proactive engagement of reducing the potential for accidents to begin with.”

The issue has drawn attention amid a surge in oil-by-rail traffic. As trains carry crude across the United States to refineries and ports, there has also been a series of fiery derailments involving tank cars carrying that hazardous material.

Over 22 pages, the alliance’s white paper makes the case that railroads and regulators can leverage technology to make existing inspection programs more efficient and effective.

Existing regulations, updated in 2014, already mandate both track and rail inspections – the former often entails workers examining the physical conditions of track structures and the roadbed by foot or by vehicle, with that monitoring required as frequently as weekly in some cases. Rail inspections use ultrasonic or induction testing to identify hidden internal defects, with their timing generally pegged to the amount of traffic on rail segments.

The Federal Railroad Administration also requires other probes, including monthly inspections of switches, turnouts, track crossings and other devices.

Constant inspections

Many railroads go above and beyond those inspection requirements.

“Freight railroads spend billions of dollars every year on maintaining and further modernizing the nation’s rail network, including safety enhancing rail infrastructure and equipment,” said Ed Greenberg, a spokesman for the Association of American Railroads. “At any point during the day or night, the nation’s rail network is being inspected, maintained or being upgraded.”

But the infrastructure alliance reiterates a previous assertion by the National Transportation Safety Board, that track inspections are undermined when a single worker can inspect multiple lines at the same time, as currently allowed.

And McCown emphasized that existing technology can boost the odds of catching broken rails and other problems before an accident.

Crude By Rail, Local Regulation, Rail spur, Transload facility

County votes down rail

Repost from the Williston Herald

County votes down rail

Prefers to take a ‘wait and see’ approach
By Eric Killelea, August 4, 2015
Williams County Commissioners
Williams County Commissioners – Top Row: Barry Ramberg, Wayne Aberle, Martin Hanson. Bottom Row: David Montgomery, Dan Kalil

WILLISTON —The Williams County Commission on Tuesday refused a proposed 992-acre rail spur and transload facility in Pherrin Township northeast of Williston.

The board voted 3-2 against the facility aimed to set up south of 57th Street Northwest.

“I don’t think it’s necessary,” said Commissioner Martin Hanson, who based his vote to oppose the project on environmental and safety concerns and the township’s recommendation for denial of the project. “I don’t think it’s needed.”

Hanson’s remarks come as state officials report North Dakota produces nearly 1.2 million barrels of crude oil per day, of which about 700 bpd is shipped by rail. State officials want to continue pursuing the build-out of pipelines as another means of transportation, but think rail is still needed to transport crude oil out of state. Rail traffic has increased 233 percent from 2005 to 2012.

Previously speaking on behalf of the applicant, Jordon Evert, of Williston-based Furuseth, Kalil, Olson and Evert Law Firm, said “reputable companies” in the oil patch had shown interest in the project that could accommodate 40 percent natural gas liquids, 50 percent dry goods (frack sand, pipe and perhaps agricultural commodities) and 20 percent oil. Evert said Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway had not formally announced its support, but its representatives had confirmed its interest in the project.

“This facility would be needed,” Evert said during a commission meeting in June. “But these oil companies are afraid, or don’t want to commit to anything in writing until the project is approved.”

Commissioner Dan Kalil was absent during that June meeting when the commission voted 2-2 in deadlock.

He previously abstained from voting on the county planning and zoning commission because his son works for the Furuseth, Kalil, Olson and Evert Law Firm. The commission on Tuesday allowed him to vote on the project after deciding there was no conflict of interest because the outcome would not welcome personal gain.

“Is this the new normal? Is this the new old? Are we going to see a ramp-up in activity?” asked Kalil, who also voted against the project. “Those are the factors going into this and we don’t know these things.”

Commissioner Barry Ramberg agreed with Hanson and Kalil and their thinking the project could be brought to the board in the next several years if the need to transport crude-by-rail continued.

“Time will tell,” said Chair David Montgomery, who joined Commissioner Wayne Aberle in voting in approval of the project.

Bakken Crude, Bomb Trains, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Emergency Readiness & Response, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fire

Video: Bomb Trains on the Hudson River

Repost from HudsonRiverAtRisk.com
[Editor:  Another excellent regional video about the potential for horrific environmental impacts due to crude by rail.  We are doing our best to guarantee that the marshlands, valleys, cities and towns of Northern California don’t become the next Hudson River Valley, transporting billions of gallons of Bakken Crude every year.  – RS]

BOMB TRAINS ON THE HUDSON – BAKKEN SHALE COMES TO THE RIVER

By Jon Bowermaster, July 13, 2015

The sight of long trains made up of one hundred-plus black, cylindrical cars, rolling slowly through cities and towns across North America – often within yards of office buildings, hospitals and schools — has become commonplace.

Few who see them know that these sinister-looking cars carry a highly flammable mixture of gas and oil from the shale fields of North Dakota. At thirty thousand gallons per car, each of these trains carries more than three million gallons of highly flammable and toxic fuel, earning them the nickname “bomb trains.”

I see them on a daily basis in the Hudson Valley, whether stacked up four-deep alongside the thruway in Albany, crossing an aging trestle bridge in Kingston, rolling behind strip malls and health care facilities in Ulster, paralleling the very edge of the Hudson River. Several of the long, ominous-looking trains snake south from Albany to refineries in Philadelphia every day, crossing New Jersey, paralleling Manhattan.

And this oil/gas combo is not just moving by rail: Last year three billion gallons of crude that arrived in Albany by train from the North Dakota were offloaded to tanks and then barges to be shipped downriver. The very first tanker carrying crude oil ran aground, a dozen miles south of the Port of Albany; thankfully its interior hull was not breached.

The boom in this train traffic – in 2009 there were 9,000 of the black rail cars, today there are more than 500,000 – correlates directly with the boom in fracking of gas and oil across the U.S. Record amounts of both are being pulled out of the ground in the Dakotas, Colorado, Texas and thirty other states and needs to be delivered to refineries. Pipelines take time to build and often run into community resistance; since there are railways already leading in every direction the oil and gas industry has taken them over. In 2010, 55,000 barrels of crude oil were shipped by rail each day in the U.S.; today it is more than 1 million barrels … per day.

During the same period there’s been another corollary, a boom in horrific railway accidents resulting in derailments, spills, fires and explosions. Sometimes they occur near fragile wetlands (Aliceville, AL, November 2013); sometimes in neighborhoods where hundreds must be evacuated (Casselton, ND, December 2013); and sometimes in the middle of a town (Lac-Megantic, Quebec, July 2013, where 47 people were killed in a midnight derailment).

Since February 14 a half-dozen of these “bomb trains” have derailed and spilled or exploded, in Illinois, Ontario and West Virginia, leaving widespread destruction and environmental damage in their wake. A half-mile on either side of the tracks is considered within the “blast zone” when these fuel-laden trains crash. Increasingly they are mentioned as potential terrorist weapons.

bomb_train_accidents_2013-2015Efforts to regulate this explosion of shipping by rail has proven difficult. It seems that no one wants to accept the responsibility (or costs) of improving the safety of the cars, the tracks, the infrastructure they run over or the volatile fuel. On May 2 the Department of Transportation issued some new rules and regulations regarding the speed trains can travel at through communities, required updated and safer rail cars and more, but most of the proposed changes don’t take effect for many years. Environmental advocates are not hopeful for much quick change given the powerful lobbying efforts of the gas, oil and rail industries.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has previously said there was little the state could do to slow the traffic, but even he is concerned about the possibility of accident; last month the governor’s office issued a complaint after investigating train cars coming into Albany and citing 84 “defects.”

Opposition to new safety rules comes despite that the D.O.T. estimates that if this pace of shipping continues there will be fifteen major accidents every year and one of the enormity of Lac-Megantic (47 people killed) every two years.

“Even if new measures are adopted,” says Roger Downs, an Albany-based attorney with the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter, “it still feels like a half-baked plan to address a wholly inappropriate way to move oil.”

 

Bakken Crude, Benicia Planning Commission, Climate Change, CPC-1232, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Explosion, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Fire, Global warming, Tar sands crude, Valero Crude By Rail, Volatility

Roger Straw: Crude by rail is dangerous — and dirty!

Repost from the Benicia Herald

Crude by rail is dangerous — and dirty!

By Roger Straw, August 2, 2015
Roger Straw

BACK IN JUNE OF 2013, I was alarmed to discover that Valero had plans to make me and all of Benicia complicit in the massive destruction taking place in the pristine forests of Alberta, Canada. With city Planning Commission approval, Valero planned to purchase crude oil taken from strip mines in Canada that are the dirtiest producers of oil on earth, then ship it on dangerous trains all across the West to our back yard.

Since then, Benicians have learned much more about Valero’s proposal. We’ve learned that Valero would also like to ship volatile Bakken crude oil, taken from fracking facilities in North Dakota and the Upper Midwest, on these trains. Bakken oil has proven different from most other crude, based on the eight accidents since July 2013 involving derailed trains that carried Bakken oil and resulted in massive fires and explosions. Several explosive train derailments have also been loaded with diluted tar sands crude.

Benicians have also learned much more about the trains themselves. Now we know how weak the train cars are, and how the federal government has established new rules that give industry years to strengthen them. Old DOT-111 tank cars still roll down our tracks. Updated — but still highly inadequate — DOT-1232 cars continue to roll, and retrofits of the older cars are to be spread out over the next decade. The railroads circumvent reporting requirements on their shipments to our state and county emergency responders by assembling trains that carry less than a million gallons of crude oil. And even when everything else goes right, aging railroad ties and rails will break, bridges will fail, and there aren’t enough inspectors. The accidents will continue.

Americans are sick of seeing the huge balls of fire on TV. We pray that the next BIG ONE will not be in a highly populated area — but we can’t reasonably pray there will be no next BIG ONE. It’s a matter of when, not if.

Finally, even if all the public safety issues could be solved, Valero’s proposal does far more harm to the environment than the company would have us think. Beginning at the source, production of these North American “extreme crudes” is beyond ugly: oil companies strip and gouge and pollute the soil, destroy wildlife habitat and contribute to soaring cancer rates in human communities. They foul the social fabric of small towns and farming communities with a disruptive boom-and-bust economy. Then come the trains, polluting the air from the upper Midwest all the way to Benicia, clattering over mountains and through gorgeous river passes and right through the hearts of our cities and towns, rattling and clattering near our schools, retirement villages, commercial and industrial centers and homes. In all this (if we give our permission), at every step along the way, the oil and rail industries contribute mightily to the warming of planet Earth.

Valero would like us to think that crude oil trains will save on air pollution by cutting back on the number of marine oil tankers. This may hold for a small region like the San Francisco Bay Area, but the city of Benicia’s own study showed that there would be “significant and unavoidable” impacts to air quality outside the Bay Area. Experts add that there would be “toxic plumes” all along the rail lines: “This thing called ‘crude shrinkage’ happens during transport, where entrained gases escape, leading to a 0.5- to 3-percent loss of crude oil. It’s a big problem for volatile crude oils like Bakken, and coupled with the high benzene levels found in some North American crudes (up to 7 percent) …we estimate over 100 pounds per day of excess benzene emissions from the Valero proposal in the Bay Area (or 1800 times more than the draft EIR reports),” said NRDC Senior Scientist Diane Bailey. Read her blog here: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dbailey/valeros_promise_to_benicia_wel.html.

In short, oil trains are dangerous AND dirty.

The city of Benicia will release a revised draft environmental impact report on Valero’s proposal at the end of August. Everyone should stay tuned. Be prepared to study the document, read critical reviews, and share a comment with our Planning Commission. Together, we can make a difference.