Tag Archives: Crude by Rail

Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Ethanol, Tank car design

Iowa Public Radio: Derailment in Dubuque–A Reminder of the Hazards of Transporting Oil by Rail

February 14, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from Iowa Public Radio
[Editor: For the most part, Canadian Pacific Railway spokesperson Andy Cummings is incredibly evasive, offering only general and unresponsive answers to the radio reporter interviewing him. This is a 21-minute investigative report, well worth listening beyond the first interview with Mr. Cummings. – R]

Derailment in Dubuque–A Reminder of the Hazards of Transporting Oil by Rail

By Emily Woodbury & Ben Kieffer, Feb. 13, 2015

DOT-111s make up about 70 percent of the U.S. tank car fleet | Bengt 1955 / flickr

With at least one million gallons of crude oil and ethanol passing through Iowa on a single freight train, derailments like the one last week a few miles from Dubuque are a major concern.

“As ethanol dilutes into the water, it’s kind of that process that depletes the oxygen from the water,” says Kevin Baskins, spokesperson for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. “That’s something we’re going to continue to monitor in the near future.”

Baskins says that the cleanup is going well so far, and they are in the process of sparging air, a process that involves evaporating the ethanol into the air rather that letting it dissolve into the water.

Erin Jordan, reporter with The Gazette and KCRG-TV9, says that derailments with DOT-111s can be especially problematic, as they are vulnerable to puncture in a derailment. DOT-111s are a type of train car commonly used to transport crude oil and ethanol, as well as other hazardous materials.

“A Johnson County commodity study showed, in addition to ethanol, there was also battery acid, anhydrous ammonia, pesticides, paint […] and so you can imagine there would be an environmental effect to those,” she says.

Right now, nine Iowa counties have extra large shipments of crude oil traveling through. While area residents are not notified of what materials are being hauled through their communities, Canadian Pacific Railway’s spokesperson Andy Cummings says they will answer specific questions from emergency responders.

“They can contact the railroad, and we will make that information available to them,” says Andy Cummings. “For security reasons, we do not share details of our dangerous goods movements publicly.”

Canadian Pacific Railway and BNSF Railway Co. also report large shipments of Bakken crude oil to Iowa Homeland Security and Emergency Management.

“There has to be more with respect to openness and disclosure of the chemicals that are being transported,” says Baskins. “When a spill happens, it’s immediate that you have to alert the public, you have to have a plan in place to respond, and you can’t do that if you’re trying to figure out what’s in the chemical that actually spilled.”

On this River to River segment, Ben Kieffer talks with Kevin Baskins and Erin Jordan, as well as David Cwiertny, associate faculty research engineer for the IIHR—Hydroscience & Engineering at the University of Iowa, and Andy Cummings, spokesperson for Canadian Pacific Railway.

California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Solano County CA

Solano County lobbyists to advocate for crude-by-rail health and safety

February 13, 2015 Roger Straw

By Roger Straw, February 12, 2015

A little known but influential Council here in Solano County is the Solano County City County Coordinating Council (CCCC, or 4C’s).

Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson’s recent E-Alert gives a rare look at the proceedings of a recent CCCC meeting, including adoption of a legislative platform for Solano County that calls for our State and Federal lobbyists to support efforts to improve safety of hazardous materials transported by rail.

Mayor Patterson offered the following insider perspective on the adoption of the 2016 legislative platform at the CCCC’s February 12, 2015 meeting:

Highlights of the discussion was the transportation safety issue that Benicia added: “Support efforts to improve safety of hazardous materials transported by rail, including crude by rail and enhance capacity of local emergency responders to appropriately respond to potential emergency events resulting from derailment or releases.”

…there was spirited discussion and accusations of “agenda driven” thinking and the language not necessary and other detracting remarks. Because the 4Cs was established with a consensus protocol, a simple majority of the quorum was not enough to carry this suggestion forward. After more discussion and the lead objector, Supervisor Spering, saw that that half the Mayors and three Supervisors did want the above language, he offered language that seemed to capture the essence of the suggestion. In the end we gave direction to staff to finalize the language to be reviewed by Supervisor Spering and the City of Benicia.

Kudos to Mayor Patterson and Benicia city staff, and many thanks to the other County Supervisors and Mayors who backed this legislative priority. Let’s hope that the compromise language still has some teeth!

It will be wonderful to be know that our County’s tax-supported State and Federal lobbyists are representing us to improve health and safety legislative measures with regard to crude by rail.

California House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, California Regulation, Crude By Rail, Emergency Readiness & Response, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Sacramento CA, Tank car design, Uprail communities, US Department of Transportation, Valero Benicia Refinery

Sacramento Bee editorial: We need open debate on oil train safety

February 11, 2015 Roger Straw

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Benicia Independent Editor: A bit odd that the Bee editorial is defending the rail industry’s right to talk to the media and to lobby congress. Nice, though, when the Bee writes, “Thankfully, officials in Benicia actually listened to people who exercised free speech. They announced last week they will redo parts of an environmental study….” A call for open debate is a good thing. However, the House subcommittee’s urging for timely new rules on tank car safety is infinitely more important than Rep. Denham’s comment and the Bee’s response. For a more substantive article on the subcommittee proceedings, see the CQ Roll Call story. – RS]

We need open debate on oil train safety

By the Editorial Board, 02/10/2015

Rep. Jeff Denham, chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, questions a witness last year. Pete Marovich / MCT Tribune News Service

As oil trains rumble through the Sacramento region, a key House panel held an important hearing on how rail and pipelines can keep up – safely – with the boom in domestic oil production. For two hours, top rail and oil industry executives testified and answered questions on this crucial issue.

Then Rep. Jeff Denham had to go and spoil it.

The Turlock Republican, chairman of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, ended last week’s hearing on an unfortunate note – an unnecessary dressing down of a rail car manufacturing executive who called on federal regulators to speed up the rollout of safer oil tank cars.

Though his firm (which has a repair shop in Modesto) would benefit financially, Greg Saxton, senior vice president and chief engineer at the Greenbrier Companies, happens to be right. The National Transportation Safety Board, which put rail tank car safety on its “most wanted” list for 2015, points out that more than 100,000 outdated cars carry crude, increasing the risk of leaks and explosions. Denham also says he’s concerned that the U.S. Department of Transportation missed its own Jan. 30 deadline to submit new rules on oil tank cars.

So what was Saxton’s transgression, according to Denham? He had the temerity to talk to lowly newspaper editorial writers, as well as esteemed members of Congress.

Denham lectured Saxton that he didn’t want the “wrong people” – whoever they are – “talking to the ed boards across the country” and creating a “misperception” that “our industry” is unsafe.

“I just want to make sure we’re all singing the same tune that we have a very safe industry and we want to work together in improving that industry,” the congressman said, as pointed out by Mike Dunbar, opinions page editor at The Modesto Bee who talked to Saxton last month.

Last time we checked, acting as a public relations consultant for the oil industry isn’t Denham’s job. He should care much more about keeping his constituents in Modesto and Turlock safe. As chairman of this important panel, he should encourage open debate. Instead, his spokeswoman said Tuesday, Denham stands by his remarks to Saxton.

Thankfully, officials in Benicia actually listened to people who exercised free speech.

They announced last week they will redo parts of an environmental study on the proposal for two 50-car oil trains a day to traverse Sacramento and other Northern California cities on the way to the Valero refinery in Benicia.

Benicia officials are responding to environmental groups, Sacramento-area officials and Attorney General Kamala Harris, who had all properly pointed out that the report fell short in analyzing potential oil spills and fires in the middle of urban areas and didn’t even consider possible harm east of Roseville.

The updated study, to be released June 30, also needs to at least consider suggestions from Sacramento and Davis leaders that Union Pacific Railroad be required to give advance notice of oil shipments to emergency responders and be banned from parking oil trains in urban areas.

They’re the sorts of ideas that people might just want to explain to a congressional committee – or perhaps even an editorial board.

Crude By Rail, DEIR, Revised Draft EIR, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Crude By Rail

Editor: Reflections on Benicia’s Recirculation announcement

February 6, 2015 Roger Straw

By Roger Straw, The Benicia Independent, Feb. 6, 2015

Valero_Crude_by_Rail-Project_Description_March_2013_(cover_page) On Feb. 3, the City of Benicia released a significant announcement, further delaying Valero’s proposal to begin shipping North American (Bakken and tar sands) crude oil in railroad tank cars:

The City has reviewed all of the comments submitted on the Draft EIR and has determined that sections of the Draft EIR will need to be updated and recirculated. The anticipated release of the Recirculated Draft EIR for public comment is June 30, 2015. The Recirculated Draft EIR will have a 45-day comment period. After the comment period on the Recirculated DEIR closes, the City will complete the Final EIR which will include responses to all comments on the original Draft EIR and the Recirculated Draft EIR.

This is a victory for those of us who have openly and passionately opposed Valero’s proposal – a vindication of what we have been advocating all along. The local opposition group, Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC), submitted a 132-page critique of the DEIR, disclosing multiple “fatal flaws” and calling for a revision and recirculation. The City of Benicia seems to agree.

After the City’s failed attempt to rush the project’s approval in early 2013, it has been significantly slowed for critical analysis and public transparency. The recirculation will further delay any possibility of approval. Don’t hold your breath, but little “David” may just be winning a long and arduous battle with “Goliath.”

On the other hand, the decision to recirculate indicates that Valero and City staff are NOT backing off plans to seek a permit, as some had speculated they might. The historic drop in crude oil prices; the resulting cutbacks in crude extraction in North Dakota; the uncertainty of impending new federal and state regulations and lawsuits surrounding those new regulations; vociferous local, regional and statewide opposition and severe critiques of the Draft EIR … none of these factors, nor all of them together seem enough to have backed Valero into a wait-and-see attitude.

Local conversation among Benicia residents following the recirculation announcement has been spirited with significant questions and concerns:

Many are questioning the City’s “selected” revision method–what sections of the DEIR are going to be revised, and what sections, if any, will go unchanged? Is a “piecemeal” revision a wise approach? Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) and other government agencies & NGOs have found serious deficiencies in ALL sections of the DEIR (see highly critical reviews and the BSHC critique). Surely the City should address ALL the concerns expressed by the California State Attorney General and the other government agencies and NGO’s. The City must have a solid EIR with full, honest disclosure of impacts of this project.
Critics have raised serious concerns about the ability of the current consulting team to complete the task of revising a DEIR that can withstand legal scrutiny given the extremely poor original product. Given the badly flawed analysis and obvious bias in favor of the project demonstrated by the consultants, it might be prudent for the City to hire a different consultant.
Many Benicians continue to believe that if the DEIR disclosed the true extent of the environmental impacts and safety risks of this project it could never be built.

So Benicians still have work to do. Maybe take a bit of a break between now and June, but PLEASE don’t quit writing letters, gathering signatures, putting up yard signs, canvassing, petitioning, keeping informed, and supporting nearby Bay Area refinery communities and important uprail efforts. Stay in touch!