Tag Archives: Ethanol

Derailment, DOT-111, Ethanol, Fire, Tank car retirement, Tank car retrofit

Latest Derailment: near Dubuque, Iowa, involving outdated tank cars

Repost from KCRG.com, Cedar Rapids, IA
[Editor: apologies for the video’s commercial ad, but otherwise a good report.  See also coverage with another photo and perhaps better information on Reuters.  – RS]

Fiery derailment near Dubuque involved outdated tank cars

DOT-111s prone to puncture, but still heavily used

By Erin Jordan, The Gazette, Feb 4, 2015


DUBUQUE COUNTY — A train derailment Wednesday near Dubuque that caused three tank cars to erupt in flames and three others to plunge into the icy Mississippi River involved outdated cars prone to punctures and spills.

The Canadian Pacific freight train headed southeast derailed around 11:30 a.m. Wednesday in a remote area north of Dubuque. Eleven cars left the track, with 10 of those carrying ethanol, officials reported. Three of those cars caught fire and three slipped into the river.

An aerial shot of the derailed train north of Dubuque. (Charlie Schurmann/KCRG-TV9)

“I can confirm that DOT-111s were involved, how many of the derailed cars were DOT-111s I am not sure yet,” Canadian Pacific spokesperson Jeremy Berry reported Wednesday evening.

DOT-111s, black, tubed-shaped tank cars, make up about 70 percent of the U.S. tank car fleet. The outdated cars have been blamed for explosions and spills during derailments across North America. In the worst of these crashes, 47 people died when a runaway train of crude oil in DOT-111 cars exploded in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, July 6, 2013.

In July, the U.S. Department of Transportation proposed a two-year phase out of DOT-111s for carrying some flammable liquids, such as crude oil and ethanol, unless the tanks are retrofitted. The rail car supply industry has so far built more than 17,000 upgraded tankers that include thicker steel, stronger end caps and more protection for top fittings, Tom Simpson, president of the Railway Supply Institute, a trade group that acts on behalf of suppliers to North American railroads, told The Gazette in April. The group expect to have 55,000 by the end of 2015.

Tens of thousands of the cars are still in use because of the high volume of crude oil being shipped from the Bakken region or North Dakota, Montana and Canada.

Nine Iowa counties, including five along the Mississippi River in Eastern Iowa, see rail shipments of one million gallons or more of extra-flammable Bakken crude, The Gazette reported in June.

“You have these older cars that don’t meet the specs carrying these flammable liquids, this is what you’re going to get,” Albert Ratner, a University of Iowa associate professor of mechanical engineering who studies fires during train derailments, said about Wednesday’s crash.

No one was injured in the derailment. Because the tracks run between the river and a steep, snow-covered slope, fire crews were not able to put out the blaze Wednesday, the Dubuque County Sheriff’s Office reported.

The derailment could have caused more damage in a metropolitan area, Ratner said. The snow also likely reduced the potential for nearby trees catching fire. But because DOT-111s are notorious for breaking apart in derailments, ethanol could have spilled from the tank cars into the Mississippi, Ratner said.

“You could have problems with it going downstream and spreading out the environmental effect,” he said.

Canadian Pacific officials were still gathering information Wednesday evening.

“Safety is the priority and we take these incidents seriously,” Spokeswoman Salem Woodrow wrote in an email. “CP’s emergency protocols were immediately enacted and all safety precautions and measures are being taken as our crews respond to the incident.”

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Ethanol, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Pipeline transport, Tank car design

DeFazio Blasts U.S. DOT for Failing to Address Rail Tank Car Safety

Press Release from Congressman Peter DeFazio

DeFazio Blasts U.S. DOT for Failing to Address Rail Tank Car Safety

Will request an Inspector General audit of PHMSA safety programs

From Press Release, 22 Jan 2015

Washington, D.C. – Today, Ranking Member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Peter DeFazio (D-OR) sent a letter to U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Anthony Foxx, urging him to take immediate action to address rail tank car safety and other significant pipeline and hazardous materials safety hazards.

“Despite numerous incidents involving the transportation of crude oil and other flammable materials by rail, subsequent NTSB safety recommendations, and an industry petition for new tank car design standards, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) failed to take action until a train transporting crude oil in DOT-111 tank cars in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and completely destroyed the town center,” said DeFazio. “Here we are almost 15 months later, and we still do not have a final rule.”

DeFazio also takes issue with PHMSA’s failure to address longstanding, significant safety issues that extend to pipelines.

In multiple pipeline accident investigations over the last 15 years, the NTSB has identified the same persistent issues–most of which DOT has failed to address. Each time, Congress has been forced to require PHMSA to take action, most recently in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Yet three years later, almost none of the important safety measures in the Act have been finalized, including requirements for pipeline operators to install automatic shutoff valves and to inspect pipelines beyond high-consequence areas.

“For these reasons, I will soon be sending a letter to the DOT Inspector General (IG), requesting a thorough audit of PHMSA’s pipeline and hazardous materials safety program, including an evaluation of the agency’s effectiveness in addressing significant safety issues, congressional mandates, and NTSB and IG recommendations in a timely manner; the process PHMSA utilizes for implementing such mandates and recommendations; the sufficiency of PHMSA’s efforts to coordinate with the modal administrations and address safety concerns raised by those administrations; and any impediments to agency action, such as resource constraints.”

DeFazio urges DOT to take immediate action to address these serious safety issues. He writes that the tens of millions of Americans who rely on the Federal Government to protect their safety and health and our nation’s natural resources rightly deserve more than proposed rules that languish in the Federal bureaucracy.

The full letter to Secretary Foxx is below:

January 22, 2015

The Honorable Anthony Foxx
Secretary of Transportation
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Dear Secretary Foxx:

I write to express my serious concerns with the repeated failure of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to address longstanding and undisputed pipeline and hazardous materials safety issues.

The rule regarding Enhanced Tank Car Standards and Operational Controls for High-Hazard Flammable Trains is a prime example. The DOT maintains finalizing this rule remains one of its highest priorities, yet the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) now reports that publication of a final rule is not anticipated until May 12, 2015. In fact, the DOT has not even transmitted a draft final rule to the Office of Management and Budget for review.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has raised concerns about the “high incidence of failure” of DOT-111 tank cars since 1991. In fact, over the last 10 years, the NTSB has investigated or is currently investigating seven accidents involving the transportation of crude oil and other flammable materials in DOT-111 tank cars, including an October 2006 train derailment in New Brighton, Pennsylvania, which caused the release of 485,278 gallons of ethanol that ignited and burned for almost 48 hours; an October 2007 ethanol train derailment in Painesville, Ohio; a June 2009 ethanol train derailment and fire in Cherry Valley, Illinois, which killed one person, injured nine others, and resulted in a mandatory evacuation of about 600 residences within a half-mile radius of the accident site; an October 2011 ethanol train derailment in Tiskilwa, Illinois; a July 2012 mixed freight train derailment in Columbus, Ohio, which released 53,000 gallons of ethanol; a December 2013 train derailment and fire in Casselton, North Dakota, which resulted in the release of 476,000 gallons of crude oil and the evacuation of 1,400 residents; and, an April 2014 train derailment in Lynchburg, Virginia, which spilled 30,000 gallons of crude oil in and around the James River.

The NTSB has been made aware of (but is not investigating) five additional train accidents that occurred between August 2008 and February 2014 in the U.S., which involved the release of crude oil, causing significant environmental damage and fires.

In March 2011, the Association of American Railroads petitioned PHMSA to conduct a rulemaking on new tank car design standards, which seemingly languished in the bowels of the agency until 2013, when a train transporting crude oil in DOT-111 tank cars in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killed 47 people and completely destroyed the town center. Coincidentally, two months later, PHMSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on new tank car design standards.

Here we are almost 15 months later, and we still do not have a final rule. Frankly, I am concerned that opposition to the more contentious portions of the rule will only lead to further delays, possibly even litigation. That will end up postponing implementation of a final rule while the concerns of States and local communities are growing.

Moreover, these delays have significant implications for rail car manufacturers. It will take time for them to adjust to the standards proposed in the rule, which in turn will have a rippling effect on shippers who are putting off purchases of new tank cars until the new design standards are finalized. As I have said before, I believe that you should seriously consider severing this rule and propose one rule on stronger tank car design standards and another rule to address the operational changes proposed in the NPRM. That is sure to move this issue forward and address the more immediate dangers posed by the current DOT-111 tank cars.

Additionally, my concerns regarding PHMSA’s failure to address longstanding, significant safety issues extend to pipelines, as well. In multiple pipeline accident investigations over the last 15 years, the NTSB has identified the same persistent issues, most of which DOT has failed to address on its own accord. Each and every time, Congress has been forced to require PHMSA to take action, most recently in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). Yet, three years later, almost none of the important safety measures in the Act have been finalized, including requirements for pipeline operators to install automatic shutoff valves and to inspect pipelines beyond high-consequence areas.

For these reasons, I will soon be sending a letter to the DOT Inspector General (IG), requesting a thorough audit of PHMSA’s pipeline and hazardous materials safety program, including an evaluation of the agency’s effectiveness in addressing significant safety issues, congressional mandates, and NTSB and IG recommendations in a timely manner; the process PHMSA utilizes for implementing such mandates and recommendations; the sufficiency of PHMSA’s efforts to coordinate with the modal administrations and address safety concerns raised by those administrations; and any impediments to agency action, such as resource constraints.

In the interim, I urge you to take immediate action to address these serious safety issues. The tens of millions of Americans who rely on the Federal Government to protect their safety and health and our nation’s natural resources rightly deserve more than proposed rules that languish in the Federal bureaucracy. If you need additional information or have questions regarding this letter, please have your staff contact Jennifer Homendy of my staff at 202-225-3274.

Sincerely,

PETER DeFAZIO
Ranking Democratic Member

 

AMTRAK, Crude By Rail, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Freight trains, Positive Train Control, Train speed

U.S. oil train rule changes would have side effects on passenger, freight traffic

Repost from The Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester, NY

U.S. oil train rule changes would have side effects

By Brian Tumulty, January 13, 2015
Railroad oil tanker cars parked at the Port of Albany. Each week between 20 and 35 freight trains pulling such tankers roll through Monroe Coundy. (Photo: Mike Groll / AP file photo 2014)

WASHINGTON – Long-distance passenger and freight rail service could be headed for gridlock later this year if trains hauling crude oil and ethanol are limited to 40 miles per hour.

And it could get worse. If the controversial Keystone XL pipeline doesn’t win approval, the American Petroleum Institute estimates “an additional 700,000 barrels per day” will need to be shipped by freight rail. That would require an additional 1,000 rail tank cars every day to transport the tar sands oil the pipeline was intended to carry from Canada to the U.S.

Passengers in the tens of thousands per year travel on trains that stop in Rochester and could potentially be affected by the decisions that will soon be made.

The speed limit, proposed by federal regulators, would cause “severe disruption of freight and passenger rail service across the U.S.,” according to the National Shippers Strategic Transportation Council, a trade group.

The result of the debate will affect both local passengers who use Amtrak — 145,000 people boarded or got off at the Rochester Amtrak station in 2013 — and local activists worried about potential safety issues involving the oil tanker trains that run through Monroe County. Between 20 and 35 oil trains roll across upstate each week, passing through Monroe County on their way to Albany.

The Association of American Railroad says the 40 mph speed limit, and a related proposal requiring freight trains carrying crude oil or ethanol to have electronically controlled pneumatic brakes, “would have a devastating impact on the railroads’ ability to provide their customers with efficient rail transportation.”

Amtrak, which carried 31 million passengers overall in 2013, runs most of its trains on tracks owned by the nation’s major freight railroads. Trains on the Albany-Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo corridor use a pair of tracks owned by Florida-based CSX Transportation.

Under federal law, freight railroads are required to give priority to Amtrak as they dispatch trains on their systems. But the system has always been imperfect, and scheduling conflicts with freight trains, along with numerous other problems, have made delays a fact of life on most Amtrak routes.

Amtrak supports imposing the 40 mph speed limit only in federally defined “high-threat urban areas” where the risk of a catastrophe is considered greatest. There are just over 50 around the country, including the New York City metro area and Buffalo.

“Anything more restrictive, if it affected network fluidity, could have adverse effects on Amtrak,” the railroad wrote.

The challenge for the oil and gas industry is continuing to safely transport crude oil from new oil fields to refineries.

About 70 percent of crude oil produced in the Bakken Shale Formation of North Dakota and Montana is shipped by rail, according to the oil refineries trade organization.

And production is continuing to increase, from less than 200,000 barrels per day in 2008 to nearly 1.2 million barrels per day in 2014, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Freight railroads predict production eventually will reach 2 million barrels a day.

About 70 percent of ethanol also is transported by rail.

Meanwhile, the nation’s rail network is operating at near capacity. Last year, its choke points resulted in a dramatic drop in the on-time performance of many long-distance Amtrak passenger trains.

Amtrak’s Capitol Limited route between Chicago and Washington had an on-time performance of less than 3 percent in the three months ending Sept. 30. Amtrak provided bus service between Chicago and Toledo, Ohio, for six days in October because some trains were running 10 hours late.

Freight rail shipments from grain elevators faced delays of up to three months a year ago. Freight railroads weren’t prepared for harsh winter weather on top of increased crude oil shipments.

Freight railroads say they’re spending billions of dollars to improve capacity — they largely avoided delays in shipping farm commodities following this year’s harvest — but a 40 mph speed limit for oil trains could undermine that.

“The impact on railroad capacity can be compared to traveling on a two-lane highway,” the Association of American Railroads said. “Slowing down one car or truck affects trailing vehicles. Similarly, slowing down one train affects trailing movements, except that the impact on railroad traffic is much worse because the opportunities to pass are much more constrained than on a highway.”

Trains can pass only at widely spaced locations on a railroad, whether single or double-tracked. Research on rail capacity has shown, and rail operators have long understood, that reducing speeds reduces network capacity.”

At issue is safety in the wake of several derailments of oil trains. The most notable, in the Quebec community of Lac-Mégantic in July 2013, killed 47 people.

Many rail industry groups and shippers say federal efforts to improve the safety of “unit” trains carrying at least 100 tankers loaded with crude oil should focus on fixing faulty tracks. New speed reductions, they say, should be limited to the most densely populated areas.

The National Transportation Safety Board lists improvements in rail tanker car safety as one of its 10 most wanted safety improvements for 2015. It also lists installation of “positive train controls,” which automatically slow trains going into a curve if the operator doesn’t.

“The NTSB does not have a specific position on any specific speed limits but what we do want to make sure first of all is, does the train stay on the track,” said Robert Sumwalt, a member of the NTSB board. “And PTC (positive train controls) is one good way of ensuring that the trains stay on the track. We want to make sure if they do derail, there’s adequate protection in the tank cars. And finally if the tank cars breach, we want to make sure there’s adequate emergency response.”

Federal officials late last year received more than 3,400 public comments on an array of proposals aimed at safer transportation of crude oil by rail. They include a new design for tank cars, retrofitting existing tank cars, installing new braking systems and speed restrictions.

Three possible speed-limit scenarios been proposed — one would limit oil trains to 40 mph at all times. Another would impose the 40 mph limit only when trains pass through regions of at least 100,000 people, and another would impose it only in cities defined as high-threat urban areas.

Trains using a new generation of safer tank cars would be allowed to travel at 50 mph.

The proposed speed limit would apply to “high-hazard flammable trains,” which federal transportation officials would define as any train carrying at least 20 tankers loaded with crude oil or ethanol.

Railroads say 20 cars is too few because freight trains add and subtract cars as they move along the nation’s vast rail network.

The average unit train has 94 tank cars, according to the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers association, which represents the owners of 120 refineries.

Local Regulation, Parked trains, West Sacramento CA

Another city says no to hazardous rail tank cars

Repost from The Sacramento Bee
[Editor: Significant quote: “…city officials said Union Pacific has been parking a dozen ethanol train cars at times on side tracks, some near the Ironworks Lofts housing area, where they wait until there is room to shuttle them onto the Buckeye property….City officials say UP frequently moves train cars back and forth across 15th Street at Jefferson Boulevard to make room in its yard.”  Does this sound like something we can expect on nearby rails and street crossings outside of Valero if the City approves crude-by-rail?  – RS]

West Sacramento says no to ethanol trains

By Tony Bizjak, 12/21/2014
A tanker truck is filled from railway cars containing crude oil on railroad tracks in McClellan Park in North Highlands on Wednesday, March 19, 2014. Several crude oil and ethanol trains have been involved in crashes and explosions nationally in recent years, prompting concerns in cities along rail lines.
A tanker truck is filled from railway cars containing crude oil on railroad tracks in McClellan Park in North Highlands on Wednesday, March 19, 2014. Several crude oil and ethanol trains have been involved in crashes and explosions nationally in recent years, prompting concerns in cities along rail lines. | Randall Benton

The city of West Sacramento and a Texas-based gasoline company are battling over whether it’s riskier to ship large amounts of ethanol through city streets on trains or on tanker trucks – a dispute that last week spilled into court.

Every day, six train cars full of the fuel additive arrive at a mixing terminal on West Sacramento’s riverfront south of Highway 50.

Saying the city is uncomfortable with trains, some of which sit unattended with their volatile cargo outside the terminal for days, the West Sacramento City Council refused on Wednesday to renew the company’s rail transport permit. The company, Buckeye Terminals, mixes the ethanol with gasoline at its South River Road plant for sale at Northern California gas stations.

Councilman Bill Kristoff noted that the train cars often park in the city’s Bridge District near a residential area, and that city officials are not allowed to know exactly what the cars carry. “I don’t understand the rail business well enough to know why all of these cars have to stay in our community for as long as they stay, and at the same time we don’t get to know what’s in them,” he said. “That is sort of alarming to me.”

Several crude oil and ethanol trains have been involved in crashes and explosions nationally in recent years, prompting concerns in cities along rail lines.

Buckeye officials quickly fired back, suing the city and contending that the permit denial creates a greater risk to the public because it likely will force the company to quadruple the number of tanker truck deliveries it receives daily at the plant, as a replacement for the rail deliveries.

In the lawsuit, filed Friday in Yolo Superior Court, the company accuses the city of failing to conduct adequate traffic studies in the new development areas along South River Road. Those studies, if done, would show safety risks where ethanol trucks mix with traffic, said Braiden Chadwick, a Buckeye attorney.

“The last thing anyone wants to see is a car vs. tanker truck (crash); that is a bad combo,” Chadwick said. “It is just a recipe for disaster.”

City officials declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying they are reviewing it.

West Sacramento’s decision to stop the ethanol trains represents another step in a decades-long effort by city leaders to transition the old industrial waterfront south of the Raley Field ballpark into modern live-work neighborhoods with condominiums, row houses, offices, hotels, restaurants and entertainment venues. The city previously ushered industrial companies out of the Bridge District around Raley Field and shut down a rail line along the waterfront to clear the site for redevelopment.

The city has accelerated those efforts in the Pioneer Bluff area near the Buckeye facility in recent months. A row of unused cement company silos is being torn down on the riverfront. The city has shut its sewer treatment plant. It also is planning to close its corporation yard to open space for waterfront development. The city opened a new bridge this month to connect South River Road to the Southport area, bringing more vehicles past the Buckeye site.

Although the Buckeye facility does not fit West Sacramento’s plans for the area, the permit refusal “is absolutely not intended to try to drive Buckeye out of the district,” Mayor Christopher Cabaldon said. Buckeye is one of several fuel-related industries still operating in the area south of Highway 50.

“The existing Buckeye facility is absolutely welcome to remain and operate at its existing site to the extent that it is complying with the terms of its permits (and) that it is not invading the public right of way,” Cabaldon said.

Buckeye’s attorney disagreed, saying the city’s actions suggest it is trying to squeeze the company out. “The confluence of events lead us to that conclusion,” Chadwick said. “It looks like they are trying to make operations of the Buckeye facility more difficult.”

Buckeye’s rail shipment permit for ethanol expires at the end of this month. The company had sought a permit to continue train deliveries of six cars a day through 2019. The site has been an ethanol station since 2002, when the city agreed to the first of a series of limited permits to allow a previous terminal owner to receive rail shipments of the additive. Buckeye bought the facility a few years ago. The company mixes the ethanol with gasoline that is piped to West Sacramento from the Bay Area.

The dispute is part of a growing national debate over the safety of rail transport of flammable commodities. Federal transportation officials are contemplating additional safety regulations for train transports after several explosive crashes in recent years. The federal focus has been on crude oil shipments to refineries. But safety experts say ethanol trains also should be subject to more requirements, citing crashes that caused explosions and fires.

Testifying this week before the West Sacramento City Council, Fire Chief Rick Martinez expressed a preference for tanker truck ethanol shipments over rail shipments, acknowledging both have risks.

Martinez noted that the city has almost no legal control over rail operations, so it cannot prohibit trains with hazardous commodities from parking overnight next to residential areas. The federal government pre-empts city regulation of rail activities. But, Martinez said, the city can manage the risk of tanker truck shipments, controlling where the trucks drive, and at what speed, and can prohibit those trucks from sitting unattended overnight.

Martinez and other city officials said Union Pacific has been parking a dozen ethanol train cars at times on side tracks, some near the Ironworks Lofts housing area, where they wait until there is room to shuttle them onto the Buckeye property. The parking area runs from Raley Field under the Pioneer Bridge to 15th Street. City officials say UP frequently moves train cars back and forth across 15th Street at Jefferson Boulevard to make room in its yard.

Martinez said his department also has noted ethanol train cars parked along Jefferson Boulevard.

“This practice puts the adjacent residential neighborhood at increased risk from a hazardous materials incident,” Martinez said in a recent memo. “By removing the ethanol rail cars from their current location, the risk potential is significantly reduced.”

Buckeye attorney Chadwick contends that increasing the number of tanker trucks making daily ethanol deliveries is a risky move. He said the trucks would have to make left turns on South River Road to get to the plant, and would have to deal with more traffic as the city turns the Pioneer Bluff area and the Bridge District into populated communities.

Buckeye officials say they currently receive ethanol on two to three tanker trucks a day, in addition to the six rail cars. A city staff report suggests as many as four trucks may arrive on weekdays. The city analysis says Buckeye could bring in nine additional tanker trucks daily to its plant after rail shipments are halted this month.

Chadwick said that number is low, and that his company estimates 15 or more additional tanker trucks would be needed daily. He said he did not know what route the trucks would use to get to West Sacramento, but said they likely would arrive via area freeways.

The lawsuit, he said, maintains the city failed to adequately study how much extra traffic would use South River Road, and how that traffic would mix with daily ethanol trucks trying to make left turns.

“Buckeye views that lives might be at risk here,” Chadwick said. “Help us keep the facility safe, because we are not going anywhere.”