Sacramento area Congress members call on feds to upgrade oil train safety now
By Tony Bizjak, 03/02/2015 10:59 AM
A BNSF train carrying 98 tankers of crude oil passes through midtown Sacramento from the North Dakota Bakken oil fields to a refinery in the Bay Area city of Richmond. | Jake Miille
Several Northern California representatives in Congress have sent a letter to the Obama Administration expressing displeasure that federal officials missed a self-imposed deadline to propose stronger safety regulations on trains shipping crude oil.
The Sacramento area is among many in the country that is seeing growing numbers of trains carrying volatile Bakken crude oil. Elsewhere in North America, several trains have crashed and exploded, including one carrying highly volatile Bakken crude in West Virginia several weeks ago that spilled oil into a river and set a forested area on fire.
Pressure is growing on federal officials to impose safety regulations. The federal government last year announced a series of potential rule changes, including requiring stronger tank cars, and set a January 2015 date for a likely ruling.
“Clearly action needs to be taken to increase the safety standards for rail cars transporting Bakken crude oil, and it must be taken now,” Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, said in a press statement about the letter. “Our communities simply cannot afford any delay in implementation of stringent safety guidelines.”
The group, which includes Matsui, John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove, and Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, sent its letter Friday to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, asking them to take action to make rail shipments safer.
“We understand that more than 3,000 comments to the rule were analyzed and we commend the DOT for its work with industry thus far on information sharing, slower speeds, and reinforced railcars, but the multi-pronged solutions for this important safety issue must be implemented as quickly as possible,” the group wrote in the letter.
“We also believe that DOT should issue a rulemaking that requires stripping out the most volatile elements from Bakken crude before it is loaded onto rail cars. This operation may be able to lower the vapor pressure of crude oil, making it less volatile and therefore safer to transport by pipeline or rail tank car. Additionally, we believe that track maintenance and improvements must be a priority.
“We need safer rail lines that are built for the 21st century including more advanced technology in maintaining railroad tracks and trains, so that faulty axles and tracks do not lead to further derailments. If more dangerous and volatile crude is to be transported through cities and towns and along sensitive waterways and wildlife habitat, the rail and shipping industries must do more.”
The letter from local leaders came a day after Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf sent a similar, high-profile plea to the president.
“The pace of federal rulemaking on rail safety is too slow,” Wolf wrote in a letter to Obama. “We urge that new federal safety rules be developed and implemented with a sense of urgency appropriate to the risk presented.”
Federal transportation officials said they are taking the final steps now in the process, but that the issue is complex.
“I’ve made the tank car rule a top priority for this department because the American people must have confidence that when hazardous materials are transported through their communities, we’ve done everything in our power to make that train as safe as possible, “ Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx said.
“This is a highly complex issue, consuming massive staff time, scientific study, dialogue with stakeholders and experts, and coordination across borders,” Foxx said. “The department has and will continue to put a premium on getting this critical rule done as quickly as possible, but we’ve always committed ourselves to getting it done right.”
Repost from McClatchy News [Editor: Another excellent contextual overview and detailed report by Curtis Tate. New in this report: CSX providing hotel rooms for evacuees; and discussion of WV refusal to provide hazmat notification to the public and estimate of 2 to 5 oil trains per week; and Sarah Feinberg, acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration is a West Virginia native. – RS]
2 West Virginia towns evacuated as another oil train derails, catches fire
By Curtis Tate, McClatchy Washington Bureau, February 16, 2015
A fire burns Monday, Feb. 16, 2015, after a train derailment near Charleston, W.Va. Nearby residents were told to evacuate as state emergency response and environmental officials headed to the scene. JOHN RABY — AP
WASHINGTON — A train carrying crude oil derailed and caught fire Monday in West Virginia, less than two weeks after the U.S. Department of Transportation sent a package of new rail safety regulations to the White House for review.
The CSX train was traveling on the same route as another crude oil train that derailed and caught fire 10 months ago in downtown Lynchburg, Va. It was the second derailment in as many days of a train loaded with crude oil. Early Sunday, a Canadian National train loaded with crude oil derailed in northern Ontario. At least seven cars burst into flames.
In Monday’s derailment, residents of two small towns east of Charleston were evacuated, and at least one tank car fell into the Kanawha River, according to the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety. The river supplies drinking water for several local communities, and residents were urged Monday to conserve water.
The fire was expected to burn throughout the night.
A spokesman for the department said the 109-car train was traveling from North Dakota to Yorktown, Va., and that 12 to 15 cars had derailed. Trains from North Dakota’s Bakken region have been traveling to the Yorktown facility since December 2013, where the oil is transferred to barges for delivery to refineries on the East Coast.
Photos taken by local residents posted to Twitter showed a column of black smoke and fire that resembled the Lynchburg accident and others. Early Sunday, a Canadian National train carrying crude oil derailed in a remote part of northern Ontario.
Other fiery accidents have taken place in Casselton, N.D., Aliceville, Ala., and Lac-Megantic, Quebec. The latter derailment, in July 2013, killed 47 people and wiped out the town’s business district.
Those derailments prompted a series of changes by government and industry on both sides of the border, including operating practices, track inspections, train speeds and tank car design. The new rules currently under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget are scheduled for publication in mid-May.
The response to Monday’s derailment was complicated by a winter storm. The National Weather Service forecast a snowfall of 6 to 10 inches in the area.
Sarah Feinberg, the acting administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, said investigators from her agency and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration were on their way to the scene, about six hours from Washington.
“Both agencies are monitoring the situation closely and will commence official inquiries into the cause of the derailment,” said Kevin Thompson, an FRA spokesman. “The agencies are prepared to take all necessary enforcement actions following the investigation.”
Feinberg, a native of West Virginia, was appointed last month by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx to lead the agency. Feinberg and Robert Lauby, the FRA’s chief safety officer, will assess the derailment site Tuesday, the department said late Monday.
The National Transportation Safety Board, which last month added tank cars to its list of “most-wanted” safety improvements, was monitoring the incident, a spokesman said.
CSX, based in Jacksonville, Fla., was providing hotel rooms to the evacuees and working with local emergency personnel at the derailment scene, the railroad posted on Twitter.
Following the Lynchburg derailment last April, the Transportation Department began requiring railroads to notify state officials of shipments of 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude.
The West Virginia Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management declined McClatchy’s request to review the notifications in June, invoking an exemption under the state’s open records law because CSX had marked the documents “proprietary and trade secrets.”
However, the frequency of the shipments could be gleaned from surrounding states, notably Kentucky and Virginia, that did make the reports available to McClatchy and other news organizations.
The reports show that two to five Bakken trains a week traverse West Virginia.
U.S. Crackdown on Oil Trains—Less Than Meets the Eye
Federal regulators don’t stop oil trains from being left unattended, engines running.
By Marcus Stern and Sebastian Jones, Dec 8, 2014
The aftermath of the Lac-Megantic crude rail explosion in 2013 in Canada. Credit: Axel Drainvile, flickr
The first public action U.S. rail regulators took after a fiery oil train explosion killed 47 people in Canada in July 2013 seemed clear, impactful and firm: Trains carrying hazardous materials could no longer be left unattended with their engines running unless the railroad first got approval from the Federal Railroad Administration.
Leaving a freight train unattended overnight with the engines running had been a major factor in the Lac-Megantic, Canada, disaster, and the August 2, 2013 news release announcing the U.S. action had a no-more-business-as-usual tone. The emergency order was “a mandatory directive to the railroad industry, and failure to comply will result in enforcement actions,” the press release said, adding no train shall be left unattended on the tracks with its engines running “unless specifically authorized.”
But it turns out that the emergency order had a loophole big enough to drive a locomotive through.
Early on the morning of May 6, less than a year after the order was announced, James Racich, a trustee of the town of Plainfield, Ill., noticed a train parked near a crossing in the middle of town with its engines running early. Racich didn’t know about the emergency order, and he was accustomed to seeing trains left unattended on that stretch of track, enough so that it was a sore point with him. When he returned six hours later and saw the train still there—its engines still running with nobody aboard—he contacted the police. They confirmed that the train’s engines were unattended and contacted the railroad, Canadian National.
“They basically told us the train was secure, was locked up, things like that,” Plainfield Police Chief John Konopek said in an interview, adding “We have our hands tied. Because of federal regulation they can do that.”
The half-mile long train parked in Plainfield was a mix of hazmat tankers and non-hazmat box cars, Konopek said. Its crew members had left it unattended because they had reached their maximum allowable number of hours of continuous work. By the time the replacement crew arrived, the train had been parked in downtown Plainfield, unattended with its engines running, for more than seven hours, according to Racich.
Patrick Waldron, Canadian National’s director of state government relations, said in an interview that stopping the train on that section of track was part of the company’s “normal operating practices and is in full compliance of the laws and regulations, including that order.”
When pressed about the emergency order, he said, “I know the emergency order, but I’ve answered your question.”
It turns out that Waldron was right, because the emergency order is far weaker than advertised.
A tough-sounding FRA news release announcing the order had said that railroads could no longer leave idling trains unattended without approval from the FRA. Five days later, however, the FRA published the actual order in the Federal Register with less fanfare and tough talk. It contained fine print masking a huge loophole: The order would be satisfied when the “the railroad develops, adopts, complies with and makes available to the FRA upon request, a plan” for such stoppages. The “FRA does not intend to grant approval to any plan,” the order continued. So railroads could continue leaving trains unattended without FRA approval.
According to FRA spokesman Kevin Thompson, regulators aren’t required to review the plan. The railroad simply has to keep the plan in its files.
Canadian National reported it had a plan, Thompson explained, so the company had complied with the emergency order and can continue leaving trains unattended on the tracks with their engines running.
This article is part of a project supported by the Alicia Patterson Foundation, the George Polk Award program at Long Island University, the Fund for Investigative Journalism and the Society of Environmental Journalists’ Fund for Environmental Journalism. It was reported in partnership with The Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute.
Many railroad companies want more time to retrofit cars in the U.S. and Canada, but some are forging ahead.
By Joe Eaton for National Geographic, October 31, 2014
Smoke rises from railway cars that were carrying crude oil and derailed in downtown Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in 2013. Regulators in Canada and the United States have been working on new standards for trains that carry flammable fuel. – Photograph by Paul Chiasson, Associated Press
Three days after an oil train derailed and exploded in 2013 in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killing 47 people, Greg Saxton wandered through the disaster site inspecting tank cars.
For Saxton, the damage was personal. Some of the tank cars were built by Greenbrier, an Oregon-based manufacturer where he’s chief engineer. Almost every car that derailed was punctured, some in multiple places. Crude oil flowed from the gashes, fueling the flames, covering the ground, and running off into nearby waterways.
Each day, as Saxton returned to the disaster zone, he passed a Roman Catholic church. “We never came and went when there wasn’t a funeral going on,” he said.
In the wake of this and other recent accidents as energy production soars in North America, Canadian and U.S. regulators are proposing new safety rules for tank cars that carry oil, ethanol, and other flammable liquids. Saxton and Greenbrier have pushed for swift changes, but others in the industry are asking for more time to retrofit cars like the type that exploded at Lac-Mégantic. (See related stories: “Oil Train Derails in Lynchburg, Virginia” and “North Dakota Oil Train Fire Spotlights Risks of Transporting Crude“)
“If you don’t set an aggressive time line, you won’t see improvements as quickly as the current safety demands require,” Jack Isselmann, a Greenbrier spokesman, said. “We’ve been frankly just perplexed and confused by the resistance.”
Industry Pushes for More Time
The tank cars that derailed at Lac-Mégantic were built before October 2011, when the American Railway Association mandated safety enhancements to the oil and ethanol tankers known in the industry as DOT-111 cars. The cars lacked puncture-resistant steel jackets, thermal insulation, and heavy steel shields, all of which could have lessened the destruction, experts say.
In July, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) proposed rules that, if finalized, would require higher safety standards for new oil cars. The rules also require owners to retrofit older cars or remove them from the rails by October 2017.
Canadian regulators in July mandated that DOT-111 tank cars built before 2014 be retrofitted or phased out by May 2017. Transport Canada, which regulates rail safety, has also proposed aggressive safety standards for new tank cars and will seek industry comment this fall before finalizing its rules.
Saxton and others at Greenbrier support the proposed regulations, which could be tremendously lucrative to the company. However, others in the rail supply industry say the proposed retrofit time line cannot be met.
The Railway Supply Institute—a trade organization that represents the rail industry—has asked DOT to allow legacy cars in the oil and ethanol fleet to remain on the rails until 2020.
Thomas Simpson, the institute’s president, said a survey of rail maintenance and repair shops found that only 15,000 of the roughly 50,000 non-jacketed legacy tank cars in the crude oil and ethanol fleet can be modified by the proposed 2017 deadline.
For many cars, the retrofit process would include adding thermal protection systems, thick steel plates at the ends, and outer steel jackets, as well as reconfiguring the bottom outlet valve to ensure it does not break off and release oil during a derailment.
That’s too much work to complete before the deadline, and the regulations have not yet been finalized, Simpson said.
The proposed deadline, he said, will “idle cars waiting for shop capacity and adversely affect the movement of crude and ethanol.”
In comments to U.S. regulators and the press, API tied the safety upgrades to approval of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Alberta’s tar sands oil through the Midwest to Texas refineries.
The deadly oil train accident at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, raised awareness of the potential dangers of transporting crude by rail. – Photograph by Ryan Remiorz, Associated Press
Both API and the Rail Supply Institute have also warned regulators that a short time line for retrofitting oil cars could cause a spike in truck shipments of oil and ethanol.
But Anthony Swift, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group opposed to Keystone XL, called these arguments misleading. Swift said Keystone XL would have little impact on retrofitting tank cars, because most train traffic from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota moves to East Coast and West Coast refineries. He said that traffic would not be affected by the pipeline.
Keystone XL would have the capacity to carry 830,000 barrels of oil-sands crude a day, with up to 100,000 barrels a day set aside for crude from the Bakken. By 2016, the rail industry in Canada is expected to carry about as much oil as Keystone XL would. The U.S. rail industry is already there: Almost 760,000 barrels a day of crude had traveled by rail by August.
Swift said the costs to the oil industry are worthwhile if lives are saved. “The argument that we need to wait until the oil industry does not need tank cars until we can make them safe is ridiculous on its face,” he said.
Greenbrier Gears Up to Meet Demand
In February, Greenbrier introduced a beefed-up tanker with a 9/16-inch steel shell (1/8-inch thicker than many DOT-111 cars), 11-gauge steel jacket, removable bottom valve, and rollover protection for fittings along the top of the cars.
Greenbrier calls the tanker the “car of the future,” saying it’s eight times safer than the DOT-111. Isselmann said Greenbrier has received more than 3,000 orders for the new car and plans to double its manufacturing capacity by the end of the year.
In June, Greenbrier and Kansas rail-service company Watco joined forces to form GBW Railcar Services, creating the largest independent railcar repair-shop network in North America. Isselmann said the company plans to hire 400 workers and start second shifts at its factories to meet demand for retrofitting DOT-111 tank cars.
In comments to U.S. regulators, GBW said it currently has the capacity to retrofit more than 10 percent of the fleet of DOT-111 tank cars.
Isselmann said that number will grow as other companies take advantage of the market once regulators release final rules. For that reason, he said the industry’s current capacity to meet regulations is less important than its ability to ramp up quickly to capture the increased business that new safety standards could bring.
“This notion that the status quo is going to remain—it’s diversionary at best,” Isselmann said.
Almost every tanker in the Lac-Megantic accident was punctured. New standards would mandate stronger cars, among other measures. – Photograph by Ryan Remiorz, Associated Press
Some in the industry are responding to public concern before rules are finalized. In April, Irving Oil—the owner of Canada’s largest refinery, in Saint John, New Brunswick, where the Lac-Mégantic train was headed before the disaster—completed a voluntary conversion of its crude oil railcar fleet.
Also in April, Global Partners, one of the largest U.S. distributors of gasoline and other fuels, began requiring all crude oil unit trains making deliveries at its East and West Coast terminals to meet October 2011 safety standards for tank car design.
“As an industry, we have both an opportunity and a responsibility to maximize public confidence in the safety of the system that carries these products across the country,” Eric Slifka, Global Partners’ CEO, said in a press release.
A Push to Harmonize Regulations
As the U.S. and Canada consider train safety regulations, oil and rail companies are pushing to ensure that the same tank cars can be used to haul flammable liquids in both countries.
Regulators say they are working together to make that happen. Lauren Armstrong, a spokeswoman at Transport Canada, said the department is holding technical discussions on new tank car standards with the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration.
However, coordinating tank car regulations between the two countries would have to overcome current gaps, industry representatives say.
In April, Transport Canada banned the use of the oldest and least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars, which lacked bottom reinforcement. The U.S. so far has not banned the cars from carrying oil and ethanol.
Canada also set a 2017 deadline for retrofitting the cars. In the U.S., regulators are expected to release final rules by early 2015. The process, however, could continue much longer.
The strongest standards will carry the day, said Thomas Simpson, the president of the Railway Supply Institute. Given the large amount of oil that moves between the two countries, Simpson said it makes no business sense for companies to keep two different sets of cars to meet the two sets of rules.
Communities Concerned About Safety
But as final rules are being hammered out in the U.S., some train safety advocates and community groups worry they are being left out of the process.
But she said rail and oil industry lobbyists have had much more access to policymakers than community advocates, and she’s concerned they will have a greater impact on final rules.
“The inside players, the guys in the industry,” she said, “they seem to be able to be in front of the decision-makers more than we have been.”
