[Editor: The following studies were recommended to me by a neighbor who supports Valero’s crude by rail proposal. Both are loaded with valuable information, useful to anyone who wants facts to back up an argument for or against Valero’s project. You can download the document by clicking on the green text. Thanks, neighbor! – RS]
By David Pumphrey, Lisa Hyland, and Michelle Melton, March, 2014
Summary
In the last several years, rail has come to play an important role in the transportation of growing U.S. crude oil production. Over the last seven months, a number of serious accidents have resulted in intense review of the safety of shipping large quantities of oil by rail. The focus has been on classification of the oil, the integrity of tank cars, and rail operations. Regulatory processes have been initiated to attempt to deal with these issues in a timely manner. This issue analysis provides facts that illuminate the players, concerns, current status of regulatory action, as well as the potential issues going forward.
Further regulation of crude by rail is a near certainty, but the ultimate scope and pace remains unclear. Whether regulatory action actually slows down what has become a burgeoning transportation option for crude oil producers and refiners is an open question. It is increasingly unlikely that regulatory action—unless truly drastic—will stop shipment of crude by rail. However, moving forward, regulatory action such as phasing out older tank cars, rerouting trains, or imposing stringent requirements for testing, could impact the economics of crude by rail. [MORE – a 9-page report in PDF format]
by Anthony Andrews, Specialist in Energy Policy, February 18, 2014
Summary
The dramatic increase in U.S. crude oil production, coupled with the increase in crude oil transport by rail, has raised questions about whether properties (e.g., flammability) of these crude types—particularly Bakken crude oil from North Dakota—differ sufficiently from other crude oils to warrant any additional handling considerations. The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a Safety Alert to notify emergency responders, shippers, carriers, and the public that recent derailments and resulting fires indicate that the type of crude oil transported from the Bakken region of North Dakota may be more flammable than traditional heavy crude oil. The alert reminds emergency responders that light sweet crude oil, such as that coming from the Bakken region, pose significant fire risk if released from the package (tank car) in an accident. PHMSA has expanded the scope of lab testing to include other factors that affect proper characterization and classification of crude oil such as volatility, corrosivity, hydrogen sulfide content and composition/concentration of the entrained gases in the material.
All crude oils are flammable, to a varying degree. Further, crude oils exhibit other potentially hazardous characteristics as well. The growing perception is that light volatile crude oil, like Bakken crude, is a root cause for catastrophic incidents and thus may be too hazardous to ship by rail. However, equally hazardous and flammable liquids from other sources are routinely transported by rail, tanker truck, barge, and pipeline, though not without accident.
A key question for Congress is whether the characteristics of Bakken crude oil make it particularly hazardous to ship by rail, or are there other causes of transport incidents, such as poor maintenance practices, inadequate safety standards, or human error. [MORE – a 13-page report in PDF format]
A warning placard on a tank car carrying crude oil. | Associated Press
By NATASHA KHAN, PublicSource, July 13, 2014
More trains carrying crude oil to East Coast refineries mean a greater risk of accidents. Derailments in Pennsylvania and throughout the country are a signal to some that an accident could be disastrous.
Why is more crude oil moving through Pennsylvania?
North America is now the biggest producer of crude oil in the world, partly as a result of fracking in North Dakota and other Western states. Without pipelines to move the oil, much of it has been pushed onto the rails. In 2013, U.S. railroads carried more than 40 times what they carried in 2008. Refineries processing much of the crude from the Bakken formation in the West are in the Philadelphia area.
Are these trains dangerous?
As crude-by-rail traffic increased, so did its accidents. Some lawmakers and public safety groups are concerned that as production surges, people near railroad tracks are exposed to more danger. And some believe the crude boom has outpaced the necessary regulations to ensure safety.
There have been at least 12 significant derailments involving crude since May 2013 in North America. Some involved explosions, evacuations, environmental damage and injuries. The most devastating was in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, in July 2013, when 47 people died after a train carrying crude exploded. Since January, Pennsylvania has had derailments involving crude in Philadelphia, Vandergrift and McKeesport. There were no injuries in any of the accidents.
How much crude oil do these trains carry?
Right now Norfolk Southern and CSX, the major railroads in the state, move as many as eight trains of crude oil a day combined through the state.
Dubbed “virtual pipelines,” these trains can have more than 100 tank cars and can carry millions of gallons of crude.
Is Bakken crude more volatile than other types of oil?
North Dakota Bakken crude is potentially more volatile, corrosive and flammable than other kinds of crude oil. Investigations found that the Bakken crude that exploded in Quebec was classified as a less dangerous type of oil. In February, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency order requiring testing of all Bakken crude to determine its explosive nature.
Are other types of crude oil dangerous?
Other types of crude from the U.S. and Canada also could pose a threat. All crude oil is flammable and can cause environmental damage, Christopher Hart, acting National Transportation Safety Board Chairman, told the Associated Press in June.
What’s wrong with the rail cars?
Sometimes referred to as the “Ford Pinto of railcars,” the DOT-111 tank cars used to ship crude have been known to be a safety hazard for decades, according to federal safety investigators. Designed in the 1960s, they are prone to puncture and “catastrophic loss of hazardous materials” when trains derail, according to the NTSB.
The derailments have caused an outcry by state and federal officials and safety groups demanding that the cars be taken off the tracks. Canada has already ordered railroads to stop using them by 2017, but U.S. regulators have been slow to act. The U.S. DOT did advise railroads in May to stop using the cars to carry crude oil. The White House is reviewing new standards for tank cars, but it could take months before rules are in place.
How are trains carrying crude oil regulated?
Two federal entities regulate railroads carrying crude: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The FRA has about 400 inspectors who sometimes work with state inspectors. In Pennsylvania, the state’s Public Utility Commission does spot inspections of tracks and rail equipment.
Emergency planning is largely left up to counties. A state agency oversees 67 Local Emergency Planning Committees, which can request general information from railroads about hazardous materials coming through their counties. That information is not public.
Can you find out when crude oil trains come through your neighborhood?
Officially, no. Railroads are not required to share information about hazardous materials under federal law. Norfolk Southern and CSX, for example, said they don’t give out that information, citing possible security incidents and competition.
In May, the DOT said it no longer viewed information on crude oil from the Bakken as security sensitive. The agency told railroads with trains carrying more than 1 million barrels of Bakken crude to give the information to states. At least six states, including Washington, California and Virginia, made the information available. Pennsylvania didn’t. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency refused to release the information to PublicSource. The agency denied our Right-to-Know request, calling the information “confidential” and “proprietary.”
Bakken and other crude oils are believed to be shipped through Pittsburgh and other Pennsylvania cities on a regular basis on their way to Philadelphia refineries. A spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission told PublicSource that Bakken crude is shipped through Pittsburgh.
What has been done to improve safety?
U.S. regulators asked railroads to comply with a number of voluntary actions. The railroads agreed to slow crude trains to no more than 40 mph in high-risk urban areas. (However, a train that derailed in Lynchburg, Va., in April was traveling at just 24 mph.)
Recent proposed rules for crude oil, including new standards for tank cars, drew comments from the public representing more than 100,000 people.
In March, CSX agreed to give PEMA access to its real-time monitoring system that tracks crude’s movement through the state. Cory Angell, the agency’s spokesman, said it is working with Norfolk Southern on a similar agreement.
Are first responders prepared for a significant derailment in Pennsylvania?
Daniel Boyles, the emergency services coordinator for Blair County, told PublicSource he thinks railroads are doing everything in their power to prevent accidents. However, he said, first responders need more training. Trains carrying Bakken crude roll through his county twice a week, he said.
Emergency officials in Beaver, Allegheny and Dauphin counties said that awareness has increased and railroads have given emergency responders more training.
A PEMA spokesman said the state is prepared in the case of a major derailment. He added that Pennsylvania will soon use a DOT grant to train county hazmat teams and first responders.
Who doesn’t think first responders are prepared?
“No community is prepared for a worst-case event,” Deborah Hersman, former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, told a Senate subcommittee in April.
Under voluntary safety measures effective July 1, railroads will contribute $5 million for training for emergency responders. And they will develop a list of emergency-response resources in case of a derailment.
But federal safety officials have questioned whether voluntary actions are enough. Currently, railroads don’t have to provide comprehensive emergency plans for the crude oil being transported. That’s what’s needed, Hersman said.
In a Jan. 23 letter to federal regulators, she said that without comprehensive crude oil response plans “(rail) carriers have effectively placed the burden of remediating the environmental consequences of an accident on local communities along their routes.”
Which officials are talking about this in Pennsylvania?
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., endorsed a bill he said would boost safety. The bill would include $3 million for track inspections and hire 20 new inspectors.
Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter backed a proposal to charge a federal freight fee to crude-oil producers and industrial consumers. The money would be used to improve tracks.
Christina Simeone, director of PennFuture’s energy center, said other states have shown leadership on the issue — but not Pennsylvania.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo commissioned a safety report for his state. The report laid out actions the state should take. Minnesota lawmakers allocated $6.4 million for more inspectors, specialized training for first responders and fixes for highway-rail grade crossings along crude routes.
Republican Gov. Tom Corbett has been silent about the safety issue, said Simeone, who commented that there is interest in “minimizing the issue” because of concerns about the refinery business in Philadelphia and gasoline prices in the region.
Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has not been part of the conversation. In a recent meeting with PublicSource, Peduto said that he is “aware of the reality of what is coming through.” In the case of an accident, Pittsburgh could call on the PA Region 13 Task Force, he said. The task force is an initiative that allows counties to pull resources from the entire region in case of an emergency.
Fox Guarding Henhouse: Oil-By-Rail Standards Led by American Petroleum Institute
By Justin Mikulka, July 9, 2014
“How did it get missed for the last ten years?”
That was the question Deborah Hersman, chair of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), posed to a panel of industry representatives back in April about how the rail industry had missed the fact that Bakken oil is more explosive than traditional crude oil.
“How do we move to an environment where commodities are classified in the right containers from the get go and not just put in until we figure out that there’s a problem,” Hersman asked during the two-day forum on transportation of crude oil and ethanol. “Is there a process for that?”
The first panelist to respond was Robert Fronczak, assistant vice president of environmental and hazardous materials for the Association of American Railroads (AAR). His response was telling.
“We’ve know about this long before Lac-Megantic and that is why we initiated the tank car committee activity and passed CPC-1232 in 2011,” Fronczak replied, “To ask why the standards are the way they are, you’d have to ask DOT that.”
So, now as the new oil-by-rail safety regulations have been sent from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, it seems like a good time to review Hersman’s questions.
How did we miss this? Is there a process to properly classify commodities for the right container before they are ever shipped?
Missed or Ignored?
Fronczak stated that industry knew about the explosive danger of Bakken crude long before the Lac-Megantic disaster, but it was up to the Department of Transportation to do something about it. That begs the question: what did the department know?
In a letter sent by Thomas J. Herrmann of the Federal Railroad Administration (a division of DOT) to the American Petroleum Institute’s CEO Jack Gerard on July 29, 2013, just 23 days after the Lac-Megantic disaster, it would appear the DOT was well aware of Bakken crude classification issues.
FRA audits of crude oil loading facilities indicate that the classification of crude oil being transported by rail is often based solely on Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) data that only provides a material classification and a range of material properties. This MSDS information is typically provided by the consignee to the shipper, and the shipper is unaware of validation of the values of the crude oil properties.
FRA‘s audits indicate that MSDS information is not gleaned from any recently conducted tests or from testing for the many different sources (wells) of the crude oil. For example, a shipper provided information to FRA showing that crude oil being transported by rail had a flash point of 68° F, or a Packing Group I hazardous material. However, the crude oil had been improperly classified as a Packing Group III material and was being transported in AAR class tank cars that were not equipped with the required design enhancements.
The letter goes into detail on several other issues with Bakken crude and recommends that “shippers evaluate their processes for testing, classifying, and packaging the crude oil that they offer into transportation via railroad tank cars.”
So it is clear that as of July 2013, the Federal Railroad Administration was well aware of issues regarding misclassification of Bakken crude oil based on its own audits.
Several of the panellists at the NTSB hearing in April made the point that Bakken crude was different.
“We are just not sure what we’re handling,” Fronczak said. “We’ve done some minor sampling, you know a few samples that indicate that the crude oil does have a high vapor pressure and a fairly high amount of dissolved gas and so we feel a pressure car is more appropriate.”
A pressure car is currently the safest possible tank car the new regulations could require.
William Finn of the Railway Supply Institute echoed this sentiment, “For years we’ve transported crude oil in one eleven cars [DOT-111], what’s changed here is the introduction of the unit train and the question of what’s happening with the Bakken crude oil and the high vapor pressures.”
Greg Saxton, chief engineer for tank car manufacturer Greenbrier Companies, said: “The crude we are moving today, we think its different than what we were moving five or ten years ago.”
If the exploding trains weren’t enough to convince people that the Bakken crude oil is different, those comments should remove any doubt.
API Concludes Bakken Oil Poses No “Special Risks”
In April, DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx commented to the Associated Press on how important proper crude oil classification was regarding oil-by-rail safety, saying, “One of the most fundamental questions that cuts across everything in crude oil-by-rail is how it is classified.”
So who gave the presentation at the NTSB conference on classification of crude oil? The American Petroleum Institute.
Lee Johnson gave a presentation on the API’s current crude oil classification working group, which he stated, “is going to come up with the standard which is going to have guidance on how often you should do that [testing], what tests you should take, sampling techniques, lab techniques. It’s going to be a very comprehensive standard. At this point there is no industry standard.”
During his presentation, Johnson highlighted one of the main efforts of the API’s work on classification. The North Dakota Petroleum Council was hiring a firm to conduct testing on Bakken crude for classification purposes.
The results of that Bakken classification testing have since been released and were reported in the Wall Street Journal as follows:
Crude oil from the Bakken Shale formation doesn’t pose special risks to rail transport and shouldn’t require a separate classification regime than other hazardous liquids, North Dakota oil producers said.
This is what happens when you let an industry self-regulate. They make up their own rules and reality. In May, APICEO Jack Gerard made his position clear:
“It is essential to separate fact from fiction as we work to enhance the safe transportation of crude oil. Multiple studies have now debunked the idea that Bakken crude is meaningfully different than other crudes.”
However, not everyone was buying these results. New York’s Senator Chuck Schumer told Reuters that these test results should be “taken with a grain of salt.”
And the Canadian Crude Quality Technical Association said, “We would consider the data suspect.”
The main reason for the association’s suspicion is the sampling technique that was used. The samples were taken using open containers, which allow the volatile gases to escape before testing.
That’s the kind of thing that happens when there are no standards for sampling and testing.
The New Regulations
So as the new oil-by-rail safety regulations are about to be released by the White House, there still are no enforceable standards on how to properly sample, test and classify Bakken crude oil. The only testing data that’s been released up to this point is from the oil industry’s lobbying groups.
The Department of Transportation has taken samples of Bakken crude and conducted testing — however, the report on their results is still pending and there is no scheduled release date. It is nearly a year after the department’s initial letter to Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute.
Further, the Department of Transportation is not ultimately responsible for developing new standards for testing and classifying crude oil.
To understand how the regulatory agency in charge of an industry is not responsible for developing these standards, you must look at the wording of legislation signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 called “The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995.”
This legislation essentially privatized the development of standards. The act states:
“All Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed and adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, using such technical standards as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities determined by the agencies and departments.”
So, for there to be new enforceable regulations regarding the classification of Bakken crude, several things would have to happen. An external standard developer like ASTM International would have to develop standards. Then members of industry or their lobbyists would have to volunteer to petition the DOT to adopt those standards as part of the regulations. This would require a new DOT rulemaking process separate from the one currently in progress, which could take several years.
A Fundamental Question Goes Unanswered
So, on the eve of new regulations, the fundamental question of how to properly sample and test Bakken crude oil for appropriate classification has not been answered. And the only group currently working on an “industry standard” for this is the American Petroleum Institute, which has already concluded that Bakken crude is no different from other crude oils — at the same time API is having private meetings at the White House regarding the new regulations.
Chair Hersman resigned shortly after the forum in April, ending her 10-year career with the NTSB. At the time she told the AP she had, “seen a lot of difficulty when it comes to safety rules being implemented if we don’t have a high enough body count. That is a tombstone mentality. We know the steps that will prevent or mitigate these accidents. What is missing is the will to require people to do so.”
If the current process regarding new oil-by-rail regulations in the U.S. is any indication, apparently we haven’t achieved a high enough body count yet.
Repost from The Sacramento Bee [Editor: Check this out – Benicia’s uprail friends are getting out on the tracks, and they are getting the media’s attention. Thanks to everyone who is following this story. Benicia is in the “crosshairs” of a nationwide – worldwide – focus on this dangerous and dirty money grab by the oil and rail industries. More and more, thoughtful people are saying, “No, not here.” – RS]
Crude oil train protests planned in Sacramento, Davis
By Tony Bizjak, Jul. 8, 2014
Jake Miille / Special to The Bee | A crude oil train operated by BNSF snakes its way west through James, Calif., just outside the Feather River Canyon in the foothills into the Sacramento Valley.
Laurie Litman, who lives a block from the rail tracks in midtown Sacramento, says oil and rail companies are about to put her neighborhood and plenty of others in danger, and she wants to stop it.
Litman is among a group of environmental activists in Sacramento and Davis who will gather this week at the Federal Railroad Administration office in Sacramento and at the Davis train station to protest plans by oil companies to run hundreds of rail cars carrying crude through local downtowns every day. The protests, on the anniversary of an oil train crash and explosion that killed 47 people in the Canadian city of Lac-Megantic, will spotlight a plan by Valero Refining Co. of Benicia to launch twice-daily crude oil train shipments through downtown Roseville, Sacramento and Davis early next year.
“Our goal is to stop the oil trains,” said Litman of 350 Sacramento, a new local environmental group. “We are talking about 900-foot fireballs. There is nothing a first responder (fire agency) can do with a 900-foot fireball.”
Sacramento Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, an advocate for increased crude oil rail safety, will speak at noon Wednesday during the Sacramento event at 8th and I streets. The Yolano Climate Action group will distribute leaflets at the Davis train station Tuesday and Wednesday evening about the Valero proposal. The Davis City Council recently passed a resolution saying it opposes running the trains on the existing downtown Davis rail line.
The protests are among the first in the Sacramento area in response to a recent surge in crude oil rail transports nationally, prompted mainly by new oil drilling of cheaper oils in North Dakota, Montana and Canada. In California, where rail shipments have begun to replace marine deliveries from Alaskan oil fields and overseas sources, state safety leaders recently issued a report saying California is not yet prepared to deal with the risks from increased rail shipments of crude.
Oil and railroad industry officials point out that 99.9 percent of crude oil shipments nationally arrive at their destinations without incident, and that the industry is reducing train speeds through cities, helping train local fire and hazardous material spill crews, and working with the federal government on plans for a new generation of safer rail tanker cars. Valero officials as well say their crude oil trains can move safely through Sacramento, and a recent report sponsored by the city of Benicia concluded that an oil spill along the rail line to Benicia is highly unlikely.
In a letter last week, however, four Northern California members of Congress called on the federal government to require oil and rail companies take more steps to make rail crude shipments safer. The letter was signed by Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, George Miller, D-Martinez, Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, and John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove.
“We are especially concerned with the high risks involved with transporting .. more flammable crude in densely populated areas,” the group wrote to U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “Should spills or explosions occur, as we have seen over the last year, the consequences could be disastrous.”
The four lawmakers said oil companies should be required to remove more volatile gases from Bakken crude oil before it is shipped nationally from North Dakota. The federal government issued a warning earlier this year about Bakken crude after several Bakken trains exploded during derailments. The California Congress members also encouraged federal representatives to move quickly to require railroads to install advanced train control and braking systems. Industry officials have said those systems, called Positive Train Control, are expensive and will take extended time to put into place.
Representatives from a handful of Sacramento area cities and counties are scheduled to meet this week to review Valero’s crude oil train plans, and to issue a formal response to the environmental document published two weeks ago by Benicia that concluded derailments and spills are highly unlikely. City of Davis official Mike Webb said one spill and explosion could be catastrophic, and that as more oil companies follow Valero’s lead by bringing crude oil trains of their own through Sacramento, the chances of crashes increase.
The Sacramento group has indicated it wants a detailed advanced notification system about what shipments are coming to town. Those notifications will help fire agencies who must respond if a leak or fire occurs. Local officials say they also will ask Union Pacific to keep crude-oil tank cars moving through town without stopping and parking them here. The region’s leaders also want financial support to train firefighters and other emergency responders on how to deal with crude oil spills, and possibly funds to buy more advanced firefighting equipment. Sacramento leaders say they will press the railroad to employ the best inspection protocols on the rail line.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/08/6541363/crude-oil-train-protests-planned.html#storylink=cp
