SEATTLE (AP) — Environmental groups sued the U.S. Department of Transportation on Thursday over the shipment of volatile crude oil in older railroad tank cars.
Accident investigators have complained for decades that the cars are too easily punctured or ruptured when derailed, leading to spills.
The lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and ForestEthics says the agency failed to respond to a legal petition the groups filed in July. That petition sought an emergency order to prohibit crude oil from the Bakken region of North Dakota and Montana and elsewhere from being carried in older tank cars, known as DOT-111s.
A spokesman with the Department of Transportation, Kevin Thompson, declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
Since 2008, there have been 10 significant derailments in the U.S. and Canada in which crude oil has spilled from ruptured tank cars. The worst was a runaway oil train that exploded in the Quebec town of Lac-Megantic a year ago, killing 47 people.
The federal government in late July proposed rules that would phase out tens of thousands of older tank cars that carry crude oil and other highly flammable liquids.
But that process could take several years, and in the meantime, shipments of crude oil in older rail cars are putting small towns and major cities along the rail lines at risk, the groups said.
“That’s just far too long given the risks,” said Patti Goldman, a lawyer with Earthjustice, which is representing the groups.
The groups had asked the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to order the agency to respond to its July petition within 30 days.
Safety of Citizens in Bomb Train Blast Zones in Hands of North Dakota Politicians
2014-09-05, Justin Mikulka
Lac Megantic train explosion
When North Dakota Congressman Kevin Cramer was asked recently if it was scientifically possible to make Bakken crude oil safer by stripping out the explosive natural gas liquids with a process like oil stabilization, his response was quite telling.
“So scientifically can you do it? Sure, but you have to look at it holistically and consider all of the other elements including economics, and is the benefit of doing something like that does that trump other things like speed of trains, and what kind of cars,” he said.
This is very similar to the comments made by Lynn Helms of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources according to the July 29 meeting minutes provided to DeSmogBlog by the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.
“In response to a question regarding other mechanisms besides oil conditioning in the field, Mr. Helms stated there are other mechanisms — none of them without a significant downside….It makes sense to do the conditioning in the field. There are other options to do it downstream somewhere in a very large and very expensive operation.”
In a June 24 e-mail obtained by DeSmogBlog through a freedom of information request, Helms identified himself as “the primary contact for Governor Dalrymple’s team on the crude safety issue” in response to an inquiry from the Department of Energy about who would be working on the issue of Bakken crude oil safety.
As the point person on this issue for North Dakota, Helms’ opinions carry significant weight. And just like Congressman Cramer, Helms is pointing out the “significant downside” of stabilization, which is that it is an expensive operation.
It is well established that stabilization works and would make oil trains much safer. Not even North Dakota politicians are arguing that point anymore. But the industry doesn’t want to pay for it. And right now, the only ones who could mandate them to stabilize the oil via new regulations are the three members of the Industrial Commission of North Dakota.
What About The Feds’ Oil-By-Rail Regulations?
The reason North Dakota politicians are discussing this issue at all is because the federal government has essentially punted the question.
In the 200 pages of new proposed oil-by-rail regulations released in July, there is not a single line about requiring the oil or rail companies to stabilize the oil prior to shipping.
Stabilization is a process that removes the explosive natural gas liquids from the oil and is required by pipeline companies. This process would turn the current Bakken “bomb trains” into simple oil trains. They would still pose a threat of oil spills, but would no longer threaten to kill people in massive explosions like the one in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, or be a target for terrorism.
While the proposed regulations don’t require stabiliazation, they do include three questions that indicate lawmakers are aware that stabilizing or “degassifying” the crude makes it safer and that producers have the ability to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to shipping it by rail.
Is the current exception for combustible liquids sufficient to incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil for continued use of existing tank cars?
Would an exception for all PGIII flammable liquids further incentivize producers to reduce the volatility of crude oil prior to transportation?
What are the impacts on the costs and safety benefits of degasifying to these levels?
As previously reported by DeSmogBlog, the regulators in charge of finalizing the new proposed oil-by-rail regulations are big believers in cost-benefit analysis. And looking at their questions, it is clear they know the oil can be made less volatile. But they want to hear more from the industry about the costs of doing this before doing anything. And instead of requiring stabilization, they are looking for ways to “incentivize” the producers to do it.
Oil Conditioning vs. Oil Stabilization
The North Dakota Industrial Commission is holding a hearing on September 23rd during which it is requesting input on how to make the Bakken crude oil safer for transport. The headline of its press release, “Hearing set on oil conditioning practices,” almost ensures that oil stabilization will never be required in North Dakota.
Oil conditioning is not the same as oil stabilization. Oil conditioning can be done with all of the existing equipment already in the field in North Dakota and thus the cost is minimal. However, in situations where the industry needs to ensure it strips out all the volatile natural gas liquids from the oil, as in the Eagle Ford formation in Texas, they use a different process called stabilization.
Helms and the members of the Industrial Commission like to cite the North Dakota Petroleum Council Study on Bakken Crude Properties when claiming that Bakken crude is no different than other crude oils and thus doesn’t require stabilization. However, that very report makes it clear that conditioning, done with the equipment currently available, is insufficient and was never designed to achieve the type of results expected from stabilization.
From the report, prepared by industry consultant Turner and Mason:
The data consistency [sic] indicates that field equipment is limited in its ability to significantly impact vapor pressure and light ends content.
This is consistent with the expected capabilities of the equipment.
The field equipment is designed to separate gas, remove water and break emulsions to prepare crude for transport, and not remove significant levels of dissolved light ends from the crude.
Meanwhile, at the August 26 meeting of the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Helms once again acknowledged the effectiveness of stabilization, as reported by Petroleum News: “This is very routinely done with high gravity condensate — oil that condenses out of a gas well as it is produced,” Helms said. “That has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.”
Helms word choice is telling. Oil that “has to be stabilized before it can move through the system.” Oil that is moved by pipeline has to be stabilized before it can be moved because pipeline companies require it. The rail companies do not.
Despite his acknowledgement of how stabilization is routine in the pipeline business, at the August meeting, Helms was also sure to point out that in North Dakota they expected to choose conditioning as their solution, as reported by Petroleum News.
Helms agreed, saying conditioning is likely more suitable for North Dakota since the equipment is already in place on well sites but he’d like to hear from others at the upcoming hearing.
“We haven’t closed the door to (stabilization),” Helms said. “We want to hear what people have to say.”
However, if the North Dakota Industrial Commission actually wanted to hear what people have to say about stabilization, the press release about the September 23rd hearing probably should have actually mentioned stabilization. It doesn’t.
The North Dakota Industrial Commission
If there is going to be any regulation requiring stabilization of the Bakken crude it will require the three members of the North Dakota Industrial Commission to make it happen.
Governor Jack Dalrymple is one member of the commission. And his point man on this issue, Helms, has already made it clear he supports conditioning over stabilization.
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem is another member. When a report by the Pipeline and Hazardous Safety Materials Administration recently concluded that Bakken oil was more flammable than most other crude oils, Stenehjem responded to the science by saying, “It seems like they are picking on us.”
The third member of the commission is Agricultural Commissioner Doug Goehring. At the August 26th meeting of the commission, Petroleum News reported that Goehring opposed stabilization for an unlikely reason for someone who helped oversee the massive expansion of the Bakken oil production.
Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring voiced his concern with dotting the landscape with stabilizer units.
“We’ve been trying hard to shrink that footprint out there on the landscape, and that’s going to make that awfully difficult.”
So in all likelihood, stabilization is off the table and conditioning will be the new regulation. Helms and others often say conditioning is already being done because the equipment is already in the field. Yet, according to the minutes from the July meeting of the Industrial Commission, Governor Dalrymple said: “Right now we are assuming producers are doing conditioning but we do not have a mechanism to verify that.”
So, let’s get this straight. It is more than a year after the explosion of a Bakken crude train in Lac-Megantic that killed 47 people. And it’s been more than eight months since a train of Bakken crude exploded in Casselton, ND. And the best the regulators can do is hold a hearing to talk about how to do regulate a practice that’s inadequate and they already assume is being done?
Chicago City Council approves resolution targeting crude oil train shipments
By Richard Wronski, September 9, 2014
Empty railroad tank cars snake their way into a storage yard. (Curtis Tate / MCT)
A joint Chicago City Council committee approved a resolution today calling on the federal government to impose more stringent restrictions on the shipments of crude oil by train than were proposed in July by U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx.
The action would put Chicago in the forefront of communities across the nation demanding tighter controls on the shipment of flammable liquids, especially crude oil trains, which are the equivalent of rolling pipelines.
In the most significant request, Chicago wants the federal government to give local municipalities the authority to impose a hazardous material transportation fee on shippers. The fee, which was not specified, would be used by the city to plan and respond to emergencies involving these shipments.
The measure, approved at a joint meeting of the finance and transportation committees, will go before the full city council Wednesday but approval was expected.
“The proceeds of such a fee would help insure that our firefighters and police officers who would answer the call for help have the necessary equipment and proper training to respond to a catastrophic railroad accident,” said Ald. Edward Burke, 14th, chairman of the finance committee and one of the resolution sponsors.
“Hopefully, our leaders in Washington will act promptly to protect millions of people in the Chicago area before, not after, a disaster strikes.”
The city’s action comes in response to the July 2013 runaway train carrying crude oil that derailed in Lac Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people and destroying more than 100 homes and businesses.
The city is also calling for the federal restrictions to be imposed on trains carrying as few as 15 tank cars containing flammable liquids. The proposed federal rule on so-called “high-hazard flammable trains” would affect trains that carry 20 or more tank cars of flammable liquids, including crude oil and ethanol.
As many as 40 such trains come through Chicago and suburbs each week, the Tribune has reported.
Rail security requires local oversight of Bakken crude shipments
By Denise Rucker Krepp, 2014-09-09
The District of Columbia Council uncovered a serious homeland security flaw this week that should raise red flags for mayors and town managers around the country. In the nation’s capitol, local transportation officials aren’t conducting oversight over CSX and the goods it transports through the city. Similarly, officials are unfamiliar with the rail carrier’s security policies. DC transportation officials, as traditionally classified by the federal government, aren’t rail stakeholders with a need to know this information.
Rail stakeholders, as defined by the Transportation Security Administration, are class 1 freight railroads (CSX, Norfolk Southern), Amtrak, and regional and short line railroads. Members of these companies advise TSA on rail security matters and TSA provides them with security information. This relationship is further solidified in TSA’s strategic plan. The exclusive club does not include first responders nor local representatives from the communities through which the rail carriers transport goods.
By not including cities and towns as part of their stakeholder group, TSA has weakened the nation’s rail security system. Mayors and town managers control the first responder assets that will be used when the next Lac Megantic or Lynchburg occurs. TSA, however, as DC transportation officials told the DC Council this week, doesn’t require local officials to review rail security plans covering their jurisdiction. Absent a comprehensive review, they won’t know if their assets are sufficient to respond to a significant accident.
TSA’s definition of rail stakeholder was upended this summer when Secretary of Transportation Foxx mandated that rail carriers share information regarding Bakken crude with local officials. For the first time, a federal department broadened the definition to include first responders and emergency managers. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act included information sharing requirements but TSA never followed through with them.
The lack of knowledge is problematic because local officials approve rail permits for projects like the proposed Virginia Avenue Tunnel project in DC. These officials however, have not include homeland security threat information in their permit analysis. They couldn’t. Local officials didn’t have this information before Secretary Foxx’s order. Thankfully, his order will increase the flow of information to local officials and will enable them to finally complete a more thorough analysis before making critical permitting decisions.
It’s my hope that Secretary Foxx’s order will be formalized by the Department of Homeland Security. DHS indicated in its Spring 2014 unified regulatory agenda, that TSA will be drafting regulations concerning rail security plans and other measures outlined in the 9/11 Act. These regulations will firmly establish the federal government’s expectations and one of these should be the inclusion of state and local officials in the decision making process.
Denise Rucker Krepp is an attorney, transportation and energy consultant, former special counsel to DOT and the U.S. Congress, and author of the 9/11 Rail provisions.
