Speed Limits May Not Stop Fiery Oil Spills, U.S. Rail Chief Says
By Jim Snyder, March 13, 2015 1:15 PM PDT
(Bloomberg) — Lower speed limits for railroads may be ineffective at keeping oil trains on the tracks and preventing massive fireballs, such as those triggered in a series of recent derailments, the chief U.S. railroad regulator said.
“If you’re going to slow trains down, you’re going to have to slow them down to 12 miles an hour,” Sarah Feinberg, acting chief of the Federal Railroad Administration, told reporters in Washington Friday.
“And then you would just have other dangers. People queuing up at grade crossings while train car after train car of volatile product goes by,” she said. “That’s not good either.”
A surge in U.S. oil production has increased the amount of crude moved by rail 5,000 percent since 2009, much of it from North Dakota’s booming Bakken field. A corresponding jump in accidents, including a 2013 oil-train derailment and explosion that killed 47 people in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, have led U.S. and Canadian regulators to propose tougher standards for trains.
Speeds higher than 25 mph were “irresponsible” given the known weakness of the tank cars carrying the crude, Jim Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said in written comments to the Transportation Department.
Hall was responding to a proposed department rule that would require the current fleet of tank cars to be replaced. A draft is being reviewed at the White House Office of Management and Budget and is expected to be final in May.
Sloshing Effect
The Federal Railroad Administration also is studying whether slower speeds can cause a sloshing effect in tank cars, making it harder to prevent the rolling stock from wobbling off the tracks, Feinberg said.
Railroads have lobbied against new limits, saying they would result in costly delays for many of the goods hauled by rail.
Two oil-trains that derailed in the past four weeks, in West Virginia and Illinois, and created massive fireballs were traveling well below federal speed limits, Feinberg said.
Railroads last year agreed to slow trains to 40 mph from 50 mph when carrying crude through High Urban Threat Areas, a designation that covers more than three dozen U.S. communities.
“We are running out of things that I think we can ask for the railroads to do, and there have to be other industries that have skin in the game,” Feinberg said. “There also has to be attention placed on the product actually going into the railcar.”
In April, a regulation in North Dakota that requires oil to be kept at a vapor pressure below 13.7 pounds per square inch goes into effect. Feinberg said a process known as conditioning, which companies can use to meet that standard, is the “bare minimum” step to lower volatility.
Feinberg said the administration is considering further steps to reduce oil’s explosiveness before its loaded into tank cars, though the draft rule under review is silent on the issue.
Repost from The Los Angeles Times [Editor: Media coverage of late is quite repetitive, calling for better oil and rail safety standards. This piece has significant new material, and is a must-read. Quotes: “…about three freight train derailments occur every day on average.” And, “Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and among the top safety experts in the country, believes the government has misjudged the risk posed by the growing number of crude-oil trains. ‘We have never had a situation equivalent to 100 tank cars end to end traveling through local communities,’ Hall said. ‘This is probably the most pressing safety issue in the country. The industry has turned a deaf ear.'” – RS]
Crude-oil train wrecks raise questions about safety claims
By Ralph Vartabedian, March 12, 2015
Flames erupt from the scene of a crude-oil train derailment Feb. 16 near Timmins, in Ontario, Canada. (Transportation Safety Board of Canada)
Four accidents in the last month involving trains hauling crude oil across North America have sent flames shooting hundreds of feet into the sky, leaving some experts worried that public safety risks have been gravely underestimated.
Crude trains have crashed in Illinois, West Virginia and twice in Ontario, Canada, forcing evacuations of residents and causing extensive environmental contamination.
The industry acknowledges that it needs to perform better, but says the trains are involved in derailments no more frequently than those hauling containers, grain or motor vehicles. Although the public doesn’t pay much attention, about three freight train derailments occur every day on average.
Critics, however, say the industry’s position misses the point. All it is going to take is one major accident to change the entire calculus.
This crude-oil train derailment March 5 near Galena, Ill., was one of four in North America in the last month. (Mike Burley / Associated Press)
Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and among the top safety experts in the country, believes the government has misjudged the risk posed by the growing number of crude-oil trains.
“We have never had a situation equivalent to 100 tank cars end to end traveling through local communities,” Hall said. “This is probably the most pressing safety issue in the country. The industry has turned a deaf ear.”
Crude shipments have skyrocketed from 29,605 cars in 2010 to 493,126 in 2014, though the growth rate appears to have flattened out over the last 12 months.
As the shipments have grown, so has the number of accidents. The Assn. of American Railroads says there have been seven accidents that resulted in a spill of more than 5 gallons of oil in the last 18 months.
The Times, based on public records and news accounts, found a total of 13 accidents in the U.S. and Canada since the July 2013 catastrophe at Lac-Megantic, Quebec, in which 47 people died when a runaway oil train crashed into the center of the city.
The crashes have occurred on bridges, along rivers, near downtowns and in the middle of farms, but none of them have caused the loss of human life since the Quebec accident.
The key question is whether the industry is playing a game of Russian roulette, betting the trains will keep crashing in relatively safe rural sections of track.
As long as the crashes do not threaten public safety, the economic losses to the petroleum companies do not appear to be a deterrent.
Each tank car carries about 682 barrels of oil, worth about $33,000. A used tank car may be worth as little as $30,000, based on rail equipment broker websites. Thus, a derailment and loss of 15 cars with their crude could impose a loss of less than $1 million.
Thomas D. Simpson, president of the Railway Supply Institute, a trade group that represents tank car and other manufacturers, said the rail industry doesn’t have a lot of choice.
Under federal law, it must carry any rail car that meets federal specifications. It means that when the petroleum industry fills a tank car with crude, the freight lines don’t have the option of telling them to take their business elsewhere.
“They are betting their railroad that they are not going to blow up Los Angeles,” Simpson said.
He said the industry had committed to a significant improvement in safety, in which tank cars would have heavier shells, crash shields and stronger valves. And it would retrofit existing cars with stronger shields and thermal protection that would delay fires or explosions.
Simpson is confident that there is nothing about tank cars that makes them more likely to derail than any other type of rail car. “Tank cars don’t slosh and start rocking back and forth,” he said. “I asked that too.”
The question remains why the crude-oil trains are crashing and whether they are crashing for the same reasons as other freight trains.
Brigham McCown, former chief of the federal agency that sets tank car rules, said he believed the string of recent accidents had resulted from extreme weather this winter. The introduction of continuous welded track has made rails more vulnerable to expansion and contraction during temperature swings, experts say.
Another big unknown is human error, which accounted for 38% of all accidents in 2014. The Federal Railroad Administration is still investigating the specific causes of many recent crude train accidents, but it appears so far that none in the U.S. has involved a clear-cut case of human error.
Bill Kibben, a rail safety consultant who has worked for major railroads and government agencies, said accidents seldom occurred at a statistically even rate. “It is going to happen and it is going to be catastrophic,” Kibben said.
Historically, human error accidents have accounted for some of the most serious losses of life.
A decade ago, human error resulted in a train hauling chlorine gas to crash into a parked train on a siding, releasing poison gas that killed nine people and injured 250 others in Graniteville, S.C. In 2008, human error caused a head-on collision between a Metrolink train and a freight train in Chatsworth, killing 25 people and injuring 135 others.
Kibben said that train crews were often affected by health concerns and fatigue, as well. In 2013, four people were killed in the Bronx, N.Y., when a train engineer sped into a curve, an error he later attributed to being in a daze.
“We recognize the public’s deep concern,” said Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the railroad association. “We acknowledge we need to work with other stakeholders.”
Under a deal worked out last year with the Federal Railroad Administration, the rail industry agreed to operate crude trains at a maximum speed of 50 mph and slow down to 40 mph through some urban areas.
Greenberg said the U.S. rail industry had driven down its accident rate by 42% since 2000, making 2014 its safest year on record.
But environmentalists say safety rates for explosive products should not be compared to other merchandise.
“There should be a moratorium on crude trains until sufficient protective measures are in place at the federal level,” said Mollie Matteson, a scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity.
Repost from The Financial Post [Editor: Read this if you want to hear rail and transportation managers squirm. Best quote: “If you ship 10 times as much crude oil, you’ll get 10 times more derailments.” To which one might answer, “Yep.” – RS]
Recent train derailments are not a sign of deteriorating safety record, say analysts
By Kristine Owram, Mar 12 5:42 PM ET
Four separate oil trains — two in Ontario and two in the United States — have derailed and caught fire in the past month and in each case the tank cars met what are supposed to be tougher, safer standards. THE CANADIAN PRESS/HO – Glenn Thibeault
A recent spate of train derailments is not a sign that the industry’s safety record is deteriorating, but is rather “the bad luck of the stats,” analysts say.
A Canadian National Railway Co. train derailed near Brandon, Man., on Wednesday night, joining two other high-profile incidents involving CN trains in less than a month.
CN spokesman Brent Kossey said the cars were carrying refinery cracking stock, a non-regulated commodity that’s used in the petroleum refining process. One of the 13 cars that derailed sprung a leak, but there was no fire.
This is in contrast to two CN derailments near the community of Gogama, Ont., in the past month, both of which were carrying crude oil and caught fire. There have also been two fiery oil-train derailments in the U.S. since mid-February — one a BNSF Railway Co. train in northern Illinois and the other a CSX Corp. train in West Virginia.
It sounds like an alarming trend but analysts say it’s simply the inevitable result of the growing volumes of crude transported by rail, as well as increased scrutiny of the industry following the Lac-Mégantic, Que., disaster in 2013.
“Last year was the safest year on record,” Tony Hatch, principal at railway consulting firm ABH Consulting, said in an interview. “I think what you’re seeing is intense scrutiny and the bad luck of the stats.”
According to the National Energy Board, the volume of Canadian crude-by-rail exports has increased by 1,000% in less than three years, from 1.45 million barrels in the first quarter of 2012 to 15.95 million in the fourth quarter of 2014.
“If you ship 10 times as much crude oil, you’ll get 10 times more derailments,” Allan Zarembski, director of the railroad engineering and safety program at the University of Delaware, said in an interview.
He added that an oil-train is no more likely to derail than any other type of train.
“The oil trains aren’t heavier than a coal train or an iron-ore train or even a grain train,” he said.
“They’re all loaded to the same range, they don’t travel any faster — in fact, they travel somewhat slower than the heavy intermodal trains. There’s no particular reason why you should have more derailments associated with an oil train.”
The industry’s safety record has been steadily improving over the last several years thanks to new technology, said Russell Quimby, a former rail safety engineer with the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board and president of Quimby Consulting.
“In the last 20 years, the amount of detection and inspection technology introduced and implemented is tremendous,” Mr. Quimby said. “The accident statistics reflect that.”
According to the Transportation Safety Board, a total of 83 main-track derailments were reported in 2013, down 6% from the five-year average.
Transport Canada is also working to reduce the risk of fires and spills. The agency proposed Wednesday a new standard for the tank cars used to ship crude that will include thicker steel, insulation to protect the contents from fire and a shield to guard against punctures, among other things. If the measures are approved, older tank cars will be phased out by 2025.
“While we have already banned the least crash-resistant tank cars from the system and came out last year with tougher new regulations, we will continue to do more,” Transport Minister Lisa Raitt said in a statement. The minister has also called on CN to testify before the Transport Committee about the recent derailments.
But as long as crude is being shipped by rail, there will always be a risk of fiery derailments, Mr. Quimby said.
“You want to have zero accidents,” Mr. Quimby said. “It’s like flying. Statistically, flying is safer than driving but it’s not safer if you happen to be in the airplane that goes down.”
Crude by rail unsafe; Valero should withdraw its application
To the Editor of The Benicia Herald, and published there on Mar. 12:
Many thanks to Dr. James Egan for his thoughtful letter of March 10, “Timely decision on crude by rail warranted: Deny Valero’s application.” His local voice amplifies a growing national sentiment, that crude by rail is simply too dangerous at this time.
As Mollie Matteson, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity wrote this week, “Before one more derailment, fire, oil spill and one more life lost, we need a moratorium on oil trains and we need it now. The oil and railroad industries are playing Russian roulette with people’s lives and our environment, and the Obama administration needs to put a stop to it.”
Even as officials in Washington DC are dealing with this crisis (much too slowly), Benicia has a powerful role to play. We can do our part by denying Valero’s permit. In fact, Valero can do its part – by acknowledging the horrendous piling up of recent derailments and explosions, the failing infrastructure and the unsafe tank cars, and withdrawing their application for the time being. That would show real leadership in the oil industry.
Dr. Egan covered most of the issues extremely well, but didn’t mention that the tar-sands crude produced in Alberta Canada has proven volatile on trains as well, with two recent derailments resulting in spills and huge fires within 23 miles of each other outside Gogama, Ontario. Tar-sands crude starts out as a sticky thick bitumen, and must be diluted with volatile and toxic fluids in order to be pumped into rail cars, a mix that can explode and burn just as Bakken crude explodes and burns when a tank car is ruptured. The first train exploded outside Gogama on Feb. 14, and the second on March 7. Those poor folks in Gogama are holding their breath, as the track runs right through town, and the First Nation people who live even closer to the derailments are in shock. Valero has admitted that it wants permission to ship Bakken crude and tar-sands dilbit by train.
In addition to those two crashes in Ontario, we have seen conflagrations in West Virginia on Feb. 16 and in Illinois on Mar. 5. You can’t have missed those. Four “bomb train” explosions in three weeks!
In January 2014, I started a personal blog to keep an eye on crude by rail in the news. At first, there wasn’t much beyond our local efforts to stop Valero’s proposal “in its tracks.” Increasingly, the regional and national media have awakened to the health and safety issues that can destroy communities along the rails. You can’t imagine the absolute flood of media coverage this last three weeks. I can’t keep up anymore. I’m picking and choosing which stories to repost [at BeniciaIndependent.com].
The economy of Benicia may very well take a tumble if Valero’s proposal is permitted: housing values may fall and businesses may look to safer locations and relocate. According to Valero’s own analysis, the few jobs created by introducing oil trains here will be taken up by residents of other Bay Area towns. New hires will spend most of their money where they live, not here in Benicia.
We need to take the long view – Valero can continue to process crude oil brought in on ships. The multi-billion dollar industry will weather this minor setback.
