Tag Archives: oil spill

Riverkeeper sues U.S. DOT over oil train safety rules

Repost from The Times Union, State College, PA
[Editor: Note that this is a new filing, closely following the filing of May 14 by a coalition of environmental groups.  – RS]

Riverkeeper sues U.S. DOT over oil train safety rules

By Brian Nearing, May 18, 2015

The Hudson River environmental advocacy group Riverkeeper is challenging new U.S. Department of Transportation crude-by-rail standards in federal court, saying that they fail to protect the public and the environment from proven threats, according to a statement issued Monday.

The release states: Riverkeeper filed its lawsuit in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City on May 15, a little more than a week after the DOT issued a final tank car and railroad operation rule which had been the subject of scrutiny and controversy since its proposal in 2014. The suit closely follows another filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals by a coalition of conservation and citizen groups that includes Earthjustice, Waterkeeper Alliance, ForestEthics and the Sierra Club.

The Hudson River and the Greater New York/New Jersey region, a thoroughfare for up to 25 percent of all crude shipments originating in the Bakken shale oil region, faces a daily risk of spills and explosions that could devastate communities, local economies, drinking water security, and the environment.

“These seriously flawed standards all but guarantee that there will be more explosive derailments, leaving people and the environment at grave risk,” Riverkeeper President Paul Gallay said. “The shortcomings are numerous, including an inadequate speed limit, unprotective tank car design, and time line that would allow these dangerous tank cars 10 more years on the rails. The DOT completely fails to recognize that we’re in the middle of a crisis – we don’t need bureaucratic half measures that are years away from implementation, we need common-sense protections today.”

Just this month, tank cars laden with crude oil derailed and exploded in Heimdal, North Dakota. Under the new DOT standards, the same type of cars that exploded in that disaster could stay in service hauling volatile crude oil for another five to eight years, or even indefinitely if they are used for tar sands.

Over the past several years, a series of fiery derailments, toxic spills, and explosions involving volatile crude and ethanol rail transport has caused billions in damages across North America. Crude-by-rail accidents threaten irreversible damage to waterways, many of which, like the Hudson River, serve as the source of drinking water for tens of thousands of people. This year alone,six oil-by-rail shipments have caught fire and exploded in North America. In July 2013, a derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, killed 47 people. The total liabilities for that rail disaster could easily reach $2.7 billion over the next decade.

Here are some of the ways the new safety standards fail to protect people and the environment:

• Hazardous cars carrying volatile crude oil can remain in service for up to 10 years.

• The rule rolls back public notification requirements, leaving communities and first responders in the dark about explosive crude oil tank cars rumbling through their towns.

• While new tank cars will require thicker shells to mitigate punctures and leaks, retrofit tank cars will be allowed to stay in use with a less protective design standard.

• Speed limits have been restricted only for “high threat urban areas,” but only two areas in New York have received that designation, Buffalo and New York City.

• The “high threat” category relates to cities seen as vulnerable to terrorist attacks by the Department of Homeland Security. It is unrelated to actual risks posed by crude-by-rail.

Railroads Required to Plan for a Worst-Case Oil Train Spill in Washington State

Repost from Emergency Management

Railroads Required to Plan for a Worst-Case Oil Train Spill in Washington State

A new law requires railroads to plan for the “largest foreseeable spill in adverse weather conditions.”
Samantha Wohlfeil, The Bellingham Herald | May 17, 2015

(TNS) — Under a new state law signed by Gov. Jay Inslee on Thursday, May 14, large railroads will be required to plan with the state for “worst-case spills” from crude oil unit trains, but exactly what that worst-case scenario looks like is not yet clear.

The law requires railroads to plan for the “largest foreseeable spill in adverse weather conditions,” but doesn’t define “largest foreseeable spill.”

In April, BNSF railway employees told Washington emergency responders that the company currently considers 150,000 gallons of crude oil – enough to fill five rail tank cars – its worst-case scenario when planning for spills into waterways. Crude oil trains usually carry about 100 rail tank cars.

“We’ve already seen worse than that though, haven’t we?” asked Roger Christensen, Bellingham’s interim emergency manager, when asked about using that amount for worst-case planning. “It seems like a low number … I hate to respond without knowing where they’re coming from. It doesn’t seem like a worst-case scenario to me.”

The amount is lower than what has been spilled and partially burned off in several high-profile crude oil train derailments in the last three years:

    • Mount Carbon, West Virginia, Feb. 16, 2015: More than 362,000 gallons spilled in a CSX train derailment and fire.
    • Casselton, North Dakota, Dec. 30, 2013: Roughly 475,000 gallons spilled from a BNSF train that derailed and caught fire.
    • Aliceville, Alabama, Nov. 8, 2013: About 749,000 gallons spilled into a swampy area from a Genesee & Wyoming train after a derailment and fire.
    • Lac-Megantic, Quebec, July 5, 2013: Roughly 1.6 million gallons spilled from a Montreal, Maine & Atlantic train in a derailment that killed 47 people.

“Water spills require special equipment such as boom and skimmers. The worst case release is used to make sure we have enough of this special equipment,” BNSF spokesman Gus Melonas wrote in an email to The Bellingham Herald. “For land spills we use vacuum trucks and heavy equipment to dig up the contaminant. Both of which are readily available in most areas.”

Melonas said in an interview that the 150,000-gallon number was based on studying historical derailments in the industry.

When asked if the company uses other amounts to plan for spills like the fiery derailments outlined above, Melonas replied, “We consider all scenarios when developing our emergency response plans with utilizing resources of local, regional and nationwide experts and equipment to safely and efficiently mitigate any hazardous materials incident including crude oil.”

“Until we have further regulatory clarity from the U.S. Department of Transportation on how the agency will require railroads to calculate ‘worst-case discharges’ to waterways, BNSF is considering using 150,000 gallons,” Melonas wrote. “BNSF is open to discussing the justification of this quantity with Federal or State environmental agencies.”

BNSF would not outline what its worst-case scenarios are for other situations, or say whether the company would adjust its scenario based on the new state law.

 Planning for the Worst

The new law tasks the state Department of Ecology with crafting the worst-case scenario for railroad contingency plans in a process that could take a year or longer, and will include input from the railroads and the public, said Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, preparedness section manager for Ecology.

“Preparedness regulations are all about planning for a potential worst-case spill,” Pilkey-Jarvis said. “It (all starts) with defining a worst-case spill volume, then that drives the whole rest of your plan.”

The volume helps planners decide which equipment needs to be staged where, and how many people need to be trained members of a spill management team, she said.

“In (Washington) state the Legislature has defined the standard of what a worst-case spill volume should be, and in general it’s a pretty high bar,” Pilkey-Jarvis said.

Washington state requires marine ships that transport oil to plan for a spill of the entire cargo, including whatever fuel is aboard to operate the vessel.

Planning for that type of all-in worst case creates pushback from the industry, which sometimes says, “That could never happen,” Pilkey-Jarvis said.

“Well, that doesn’t matter from a planning perspective if you think that could happen or not,” she said. “From a planning perspective, we’re defining everything as a worst case.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) recently ran through a worst-case crude oil train derailment scenario in Jersey City, New Jersey. The exercise took emergency planners through an imagined scenario that could potentially kill or injure more than 1,000 people, and displace even more from their homes near the incident.

The scenario started with five of 90 tank cars derailing and spilling roughly 100,000 gallons of crude oil, which caught on fire. The blaze heats up other tanks, which rupture and spill more oil. The scenario outlined 225,000 gallons being consumed by flames, with the other 225,000 left on the ground, for a total 450,000-gallon spill.

“This is consistent with other real world events, such as the Galena, (Illinois) tank car derailment,” FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick wrote in an email to The Bellingham Herald. “Complex and progressive scenarios allow communities to prepare for a range of consequences they may be faced with, including the size, scope and severity of an incident.”

In Bellingham, planners have not yet decided what the worst-case scenario might look like, Christensen said.

However, planners have calculated that throughout the city, 27,000 Bellingham residents – about a third of the population – live within the half-mile evacuation zone of the railroad tracks, he said.

Whatcom County and Bellingham planners work with BNSF, BP Cherry Point and Phillips 66 refineries, and other involved partners, to plan for different emergencies in the county.

Last fall, planners ran through a tabletop discussion of what resources might be available if 60,000 gallons of crude oil spilled from a train near Squalicum Harbor, Christensen said.

“It was a tabletop so we never got to the point of actually ‘deploying’ resources, but we did get a handle on that there is a significant amount of resources in our community,” he said. “We’re much more prepared than a lot of them, because of industrial partnerships. They might be the reason the hazard is coming through … but at least in Whatcom County we do have the industrial partners that bring resources to the table as well.”

Whatcom County Fire District 7 Chief Gary Russell said he’s not worried about knowing BNSF’s worst-case scenario, as it doesn’t change how his firefighters would respond to a derailment. His district covers nine miles of mostly rural BNSF track, and includes the two Whatcom County refineries.

“If it was one tank car on fire, we’d address it the same if it was five, we’d just probably not have the ability to deal with it,” Russell said. “In a derailment out here, you’d be protecting the area while it eliminated its fuel source.

“We treat every day like it’s an all-risk hazard. It doesn’t matter if it’s a freight train or a passenger train, with a greater loss of life,” he continued. “I worry about the product I don’t know anything about that’s in a tank car. … I’d rather have oil going up and down the rails than I would acids, sulfurs, chlorine and other hazardous commodities, because they can harm people faster than oil.”

Different Reporting Requirements

Unlike stationary facilities that have hazardous materials or chemicals on hand, railroads are exempt from nearly all requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

After a disastrous release of toxic gas at a Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India, that killed thousands of people in 1984, the U.S. Congress passed EPCRA to try to prevent similar accidents.

While businesses such as certain gas stations, water treatment plants, and fish processors need to report what hazardous chemicals are on their properties to state and local officials, and to make that information available to the public, railroads do not. The act “does not apply to the transportation, including the storage incident to such transportation” of chemicals otherwise included in the act.

Railroads do need to submit their worst-case discharge calculations and plans to the U.S. Department of Transportation, but they are not available to the public.

“It’s un-American to withhold these documents from the public,” said Fred Millar, an independent rail consultant who worked for environmental groups that helped pass right-to-know rules in the 1980s and ’90s. “For the first 20 years or so, the railroads said to us, ‘No law forces us to give you this information, we consider it confidential.’ After 9/11, they said ‘We won’t give you the information because of terrorism, you know.’

“Keeping it secret is a little like elephants tiptoeing through the tulips,” he said.

Pipeline companies are required to submit their oil spill response plans to the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. They are published online, but the worst-case scenario numbers are redacted from the reports.

Last year, DOT required railroads to notify emergency response agencies of shipments of 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude oil through their states, but the introduction of new regulations on May 1 ended that requirement.

Now, railroads will share that information directly with emergency responders, but it will be exempt from public records laws and the Freedom of Information Act, the way that other hazardous materials such as chlorine and anhydrous ammonia are currently protected.

The new Washington state oil safety law requires seven days’ advance notice from the facilities that receive crude oil, such as refineries, before trains are scheduled to come through the state. That information is supposed to be given to the state, which will make it available to emergency responders immediately, and will aggregate the numbers quarterly for release to the public.

McClatchy reporter Curtis Tate contributed to this report.

Report: Oil Trains Pose A Significant Threat To National Parks

Repost from National Parks Traveler
[Editor:  Excellent, thorough report.  Incredible interactive map of oil trains in and near our national parks.  (Video portions of the map seem to be best viewed in Google Chrome.)  Remember, it’s not only human life at risk, but the earth itself.  – RS]

A Traveler Special Report: “Oil Trains” Pose A Significant Threat To National Parks

Alternate Text
Oil trains that pass through John Stevens Canyon on the south border of Glacier National Park also pass through West Glacier, an entrance to the park./NPCA, Michael Jamison.

For more than a century, freight trains have rumbled up and over Montana’s Marias Pass, skirting the heavily forested south boundary of Glacier National Park, casting rolling shadows on the Middle Fork of the Flathead River below. Until recently the major threat was a grain car derailment, which on occasion left bears woozy from eating fermented grain and led to their deaths by train.

Today’s prospect of a derailment involving a 100-car train hauling millions of gallons of highly combustible Bakken crude oil risks an environmental catastrophe unprecedented in National Park Service history.

Every week an estimated 30-35 million gallons of Bakken crude oil passes along the park’s southern border as 10-12 BNSF Railway trains — with each tanker car holding about 30,000 gallons of crude — head from North Dakota to West Coast refineries and terminals. During the winter months, each mile-long train is exposed to a snowy Russian Roulette as they pass 11 avalanche chutes that could break loose without warning from mountains called Running Rabbit, Snowslip, and Shields on Glacier’s flanks.

Any day of the year, equipment failure, poor track conditions, or over-worked crews could lead to a derailment that could dump tens or hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude into the Middle Fork, a wild and scenic river, while an enormous fireball could ignite the park’s forests.

But Glacier National Park isn’t the only National Park System unit that faces this threat from “oil trains.” Fort Vancouver National Historic Site, in the state of Washington, could have four oil trains, each upwards of a mile-and-a-half long, hauling crude daily to a proposed but as yet unbuilt oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver.

National Park Service officials also point out that the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail, the Oregon National Historic Trail, and the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail could be damaged by an oil train derailment. And, Fort Laramie National Historic Site, in eastern Wyoming, has an oil loading terminal less than a mile away that fills rail tanker cars destined for the East and West coasts 24 hours a day.

Park Service officials in Washington, D.C., were keeping an eye on the issue, and relying on their field staff to apprise them of any developments.

“We rely on National Park Service employees, like (Superintendent) Jeff Mow at Glacier who is engaged with communities near the park, to keep us informed on health and safety issues. Our concern is focused on visitor and employee safety, preservation of the cultural, historic and natural resources in our care and the health, safety and well being of our friends and neighbors who live near national parks,” said NPS spokesman Jeffrey Olson.

At individual parks across the National Park System, officials expressed great concern about the potential for a derailment in or near their parks.

At Fort Vancouver, Superintendent Tracy Fortmann said a derailment would “be catastrophic.”

“The threats are what you might expect,” Fort Laramie Superintendent Tom Baker said from his park in Wyoming. “If there were an oil spill, which most likely would be right at the crossing there just off of U.S 26 and Wyoming 160, that would be calamitous, to say the least.”

Alternate Text
Bakken crude is extremely volatile and prone to explosive derailments, such as this one at Casselton, ND, back in 2013/NTSB

How extensive is the potential problem? When you look at a map of rail lines, it leaps out.

“We put together a map that shows the rail system that Bakken (crude oil) runs on nationwide, and we overlaid it with National Park System units. And we suddenly realized, holy mackerel, this is 48 states’ worth of a problem,” said Michael Jamison, who oversees the National Parks Conservation Association’s Crown of the Continent program. “The spills that are happening in (Lac-Mégantic) Quebec, on the James (River in Virginia), out in Casselton (North Dakota), they’re happening all over the nation. These are rails that run either adjacent to or sometimes literally through the center of a park.”

From Passengers To Oil

Railway history in the United States is richly intertwined with national park history. A century ago the Union Pacific Railroad, the Great Northern Railway, the Northern Pacific Railway, and the Santa Fe Railway and numerous short-lines filled their passenger cars with riders anxious to see America’s grandest natural attractions: Glacier, the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone national parks, among others.

Gleaming locomotives — first steam-powered, and then by diesel electric — pulled coaches, replete with linen-topped tables and white-jacketed stewards in dining cars. Travelers bunked in Pullman sleeping cars, which provided a comfortable trip out West.

Scenic national parks gave the railroads strong promotional opportunities to sell tickets. The Union Pacific hauled passengers to Cedar City, Utah, where they boarded buses operated by the Utah Parks Co. (a Union Pacific subsidiary), to explore Zion, Bryce Canyon, and Grand Canyon national parks. The railroad was even hired by the Interior Department to build lodges within these parks.

But rail passengers eventually turned to automobiles, and the railroads’ focus turned to freight.

“In 1952, for example, only 22 percent of the occupants at Zion, 20 percent at Bryce, and 27 percent at Grand Canyon came by rail,” Maury Klein wrote in the second of his two-volume history of the Union Pacific. “In effect, the railroad was subsidizing the vacations of automobile travelers as part of its contribution to the Utah economy.”

Today, a growing portion of the railroads’ freight is crude oil, most from North Dakota. Day into night and into day mile-long trains rumble out of the state’s energy-rich northwestern corner, carrying millions of gallons of crude oil from the Bakken formation, which is fueling resurgence in U.S. energy independence.

But it’s at times a costly path. Oil train derailments have led to spills, and in some cases fiery explosions, in North Dakota, West Virginia, Illinois, and Virginia. On May 6, just five days after the U.S. Transportation Department announced more stringent regulations for oil train tank cars, a fiery derailment near Heimdal, North Dakota, sent billowing clouds of black smoke and billowing orange flames soaring into the morning sky.

Alternate Text
BNSF’s tracks run along the southern boundary of Glacier National Park/NPCA graphic

While individual railroads, railroad associations, and other stakeholders work to prevent such accidents, the growing domestic oil production demands transportation of crude, either by rail, pipeline, or truck. And with increasing rail transport, there are more rail derailments.

“… the accident frequency trend is against rail. Oil trains are getting bigger and towing more and more tanker cars,” James Conca wrote in a piece for forbes.com on May 5. “From 1975 to 2012, trains were short and spills were rare and small, with about half of those years having no spills above a few gallons. Then came 2013, in which more crude oil was spilled in U.S. rail incidents than was spilled in the previous thirty-seven years.”

But do, or should, the railroads shoulder all the blame? As common carriers the railroads, which in most cases don’t own the oil tank cars they haul, are required to move a shipper’s hazardous materials, according to BNSF officials. For the railway, that means that their network of rails along the northern edge of the country has turned their trains into “rolling pipelines” from the Bakken boom to market.

“Other modes of transportation are able to turn down hazardous materials,” said Roxanne Butler, a BNSF spokeswoman. “Crude oil is a hazardous material and therefore, when a shipper asks us to move it, we are required to do so.”

BNSF isn’t the only rail company that hauls crude oil. The Union Pacific Railroad, CSX Transportation, and the Central New York do as well, and all their lines combined run like veins across the nation’s landscapes. Some of these oil trains, according to an NPCA analysis, pass alongside and, in some cases even through, parks such as Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, New River Gorge National River in West Virginia, Mojave National Preserve in California, the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River in New York and Pennsylvania, and the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area in Minnesota.

“In 2007, we ran about 6,000 tankers on the rail nationwide. A year later we had increased that by 50 percent, we were running 9,000 tankers,” says NPCA’s Jamison, who was drawn to studying the matter after Jeff Mow became superintendent of Glacier in August 2013 and asked about the tankers rolling over Marias Pass and down through John F. Stevens Canyon.

“Five years later, by 2013, we were up to 435,000 tankers. And we have gone from one ‘incident,’ as they call it, in 2007, to about 150-plus in 2013, nationwide. And so the numbers were pretty clear of what was going on,” he continued. “At the same time, of course, we had gone from approximately zero wells in the Bakken, to approximately 7,000. And my concern was that the whole build-out on the Bakken has been estimated not at 7,000 wells, where we’re at currently, but it’s 70,000-100,000 wells. And so you just do the math. From zero wells to 7,000 wells we went from 6,000 tankers to 435,000 tankers. So what happens when you add a zero, when you go from 7,000 wells to 70,000 wells?”

The Concern At Glacier

Glacier National Park rises in the “Crown of the Continent,” a rugged, mountainous landscape hugging the U.S.-Canadian border that is considered by some conservationists to be the United States’ largest intact ecosytem, a 10-million acre chunk of wild where, The Trust of Public Land says, “the list of plant and animal species living … has remained unchanged since the time of the Lewis and Clark expedition.” Rivers run swift, cold, and pristine, brimming with trout and cherished by river runners. Forests hold bears and wolves, elk and deer, wolverine and fox, while eagles and falcons wheel in the skies. Mountains here, the Great Northern reminded us, were, and still are, home to mountain goats.

Glacier National Park Superintendent Mow knows oil spills and their aftermath very well. He was on the NPS tort investigation team following the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill in Alaska in 1989, and 20 years later was superintendent at Kenai Fjords National Park while it was still dealing with some of the spill’s aftermath. More recently, Mow was an incident commander for the Interior Department during the Deepwater Horizon well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.

Since taking the helm at Glacier, he’s met with BNSF officials to discuss their tracks that descend roughly 2,000 feet in elevation from Marias Pass down to West Glacier, a distance of about 46.5 miles.

The track corridor dates back to 1890. John Frank Stevens, then principal engineer of the Great Northern Railway, had crossed Marias Pass the year before with an Indian guide and determined it the best location for rail traffic. Today, two sets of tracks run along the southern boundary of Glacier, cross over the Middle Fork of the Flathead River before coursing along the boundary of the Flathead National Forest. The steepest grade, between the top of the pass and Essex on the western side, is 1.8 percent, according to BNSF.

Alternate Text
Amtrak’s Empire Builder (Seattle/Portland-Chicago), here portrayed at the Izaak Walton Inn at Essex, daily crosses the park with both an eastbound and westbound train. In summer, passenger counts reach 300 per train./J. Craig Thorpe painting, used with permission.

Winter’s heavy snows can bring avalanches cascading down 11 known pathways that stream down Glacier’s flanks onto the tracks below. These torrents of white fury led to the construction of snowsheds over key segments of rails as long ago as 1910. Today there are 11 sheds protecting the tracks, which also carry Amtrak’s Empire Builder passenger train as it shuttles between Chicago and Seattle, with stops at East Glacier and West Glacier and, if a flag is displayed, the Issack Walton Lodge at Essex.

BNSF recently conducted some maintenance work on Snowshed 5, but there are no plans to add sheds along the route, according to Ms. Butler.

Superintendent Mow is familiar with BNSF’s proactive efforts, which include sensors to monitor track conditions, to keep their trains on the tracks over Marias Pass and through the canyon. But, he adds, “We don’t operate trains and so quite honestly we don’t have the capacity to monitor their operations remotely.”

Since the tracks are outside the park’s boundaries, the Park Service has no official role in overseeing the train traffic and potential risks, the superintendent said.

“The only activity that we have issued permits for is avalanche mitigation during winter months,” said Superintendent Mow.

While an avalanche-caused derailment near the pass in January 2004 knocked 15 grain cars off the rails and closed the rail corridor for 29 hours, there have been no serious accidents in recent years. Yet the threat remains, and it’s a significant one when you consider the pristine river flowing below the tracks, the park’s forests above, and the explosiveness of Bakken crude.

“As we look at a response to a spill, there are just so many moving pieces that come into it,” the Glacier superintendent said. “From just whether it’s a winter vs. a summer spill, how you respond differently to that. It’s fascinating if you read about the (63,000-gallon oil) spill that occurred in the Yellowstone River this winter. There was that initial incident where the spill occurred, and how it impacted communities, then as the winter went on that calmed down, and as spring’s come along it’s remobilized a lot of the oil that was trapped in the snow and ice. It’s kind of a two-stage event, really.”

Alternate Text
An NPS map shows the avalanche chutes that tower above the BNSF Railway track corridor.
In what could be described as a worst-case scenario, an explosive oil train derailment in John F. Stevens Canyon in the middle of a long, hot, dry summer could dump oil into the river and rain flames 100 feet or higher onto the park’s forests of aspen, lodgepole pine, spruce and fir. Depending where a derailment occurred, tank cars could jackknife end over end, spraying their combustible cargo over mountainside and into the river. Such a derailment also could take out a train, freight or passenger, running on the second set of tracks.

How such a derailment would impact U.S. 2, a winding two-lane highway that also parallels the Middle Fork, depends on the size of the derailment. The Casselton derailment, which occurred out on the prairie, led to the town’s 2,500 residents being asked to evacuate due to hazardous contaminants in the billowing smoke plumes. A similar derailment in narrow John F. Stevens Canyon could pose a much greater risk to human life.

Recovering oil from rivers is not easy, cheap, or quickly done. Cleanup after a 2011 pipeline break at the Yellowstone River near Laurel, Montana, recovered only about 5 percent, according to NPCA’s Jamison. A major derailment in John Stevens Canyon could dump many tens or hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Middle Fork of the Flathead.

“I think the chances of actually responding in a meaningful way, relative to the larger watershed and the aquatic ecology, are fairly slim,” he said.

John F. Stevens Canyon is narrow, often filled with wind, and in a remote, rugged location.

“Even out in Casselton, where you have room to operate, the answer in all these cases has been let it burn out. It takes three or four or five days, you let it burn out. Because it’s so hot they can’t get close to it,” the NPCA staffer said. “You add the complications of a very narrow, very windy, very rugged canyon, and there’s no way they’re going to fight that fire. It’s going to burn itself out.”

If such a fiery derailment occurred in August, during a hot, dry, windy “red flag” day with high fire danger, the problems magnify quickly, he said.

”We have people in the backcountry that we need to evacuate, and we have oil in the river and we have a couple thousand tourists, because that’s a white-water raft river…,” Jamison continued. “The first step (to preventing a disastrous spill) is you do everything you can to keep the oil in the trains, and I don’t think we’re doing that right now. We’re not even close to that right now.”

For their part, BNSF officials declined to say how prepared they were to handle a derailment in the canyon.

Getting Crude To Port

Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Washington state was established in 1948 to preserve the setting for the western headquarters of the Hudson’s Bay Company on the Columbia River that dates to the early 1800s. In 1972 the city of Vancouver gave the park the Pearson Army Air Corps airfield, which dates back to the 1920s. Today the historic site blends story-telling of those two aspects within an urban park covering a bit more than 200 acres.

It also happens to have a BNSF rail line running along the southern edge of the park, sandwiched between Highway 14 and Columbia Way. The tracks already carry tanker cars, but the number could increase substantially if a proposal to build an oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver moves ahead.

Alternate Text
BNSF oil trains already pass through Fort Vancouver National Historic Site in Washington state, but a lot more could be on the way/NPS map
“The proposal as I understand it is that the (Vancouver Oil Terminal) will have the capacity to handle 360,000 to 380,000 barrels of Bakken crude per day, which is equal to 15 million gallons,” Fort Vancouver Superintendent Tracy Fortmann said.

“Stretching a mile or more in length, these 100-car trains pose a significant threat,” she said when discussing the potential of a derailment in her park, “It would be a horrific thing, it would be catastrophic.”

In its official comments on the terminal project, dubbed Tesoro-Savage, the National Park Service said that those proposing to build the facility and BNSF “should be required to develop robust mitigation and emergency response plans for the entire length of the supply and distribution lines.”

The NPS has called for extensive oversight, planning, and mitigation for the tracks that wind hundreds of miles back to the oilfields.

“These plans should consider both winter and summer conditions and should provide a rapid response in the event of a train derailment or marine oil spill,” the agency said in its official comments. “In areas of high snowfall, including at Glacier National Park, project proponents should investigate construction of snow sheds to prevent derailments and consider alternatives to using explosive devices to control avalanche events along the tracks.”

A decade ago, before oil trains were rolling, BNSF sought NPS permission to use explosives along the southern boundary of Glacier on a regular basis to control avalanches. The Park Service denied permission, and instead suggested that the railroad build more snow sheds. However, during the snowy winter of 2014 BNSF was given temporary permission to use aerial explosions, produced from a mix of hydrogen and oxygen, which creates a loud boom to trigger avalanches.

Now, with the daily traffic of oil trains coming through John F. Stevens Canyon, NPCA would like to see the railroad be more proactive in protecting its trains from avalanches.

“They need less than a mile of new shed. Not all in one place,” said Jamison. “In many places they’re just expanding the length of the shed that they have.”

BNSF’s Butler says multiple options are needed to keep trains running safely.

“Even with a robust avalanche risk minimization program that includes forecasting, snow sheds and operations restrictions, in times of high risk additional strategies may be needed,” she says.

Western parks don’t face all the dangers of oil trains. As the NPCA map shows and explains, rail lines wend their way, “along the Potomac and Shenandoah rivers and converge in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. A derailment here could affect one of America’s most important historic sites and affect water quality for miles downstream.”

CSX tracks also travel through the gorge that cradles New River Gorge National River in West Virginia, and have been used to funnel oil trains to Virginia ports. However, the railroad has agreed to reroute oil trains around the New River Gorge National River.

Alternate Text
Derailments are highly destructive, as the remains of a grain train derailment in 2011 in New River Gorge illustrates/NPS
“After the derailment and subsequent fire just north of the park in February, CSX contracted with Norfolk Southern to reroute most of the trains carrying oil out of the gorge,” said Jeffrey West, the National River’s deputy superintendent. “I will say they have been excellent to work with when a derailment does occur – quick environmental response, excellent compliance with our mitigation and recovery requirements. We have had diesel spills (punctured fuel tanks), and hydraulic leaks within the gorge – they have always been good about the clean-ups (three cases in the last five years).”

CSX officials also have a mitigation plan in place that has led to quick response whenever there’s been a derailment in the gorge, the Park Service official said.

“Anything that goes into the river (soybeans, coal, corn, or oil) gets immediate reaction from their hazmat team, and their hazmat contractors,” Deputy Superintendent West said. “In my five years here, they have notified us within an hour of a derailment with a spill. We send rangers and resource management personnel to monitor the site – they work with us to solve the environmental concerns.”

The Danger Of Bakken Crude

Alternate Text
This is the charred locomotive involved in the Casselton derailment. For the engineer’s account of the crash, click here/NTSB

Oil pulled from North Dakota’s Bakken Formation is particularly troublesome for shippers. Hal Cooper, a chemical engineer who has long studied the nation’s oil reserves and associated transportation systems, describes the crude “as being potentially hazardous in terms of flammability and volatility…”

One possible way to reduce that combustibility, he said, would be to remove the “volatile organic hydrocarbon vapors” from the Bakken crude before loading it into tankers.

When the ramp-up in production is considered, the problem becomes alarming.

“The state of North Dakota has undergone nothing less than an enormous increase in its crude oil production of less than 100,000 (42-gallon) barrels per day in 2006 to 300,000 barrels per day in 2010 and to 1,050,000 barrels per day at the beginning of 2014,” Dr. Cooper wrote in a report for the Puget Sound Regional Council.

Most of that oil, he points out, is carried by BNSF. In October 2013 it was estimated that the railroad hauled 620,000 barrels a day of the total 732,518 barrels a day produced in North Dakota.

The issue grows greater when you consider, as Dr. Cooper points out, that “there is a massive amount of crude oil lying underneath North Dakota in as many as 11 individual layers in at least five major formations. The total estimated oil resource in the Bakken Formation is between 300 and 500 billion barrels, of which between 4 and 6 billion barrels at a minimum to as much as 25 to 50 billion barrels at a maximum is considered as being presently recoverable.

“The total resource is as much as one trillion barrels of oil from all of the oilfields, in North Dakota, making it more than Saudi Arabia.”

Back at Glacier, Superintendent Mow says the volatility of Bakken crude “is a blessing and a curse, because being so volatile it’s been shown that fires are common with spills associated with the Bakken. But on the other hand, if it’s not burning it will evaporate on its own pretty quickly.”

Railroads try to be ready for the worst. BNSF and other railroads jointly run a first-responder training center in Pueblo, Colorado, to instruct them on how to attack tanker car fires. For its part, BNSF has a force of 160 trained emergency response personnel located across its rail network, and uses a system to “determine the most safe and secure routes for crude trains of 20 or more loaded cars.”

But BNSF officials would not say how close the nearest emergency response teams were to Glacier, Fort Vancouver, and Fort Laramie. They also declined to say whether the railroad has studied John F. Stevens Canyon to determine whether there’s a safer route for its oil trains; in July 2014 the railway had adopted Rail Risk-Based Traffic Routing Technology to “determine the most safe and secure routes for crude trains of 20 or more loaded cars.

While BNSF spent $5.4 billion on its rail operations in 2014, railway officials would not say how much was spent on track maintenance around those parks.

“Given the amount of work that it would require me to invest in your request, we are not inclined to participate in the story,” Ms. Butler said.

While the dangers of oil trains have been well-known for years, incidents seem to be increasing. On May 1, the U.S Department of Transportation along with its Canadian counterpart announced oil train regulations that would require stronger tanker cars, new braking standards, maximum speed limits between 40 mph and 50 mph, and routing analyses by railroads hat would review “27 safety and security factors.”

Alternate Text
Freight trains, some hauling tanker cars, pass through Mojave National Preserve/NPCA photo.
The regulations will not be fully effective before 2023. U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Washington, who has been leading the effort to make the trains safer, was unimpressed. “The new DOT rule is just like saying let the oil trains roll. It does nothing to address explosive volatility, very little to reduce the threat of rail car punctures, and is too slow on the removal of the most dangerous cars,” she said in a statement. “It’s more of a status quo rule than the real safety changes needed to protect the public and first responders.”

BNSF officials had a mixed reaction to the rules.

“BNSF has advocated for a safer tank car in the movement of crude oil and finally setting a new federal standard will get the next generation tank car into service and substantially reduce the risk of a release in the event of an incident,” the railway said in a statement.

“We have also said that any regulatory changes that automatically take away capacity will have a devastating impact on our shippers and the economy. Most importantly, capacity is not abundant. The supply chain’s experiences with the recent disruptions at the West Coast ports is clear evidence of the negative impacts substantially reduced capacity will have on the economy.”

At the American Association of Railroads, reaction from Edward R. Hamberger, president and CEO, was harsher.

“DOT has handed down an unprecedented railroad operating requirement that is 100 percent dependent on the actions of rail customers or tank cars owners,” Hamberger said. “This decision not only threatens the operational management of the U.S. rail system, but trains moving 30 mph will compromise network capacity by at least 30 percent. The far-reaching effects of this decision will be felt by freight and passenger customers alike. Slow-moving trains will back up the entire rail system.”

While the rules include a requirement that train speeds not exceed 40 mph in “high-threat urban areas,” Glacier and many other national park settings are not urban.

“The value of what’s at stake is so high — with regard to the wild and scenic river, the Flathead (Lake downstream), Glacier Park,” Jamison said.

In general, the resources that national parks preserve and protect demand the utmost safety precautions, he said.

“At Fort Vancouver, the human communities that are around it, the historic and cultural resources. What’s at stake is so high that we absolutely need to insure to the best that we can in case something bad should happen,” he said. “And that insurance means an investment in some site-specific infrastructure changes, and some site-specific rule changes in these places of high value.”

NPCA, said Jamison, believes speed limits also should be set for trains traveling through areas “of national significance with regard to natural and cultural values,” such as Glacier.

While speed can be a factor in derailments, so can faulty equipment. In the Casselton derailment — which dumped an estimated 400,000 gallons of oil when 21 of the oil train’s 106 tankers and two locomotives went off track — National Transportation Safety Board investigators focused on a broken axle on a grain car that derailed onto the tracks in front of the approaching oil train.

Despite new rules and precautions, with increasing oil train traffic, the odds of a serious derailment impacting a national park are more than likely only going to go up. Whether the response infrastructure is in place to prevent a major catastrophe is more difficult to answer.

“We don’t operate the railroad, but we just really want to emphasize what’s at stake in the event of an incident,” Glacier Superintendent Mow said. “So anything that we can do to influence safe operations and a spill never occurring, that’s one area for us to put some attention to. At the same time, we also have to be prepared for a spill, and to that extent our response capability, how would we interface with those first responders, the county and the state and the EPA as they ultimately become engaged.

“In this area, you call 911, and while 911 may direct you to Flathead County, Flathead County is often quick to call us because we’re the ones closest to being on the scene,” he added. “It becomes pretty integrated. We’ve had some early discussions, still need to do more tabletop exercises on some various scenarios to ensure that if there is an emergency we can have a smooth response, we don’t have to stand there and figure out who’s going to do what.”

How to improve safety, while not impeding commerce, is a question with few answers.

“We’re not out to stop transportation by any particular means. But the fact remains that these are literally bombs that run through our cities and next to our national parks,” said NIck Lund, NPCA’s landscape conservation program manager. “All it will take will be one more Lac-Mégantic. If a Lac-Mégantic accident happened in Philadelphia, where trains run constantly, or any of the cities that are involved here, that would sort of just completely change the nature of how this is thought of, I think.

“It’s a very difficult question I think a lot of people are struggling with what the answer is. Even if trains are the safest mode at this point, it only takes one incident for something really terrible to happen,” he said.

Alternate Text
This map, prepared by NPCA, shows the convergence of railroad tracks (in purple), national parks (in green) and oil facilities (in blue)/NPCA.

 

NRDC Attorney: The tar sands invasion that can be stopped

Repost from NRDC Switchboard, Danielle Droitsch’s Blog

The tar sands invasion that can be stopped

Danielle Droitsch
Danielle Droitsch, senior attorney with NRDC, Canada Project Director, International Program.

By Danielle Droitsch, April 28, 2015

Many across the United States are aware of the tar sands threat posed by the proposed Keystone XL pipeline but what many may not know is the U.S. faces a looming threat that is bigger than just this one pipeline. We call it a tar sands invasion. The plan would be to complete a network of pipelines (both new and expanded), supertankers and barges, and a fleet of explosive railway tank cars. What is at risk? San Francisco Bay, Puget Sound, the Great Lakes, the Hudson River and other places we all call home. While the threat of this invasion is already here with the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the good news is that citizens across North America are rising up to respond and repeal the assault with a clear message: Not by pipeline, not by rail, not by tanker. The good news is that public opposition to tar sands oil is rising and projects like Keystone XL and Northern Gateway have been delayed. The tar sands assault is not inevitable. In fact, the U.S. doesn’t need this dirty form of fuel and neither does Canada. The time has come to limit tar sands expansion in favor of a cleaner and brighter energy future.

Tar Sands Invasion Map 4-27-15.jpg

A new report released by NRDC reveals that the amount of tar sands crude moving into and through the North American West Coast could increase by more than 1.7 million barrels per day if industry proposals for pipelines, tankers and rail facilities move forward. For more information about this new information see posts by my colleagues Anthony Swift and Josh Axelrod. Why the west coast? With the majority of the world’s heavy oil refinery capacity, the United States including the west coast is a critical market for the tar sands industry. To be clear, Keystone XL still remains at the heart of the industry plan to expand tar sands and gain access to the global market. But industry is still pushing hard for other ways to expand especially as KXL flounders. It is important to keep in mind the tar sands industry – which currently produces about 2 million barrels per day (bpd) – plans to triple production to exceed 6 million bpd in the next fifteen years. The oil industry has made clear it needs all of its rail and pipeline proposals to achieve its massive production goals.

We know that the tar sands industry and Canadian government has long had a plan to quadruple or more tar sands extraction in Canada. KXL has always been a huge part of that. But it is now very clear that they also plan to access the U.S. and global market through every means possible.

This threatened invasion puts our communities, waters, air and climate in jeopardy. The Tar Sands Solutions Network has done an outstanding job outlining many of the different campaigns that are emerging across North America. This plan threatens to expose communities from California to New York to health, safety and environmental risks unless the public rallies to stop it. Here are some of the specific impacts that North America faces as a result of the tar sands invasion:

  • Across the West Coast, tar sands laden tanker and barge traffic could increase twenty-five fold, with a projected 2,000 vessels along the Pacific West Coast– including the Salish Sea and the Columbia River–shipping nearly two million barrels of tar sands crude every day.
  • A dozen proposed rail terminals would substantially increase tar sands by rail traffic going through densely populated American citizens like Los Angeles and Albany New York risking explosive derailments of hazardous crude unit trains
  • Nearly a million barrels of tar sands would be destined for California and Washington refineries, exposing fenceline communities in Anacortes, San Francisco and Los Angeles to increasing toxic air pollution.
  • In the Midwest, the pipeline company Enbridge is moving to nearly double the flow of tar sands moving through the Great Lakes region, an area that already has suffered from a 2010 spill of more than 800,000 gallons of the tar sands into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan sending hundreds of residents to the hospital. Four years later, the cleanup, which has cost more than $1 billion, is still unfinished.
  • On the East Coast, the tar sands industry is seeking to build the Energy East pipeline across Canada. The pipeline would run from Alberta east across Canada to New Brunswick and Quebec, carry 1.1 million barrels of tar sands oil per day and require hundreds of oil tankers traveling along the East Coast and Gulf Coast annually, through critical habitat of the extremely endangered Right Whale.
  • In Albany, New York, a proposed oil transfer facility could lead to the shipment of tar sands oil on barges down the Hudson River or rail cars along the river destined for facilities in the New Jersey and Philadelphia areas.
  • In Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire, the constant threat of a proposed reversal of the aging Portland-Montreal Pipeline is likely to arise again as Enbridge completes work on a pipeline reversal that will connect the tar sands directly to Montreal this summer.
  • This network of pipelines will feed refineries that produce millions of tons of hazardous petroleum coke waste – known as “petcoke” – which are piling up in residential neighborhoods like Chicago.
  • In Canada, pipeline companies are trying to access the west and east costs with pipeline proposals that would ship the heavy tar sands oil across pristine landscapes in British Columbia or across the Prairies into Ontario and Quebec. Communities are raising concerns about the threat of a spill to waters from the pipeline or tankers leaving the Bay of Fundy of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
  • And last but not least, communities in Alberta at ground zero have been facing the enormous consequences of tar sands development which has brought about significant contamination of water, air, and land. Increasingly, there are calls for a moratorium on development.

Targeting at risk communities

The tar sands invasion puts a high toll on low-income and aboriginal communities located in railway corridors, near oil refineries, and next to petcoke waste sites. In refinery fence-line communities, emissions associated with tar sands are suspected to be even more detrimental to human health than existing harmful emissions from conventional crude. Derailments of tar sands unit trains – mile long trains carrying over a hundred tankers full of explosive tar sands crude – pose a catastrophic risk for communities throughout the country. And as more tar sands oil is refined in the United States, the public will also face increased health and environmental risks from massive piles of petroleum coke, a coal-like waste full of heavy metals that results from tar sands oil refining and can cause serious damage to the respiratory system.

Industry would like for you to believe that tar sands development is inevitable and there is nothing that can be done. Wherever they turn today they are being faced with public opposition. Expansion is not inevitable, especially because of this growing and formidable opposition.

A climate problem

It is clear that tar sands reserves – some of the world’s most carbon intensive – are at the top of the list of reserves that must remain in the ground. Mounting scientific and economic analysis shows that the tar sands industry’s proposed expansion plan is incompatible with global efforts to address climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that 75% or more of discovered fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground in order to limit warming to the international two degrees Celsius goal. The clear inconsistency between tar sands expansion and efforts to address climate change have made opposition to tar sands expansion projects a clear rallying point for a broad group of allies advocating for action on climate.

A water problem

A tar sands spill from train, pipeline, or tanker could devastate local economies, pristine wilderness, harm human health, and lead to an especially costly and challenging cleanup. Tar sands spills have proven more damaging than conventional spills, as heavy tar sands bitumen sinks below the water surface making it difficult to contain or recover. A spill from shipping the tar sands crude could devastate communities, contaminate freshwater supplies or marine habitats and damaging local economies.

Undermining efforts to grow our clean energy economy

The growing exploitation of Alberta’s tar sands threatens to undermine North American efforts to build a clean energy economy and combat global climate change. Because most tar sands crude is destined for the United States, its expansion would create a greater dependence on the world’s dirtiest crude oil and undermine our transition to environmentally sustainable energy and a cleaner transportation fleet. Responding to the tar sands invasion will require solutions reduce fossil fuel use and spur low-carbon transportation and energy solutions such as broadened electric vehicle use and development of renewable and clean fuels.

This tar sands invasion can be stopped: Clean Transportation Solutions

The good news is this tar sands invasion can be stopped starting with leadership from government officials to embrace climate and sustainable transportation solutions. NRDC’s report for the west coast outlines detailed recommendations for decision-makers at all levels. The first step is for decision-makers at all levels to become familiar with the unique issues associated with tar sands oil and then to actively identify the full range of solutions to confront this problem. Without action, the U.S. will unintentionally become a thoroughfare for this oil undermining climate policies and presenting risks to communities and water. With support for regional clean energy policies, we can prevent the influx of tar sands crude and build the green infrastructure and public support necessary to begin transitioning to a clean energy economy.