Tag Archives: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

CPC-1232 standard, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Tank car design, Tank car retrofit

NTSB and AAR – even the upgraded DOT-111 tank cars are unsafe

Repost from Bloomberg BNA
[Editor: This 7-page PDF report is already a bit dated – March, 2014 – but it is an excellent overview of still-current debate over tank car adequacy and redesign standards.  The article quotes officials of the National Transportation Safety Board AND the Association of American Railroads to the effect that even the upgraded DOT-111 cars are not safe, and will require improvements.  – RS]

BloombergBNA

Tank Car Design Debate Split Over Safety of Voluntary Industry Standard

By Patrick Ambrosio, March 18, 2014

Industry groups, members of Congress and the National Transportation Safety Board are pushing the Transportation Department to quickly establish new safety design standards for rail tank cars used to carry crude oil, but there is disagreement over how stringent the new safety requirements should be.

There is now a consensus that a new federal design standard is needed to provide certainty to the industry and improve the safety of transporting flammable liquids by rail, but groups are split over whether the new standards should go beyond the Association of American Railroads’ CPC-1232 standard, a voluntary industry standard adopted for all new tank cars ordered after Oct. 1, 2011.

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in conjunction with the Federal Railroad Administration, is working on a proposed rule that would update federal design standards for tank cars, commonly known as DOT-111 cars, that are used to carry crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. The rulemaking is partially in response to a 2011 petition filed by the AAR, which represents major U.S. railroad companies such as CSX Transportation Inc. and BNSF Railway Co., requesting that the DOT adopt the CPC-1232 standard as a federal design standard for new cars.

The safety features included in CPC-1232-compliant cars include thicker shells for non-jacketed tank cars, enhanced top fittings protection, reclosing pressure relief devices and half-height head shields on both ends of the tank car.

“Their continued use to ship flammable liquids poses an unacceptable risk to the public.”

Christopher Hart, NTSB

Legacy Cars Called Unsafe

The safety of DOT-111 rail tank cars has been called into question after a series of recent derailments involving trains carrying crude oil, including a July 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, that resulted in 47 fatalities. DOT-111 rail tank cars also were involved in a December 2013 derailment near Casselton, N.D., which resulted in the release of more than 400,000 gallons of crude oil, a significant fire and the evacuation of nearby residents.

The AAR estimates that there are about 92,000 DOT-111 rail tank cars in service carrying crude oil, ethanol and other flammable liquids. Of those, about 78,000 are “legacy” cars that do not meet the CPC-1232 standard.

Following the Lac-Mégantic incident, the National Transportation Safety Board reiterated a series of recommendations made to PHMSA after a 2009 derailment involving DOT-111 tank cars in Cherry Valley, Ill. Those recommendations included requirements that all new and existing tank cars used to transport crude oil and ethanol be equipped with enhanced tank head and shell puncture resistance systems, top fittings protection that exceed current requirements and bottom outlet valves designed to remain closed during accidents (37 CRR 1409, 12/16/13).

Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the NTSB, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure March 6 that the NTSB has warned the DOT since 1991 that older DOT-111 rail tank cars are too easily damaged, even when involved in low-speed crashes and derailments.

“Their continued use to ship flammable liquids poses an unacceptable risk to the public,” Hart said.

Hart said the NTSB thinks the CPC-1232 design standard needs additional changes to improve the “crash worthiness” of tank cars used to carry crude oil and flammable liquids. He cited enhanced head shields and tank jackets and increased tank shell thickness as features that the NTSB recommends.

Rail Industry Reverses Course

Edward Hamberger, president and chief executive officer of the AAR, said at the same Senate subcommittee hearing that since filing its 2011 petition the association has changed its position and now recommends that the DOT require new tank cars to be built to meet specifications exceeding the CPC-1232 standard.

Hamberger said that although the AAR thinks that the CPC-1232 standard is a “big step above” the legacy DOT-111 cars, the railroads now think safety needs to “go beyond” the voluntary industry standard.

The AAR is recommending that the federal tank car standards adopt the following safety design features that exceed those found in the CPC-1232 standard:

  • a high-capacity pressure relief valve to protect the tank car from an increase in internal pressure resulting from a fire;
  • a minimum 9/16-inch-thick steel tank;
  • a 1/2-inch-thick full-height head shield on both ends of the tank car;
  • a bottom outlet handle that will not inadvertently open the bottom outlet in the event of a derailment; and
  • an 1/8-inch-thick steel jacket around the tank car, with thermal protection.

The AAR recommendations also are supported by the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association, which represents the interests of about 450 short line and regional railroad companies in the U.S.

$7 Billion Already Invested

The AAR estimates that its proposal would require the phase-out or retrofit of about 78,000 legacy cars and the retrofit of about 14,000 cars built since 2011 that meet the CPC-1232 standard.

The Railway Supply Institute, which represents manufacturers, distributors and service providers for the freight and passenger rail industries, estimates that as of December 2013, the crude oil and ethanol sector has invested more than $7 billion to build new tank cars to meet the CPC-1232 standard since the standard was adopted in 2011. Thomas Simpson, president of the RSI, told Bloomberg BNA that an estimated 55,000 new tank cars built to meet the CPC-1232 standard will be in crude oil and ethanol service by the end of 2015.

Prentiss Searles, marketing issues manager at the American Petroleum Institute, told the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure that the petroleum industry believes that CPC-1232-compliant tank cars will be sufficient to safely move crude oil and other hazardous liquids.

Searles said a multi-industry committee reviewed available data for three years to determine whether the CPC-1232 standard would be sufficient to carry crude oil.

“Those are safe cars,” Searles said.

Vulnerabilities Addressed

Brigham McCown, managing director of the consulting group Nouveau Inc., told Bloomberg BNA that the government and industry should be looking at the improved DOT-111 rail tank cars manufactured after 2011 to improve rail car safety. McCown formerly served as the first acting administrator and interim CEO of PHMSA.

McCown said the CPC-1232 standard addresses the three major vulnerabilities of the legacy DOT-111 rail tank cars.

He said rail tank cars commonly “flip over” on their sides during derailments, and older DOT-111 tank cars have a propensity to break open during such accidents. He also said that bulkheads on the end of older DOT-111 cars can easily be dented and either break or rupture, and that the valves on older DOT-111 cars can break off if they are not adequately protected, resulting in a release of flammable liquid.

Retrofit Issues

Searles said the API has requested that PHMSA and the FRA lead a task force to review the challenges associated with retrofitting existing DOT-111 cars to include additional safety features.

API, when asked for additional information on the challenge of retrofitting existing DOT-111 rail cars, directed Bloomberg BNA to comments filed with PHMSA in December 2013 on the rail tank car design issue.

The comments raised several concerns associated with a retrofit program, including the difficulty of applying 1/2-inch-thick head shields to non-jacketed tank cars. API said the additional weight could compromise the structure of the car because it would be impossible to measure the existing fatigue on tank cars that have already been in service.

Installing a head shield onto a non-jacketed car also could require existing equipment, including brake wheels and end platforms, to be rearranged on the car before the head shield is welded to the tank for support, which could potentially affect the interior coating of the tank, API said.

Simpson of the RSI told Bloomberg BNA that there are feasible modifications that can be made to legacy DOT-111 cars to get them “close” to the CPC-1232 standard, including removing the handle on the bottom outlet valve to prevent it from opening during a crash and installing a half-height head shield. Simpson noted that adding a 1/8-inch-thick steel jacket to a legacy car is “more problematic,” and said companies are looking at whether that is feasible.

Evolution of Rail Industry Tank Car Standards for Crude Oil

Limited Repair Capacity

API also said the nation’s repair shop network is incapable of handling the large number of existing tank cars that would need to be upgraded if retrofits were required.

“The repair shop network that exists today, even if it were to be increased by a third, could not handle all of the work in a reasonably timely manner,” API said.

API added that most repair facilities are not even capable of completing major retrofits to older tank cars, such as adding jackets to legacy cars or installing top fittings protection.

Simpson said the RSI has suggested that PHMSA give the industry a 10-year timeframe to modify the legacy fleet to meet any upgraded safety design standards.

Simpson said the RSI does support expanding design requirements for all new tank cars intended for crude oil and ethanol service to include full-height head shields and thermal protection and would support the prioritization of retrofitting legacy tank cars over cars that comply with the CPC-1232 industry design standard.

The RSI suggested that PHMSA freeze the current fleet of DOT-111 rail tank cars and not allow any additional legacy tank cars to be assigned to crude oil or ethanol service. Simpson said that under that

proposal, any tank car needed to handle an increase in crude traffic or to replace a non-operational car would at least have to be compliant with the CPC-1232 standard.

Manufacturer Offers Retrofit Packages

The Greenbrier Companies, an Oregon-based supplier of equipment and services to the rail industry, announced in February that it will begin offering retrofits for both legacy DOT-111 tank cars and newer tank cars that were built to meet the current CPC-1232 standard.

The company will retrofit legacy tank cars with high-flow pressure relief valves, head shields, top fittings protection and thermal protection. Greenbrier also will install high-flow pressure relief valves and improved bottom outlet valve handles on any CPC-1232 cars that were not originally built with those features.

Greenbrier announced that it will design a next-generation tank car for use in transporting crude oil and ethanol that will be designed to “better withstand” the demands of carrying flammable liquids on a unit train. The company did not offer specifications for the new tank car, but said the car will address safety concerns about the older DOT-111 tank cars.

A Greenbrier representative said the company anticipates that the design of the retrofitted DOT-111 tank cars and the next-generation tank car will comply with all pending regulatory standards.

Proposal Expected in 2014

PHMSA Administrator Cynthia Quarterman said in March that she is “hopeful” that a proposed rule on rail tank car design standards will be released for public comment by the end of 2014.

Quarterman said PHMSA and FRA staffs are “moving as fast as we possibly can” to draft the rule, but noted the importance of a rulemaking that would establish a standard that could be in effect for decades.

“We really need to get this right,” Quarterman said.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told Bloomberg BNA in early March that he has been informed that the proposed rule will be submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget “soon,” possibly sometime in early April. That would allow the proposed rule to be released to the public in 2014, probably in November, according to Hoeven.

Hoeven said the estimated time frame from DOT would allow for the publication of a final rule establishing tank car design standards sometime after January 1, 2015.

Push for Faster Action

Although the industry is split on whether the DOT should go beyond the CPC-1232 standard and whether legacy tank cars should be retrofitted or phased out, there is consensus that a resolution of the issue is needed to provide certainty for the industry.

Hoeven said upgrading the nation’s rail tank car fleet represents a “big investment” for the petroleum industry, which needs to make sure that it is meeting federal standards so it can transition from the legacy cars to upgraded cars.

Searles of the API said PHMSA could move forward immediately with an interim final rule on new tank car design that would provide the industry with consistency and certainty, though he added that more study is needed on retrofitting before PHMSA can issue any regulations requiring existing cars to meet more stringent design requirements.

Hamberger of the AAR suggested that PHMSA could speed up the process by splitting its tank car rulemaking in half by addressing the design standard for new tank cars first. He noted that there is currently a two-year backlog of new cars that have been ordered to meet the CPC-1232 standard, which could be deemed inadequate by the time the cars are built.

Hamberger said that there is “not a great deal of difference” between the AAR proposal and the design standards for new cars supported by other groups. The retrofit issue is more complicated because there are different kinds of DOT-111 rail tank cars, including some tank cars that are jacketed and some that are not, according to Hamberger.

Advances in Materials

Ken Grantham, executive vice president at Crompion International, said he is trying to make the crude oil tank car industry aware of advances in materials that could be used in the construction of safer tank cars. Crompion is a Louisiana-based manufacturer and distributor of specialty steel products.

Grantham said the discussion on tank car safety has only focused on design enhancements, even though much stronger metals are available than the metals currently used to construct DOT-111 rail tank cars. The NTSB recommendations and the AAR proposal for a new tank car design standard do not address the issue of using enhanced raw materials to construct rail tank cars.

The stainless steel types used to construct DOT-111 rail tank cars are older varieties of steel that have been around for 100 years or more, according to Grantham. He said there have been a “multitude of advances” in the past 20 years that have resulted in new metals that are much stronger than traditional metals and are comparable or superior in corrosion resistance.

Grantham said he would like to see newer stainless steel added to any design standard as additional materials that could be used to construct tank cars that meet DOT specifications, which would give companies the option of considering the stronger materials. He said combining the proposed enhanced safety features with the use of stronger metals would “optimize” the effort to make tank cars safer.

“We really feel that materials should be as much a part of the conversation as design improvements,” he said.

Grantham noted that Crompion is already supplying large volumes of enhanced stainless steel varieties for use in constructing rail cars used to transport coal. He said that in addition to the safety benefits of using stronger metals, the use of corrosion and abrasion resistant steel allowed for the use of thinner plates to construct those rail cars, which makes the rail car lighter and capable of transporting additional volumes of coal.

Newer generation varieties of steel also are already being used to construct static storage tanks for crude oil and other flammable liquids, according to Grantham.

BNSF Seeks Enhanced Cars

Some companies have decided to move ahead with new car orders without federal design standards.

A spokeswoman with BNSF Railway told Bloomberg BNA that the company issued a request for proposals to major railcar manufacturers seeking bids for the construction of 5,000 new rail tank cars that would be used to transport crude oil.

The design specifications described by BNSF for the new tank cars would meet the standards proposed by the AAR, including thicker tank body shells, full-height head shields, a bottom outlet valve handle that can be disengaged and a thermal protection system incorporating ceramic thermal blanketing and a pressure relief device capable of surviving an ethanol-based pool fire.

The company spokeswoman said the RFP is a “significant voluntary commitment” that will provide tank car manufacturers with a “head start” on tank car design and production while the Transportation Department continues with the formal rulemaking process.

Tesoro Corp., an independent refiner and marketer of petroleum products, has pledged that the company’s entire fleet of tank cars that are used to carry crude oil will meet the CPC-1232 design standard by the middle of 2014 (38 CRR 182, 2/10/14).

Keith Casey, senior vice president of strategy and business development at Tesoro, said in February that the company decided to be proactive in upgrading its rail tank car fleet in advance of expected regulatory changes because “it’s the right thing to do.”

Derailment, Heavy crude, Liquid propane gas, Oil spill

Feds: Broken spike caused Vandergrift derailment, oil spill

Repost from The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Feds: Broken spike caused Vandergrift derailment, oil spill

By Mary Ann Thomas, June 20, 2014
Jason Bridge | Valley News Dispatch | A Norfolk Southern worker walks past damage from a derailed train next to the MSI Corporation building along First Avenue in Vandergrift on Thursday, on Feb. 13, 2014.

A broken railroad spike likely caused a Feb. 13 train derailment and crude oil spill in Vandergrift.

Federal investigators said the broken spike allowed the track to spread, becoming too wide for the Norfolk Southern train to pass safely.

Mike England, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration, confirmed the cause.

The investigation of the Vandergrift derailment was completed recently by the railroad agency and its report was obtained by the Valley News Dispatch through a Freedom of Information Act request.

Broken spikes do cause train derailments on occasion, England said.

No violations were reported during the federal review, and the investigation is closed, he said.

“Just because there is an accident, it doesn’t mean that the railroad did anything wrong,” England said

Dave Pidgeon, a spokesman for Norfolk Southern, said he had nothing to add to the investigators’ report.

U.S. Sen. Bob Casey said the nation and industry must learn from rail accidents.

“The derailment in Vander-grift and others across the state should serve as a wake-up call that we need to improve rail safety,” he said in a statement on Friday.

“Dependable rail travel is vitally important to Pennsylvania’s economy and critical to the safety of the millions of Americans who live near rail lines. I will continue to push for improvements to prevent future derailments,” Casey said.

“Among other measures, it is imperative that the Federal Railroad Administration has the resources it needs to hire rail inspectors to prevent this from happening again,” he said.

Report details

According to the report, two trains used the Vandergrift track hours before the derailment without incident.

No injuries were reported among the engineer, locomotive engineer trainee and conductor on board the derailed train. Three MSI Corp. employees were evacuated when one of the rail cars went through the wall of a company building near the tracks.

The first car to derail was the 67th car in the train of 112 loaded cars and seven empty cars. The 67th through 88th cars derailed, including 19 loaded with crude oil and two with liquid propane gas.

The train originated in Conway, Pa., and was on its way to Harrisburg and points east.

After the derailment, the railroad “did a fair amount” of work on tracks in the accident area, where train traffic has resumed, Pidgeon said.

The Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration this year determined the Vandergrift derailment to be the 14th most significant involving crude oil or ethanol in the past eight years. That report stated that 10,000 gallons of oil spilled in the Vandergrift derailment.

In contrast, the Federal Railroad Administration report states that only 4,310 gallons of heavy crude oil was released.

Damage to equipment in the accident is estimated at $1.76 million, according to the report.

In addition, about $240,000 in damage was caused to the track and $30,000 to a signal.

Crude By Rail, State regulation

When a Public Hearing Isn’t for the Public; Oil Train Hearing in Spokane Leaves Public Frustrated

Repost from Huffington Post

When a Public Hearing Isn’t for the Public; Oil Train Hearing in Spokane, WA Leaves Public Frustrated

Bart Mihailovich, Spokane Riverkeeper   |   06/18/2014

Earlier this week, members of the Washington State Senate’s Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee held a public hearing on oil trains and oil transport safety in Spokane, WA in the Spokane City Council chambers at Spokane City Hall. The hearing was organized by Senators Mike Baumgartner (R-Spokane) and Doug Ericksen (R-Bellingham) who during last year’s legislative session proposed SB 6524 that called for more studies in regards to the safety of the transport of hazardous materials through the state. The bill was quite a bit weaker than a bill proposed by the Washington Environmental Priorities Coalition, and was often referred to as the industry bill.

The significance of such a hearing being held in Spokane shouldn’t be understated as these hearings are typically held in Olympia at the Capital, but also because of all the cities in the state of Washington, Spokane the greater Inland Northwest are significantly more at risk to an increase in oil trains due to the proximity and quantity of rail lines through the community.

Spokane Riverkeeper, and many others in attendance, attended the hearing with a goal of hearing from Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen about their bill and any possible (or hopeful) changes that they may be thinking going forward, and to testify concerns about the aforementioned bill for not being strong and specific enough, and to testify general and / or specific concerns about Bakken crude oil trains traveling through Spokane and surrounding communities.

Little did many of us in attendance know, though I suppose we should have expected, that Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen planned an extremely frustrating two hours of stalling and industry speak with very little public testimony and barely any mention of Spokane and the impacts shipping crude oil poses to Spokane and surrounding communities.

Representatives from the North Dakota Petroleum Council and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) took up roughly 100 of the 120 minutes of the hearing with occasional questioning and comments from other members of the Senate committee. And with those questions, industry rarely answered with specifics and almost always pivoted away to comfortable talking points.

Frustrations from those in attendance in the Council Chambers started appearing almost immediately as the rep from the North Dakota Petroleum Council went very deep in to a PowerPoint presentation disputing claims about Bakken crude oil is more flammable or more dangerous using complicated slides and numbers about flash points and chemistry factors.

Spokane City Councilman Jon Snyder took to Twitter to express frustrations: [jonbsnyder@jonbsnyder  State Senate hearing on Oil Trains in Spokane: more of a chemistry lesson than a safety discussion. Thx @andybillig for good questions.  11:11 AM – 17 Jun 2014]

At one point during the extremely long, boring and not particularly on topic presentation from the oil industry, Senator Mike Baumgartner spoke up and asked for the rep to speak in layman’s terms and say yes or no, Bakken Crude oil is more flammable and more dangerous than other types of products. To which the rep responded, “no, it’s the same”, and which also provided the Republican Senate staffer who was live Tweeting the hearing a very likable and shareable tweet to attribute to Senator Baumgartner who conveniently enough is in the midst of a reelection campaign. More on this convenient irony later.

But more importantly, the claim that Bakken crude is not as dangerous is not only controversial, but also on the wrong side of not only public perception but regulatory movement, as can be seen in a Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announcement from earlier this year.

Next up were a few suits from BNSF who spent most of their time lauding investments that BNSF is or has made to make their company and their equipment safer, for themselves, and little or no time talking about how to make Spokane or surrounding communities safer.

Then the kicker was BNSF often repeating that 2013 was their safest year to date, when in fact it was wildly reported earlier this year that more oil was spilled in 2013 from BNSF trains than the previous 38 years total.

With the 18 minutes that were left in the hearing, members of the public, those with persistence, were given an opportunity to speak to the Committee and those who spoke almost all testified to concerns for shipping dangerous Bakken crude through Spokane and the Inland Northwest, especially given the litany of recent oil train accidents and the increasing and louder call for more transparency, more safety and more certainty. A recap of concerns can be found via this news article from The Spokesman-Review.

If this truly was a hearing for Spokane, by Spokane, we most certainly would have seen, and would have been right to expect to see presentations or statements from various response or regulatory agencies in the area who would be responsible if something were to happen in Spokane. Nowhere or at no time did we hear from any of those agencies or representatives. Which leads me to conclude that this was never intended to be any more than a highly politicized campaign opportunity for two Senators in heated reelection bids.

Yes, it was a big deal, or could have ben a big deal that the Energy, Environment & Telecommunications Committee came to Spokane for this hearing. But I couldn’t help to think that right off the bat the whole thing was stacked against the public. The hearing was at 10:30 a.m., a very difficult time for members of the public and concerned citizens to participate . I found it funny that Senator Baumgartner used his welcome address to say, “this is good for Spokane as many folks here find it difficult to travel to Olympia to participate in the process like this.”. To which I would say, Senator Baumgartner, this hearing didn’t make anything easier. A quick glance around the Council Chambers also showed that there were far more more lobbyists, industry staffers, and other “paid to be there” attendees than members of the public.

Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen are both very savvy politicians. Oil train shipments through Spokane and the state of Washington is a very heated issue. Their bill last year was an industry bill at best, offering nothing more than more studies and more hearings and little in the way of what residents of this state want which is transparency, safety and some level of assurance. Being their both in reelection mode, having this hearing in Spokane, completely loaded with industry jargon to stall and delay public concerns gave them an opportunity to look like the good guys who are tackling an issue that the constituents want them to. Having the state Senate Republican party there live Tweeting the event to make it look like Baumgartner and Ericksen were getting to the bottom of the public’s concerns was almost too good to be true.

And you know what, it worked. Coverage of the hearing was picked up by news outlets around the state and the region, and all of the coverage painted Senators Baumgartner and Ericksen as the leaders of the concerns. When in fact it was the mere 18 minutes of testimony from the public and questions from other members of the Senate committee that elevated the concerns and asked the questions important to Spokane.

Amazing how much influence the public had with 18 minutes. Imagine if this really was a public hearing.

Crude By Rail, Derailment, Oil spill

Feds: Vandergrift’s 10,000-gallon oil spill among nation’s worst in recent years

Repost from TribLive.com, Pittsburgh, PA
[Editor: This recent update about the February derailment and spill in Vandergrift, PA was sent to me by a Benicia Independent reader who grew up in Vandergrift.  She reports, “Here is a recent article citing the Vandergrift spill was actually 10,000 gallons of crude oil (way above initial estimates and reports) and has been dubbed ‘among the nation’s worst in recent years.’  Norfolk Southern is sweeping this under the rug. Please help to expose this catastrophe for what it is. I have asked them repeatedly to please help fund an emergency evacuation plan for my hometown of East Vandergrift, PA that has an emergency preparedness budget of $100 per year.  Norfolk Southern now refuses to answer or acknowledge my emails.”  – RS]

Vandergrift’s 10,000-gallon oil spill among nation’s worst in recent years

By Mary Ann Thomas | May 29, 2014
The railroad tracks next to the MSI Corp. building in Vandergrift where a train derailed in February as seen on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. Jason Bridge | Valley News Dispatch
The railroad tracks next to the MSI Corp. building in Vandergrift where a train derailed in February as seen on Wednesday, May 21, 2014. Jason Bridge | Valley News Dispatch

The federal government recently ranked the train derailment in Vandergrift in February that spilled thousands of gallons of crude oil as one of the 14 worst spills over the past eight years nationwide.

Additionally, preliminary estimates of the spillage were woefully short as government records now show that close to 10,000 gallons of heavy crude oil was released — twice the amount initially reported.

The amounts of crude oil transported these days and the danger in doing so have been increasing dramatically. Of the greatest concern is Bakken shale crude, which can be explosive.

Last July, a runaway train crash in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, involving Bakken oil, incinerated much of the downtown, killing 47 people.

The train in which 21 railroad cars derailed in Vandergrift was carrying a far less volatile form of crude.

The U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration determined the Vandergrift derailment to be the 14th most significant involving crude oil or ethanol in the past eight years. The most recent seven major derailments occurred within the past 11 months, and all involved crude oil.

Although no one was injured and there were no explosions in Vandergrift, the safety issues are the same ones currently being debated by the federal government, industry and activists:

  • The three railroad cars that released heavy crude oil and butane in Vandergrift were of the controversial variety known as DOT-111, according to Norfolk Southern. The railroad did not own those tankers, according to a spokesman. Critics dub these old-style tankers as flimsy as soda cans.
    The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration issued an advisory urging industry to voluntarily use sturdier tankers for Bakken crude oil transportation.
  • The federal government issued an emergency order in early May requiring railroads to alert state emergency agencies about large Bakken crude shipments traveling through local communities. Shipping of crude has become widespread: In 2008, major rail companies hauled about 4,500 tanker carloads of crude, according to the Washington-based Association of American Railroads.
    Because of skyrocketing petroleum production in the Dakotas and Canada, the group estimated that trains transported more than 400,000 tanker cars of oil last year, many of them crossing Western Pennsylvania to reach refineries farther east.
  • Environmentalists as well as industry experts complain that the federal government is not doing enough quickly enough to increase safety.

The Vandergrift derailment

In the Vandergrift derailment, 21 of the 130 railroad cars jumped the track just before 8 a.m. on Feb. 13 in an area between the Kiski River and the Sherman Avenue neighborhood.

One of the derailed tanker cars slammed into a business and three others broke open, leaking thousands of gallons of oil. An undisclosed amount of contaminated soil had to be removed from the site, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.

However, major damage was averted. The crude oil was not of the Bakken variety and not easily combustible. The spillage didn’t foul the nearby Kiski River. Residents did not have to be evacuated. The town was spared.

Final reports on the cleanup from DEP and the cause of the derailment are expected to be released within the month.

“We had a lot of things in our favor that day,” said Dan Stevens, spokesman for Westmoreland County Emergency Management.

“We had the wind blowing in a direction that was not affecting homes and it was 17 degrees,” he said.

The cold weather thickened the crude oil, further slowing any complications from the oil.

“If it would have been July 4, things could have been different,” he said.

Initial estimates shortly after the derailment, originally pegged that spillage at more than 1,000 gallons. As the day went on, that figure jumped to 4,500 gallons.

But the figure of almost 10,000 gallons was not released until it was referenced in a report earlier this year from the U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.

Norfolk Southern, which provided the estimates, did the best that it could at the time, according to Norfolk Southern spokesman David Pidgeon.

“When you are dealing with hazardous materials, you don’t just rush in,” he said. The tanker cars don’t have windows, and emergency responders don’t easily know how much exactly had been discharged.

“It takes a long time to unload material from derailed cars,” he said. And when responders can assess all of the derailed cars, that’s when the railroad is better able to calculate the spillage, he said.

John Poister, spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, noted that by the time a more accurate figure for the spillage was available, there weren’t follow-up media reports.

Future protection

Although, the federal Department of Transportation issued a voluntary request for shippers to use sturdier tankers than the DOT-111, many are not satisfied.

Even some railroads aren’t satisfied.

The tank car safety requirements are set by two agencies, the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and the Association of American Railroads Tank Car Committee.

“That committee has for many years pushed for stricter standards for cars than those set by PHMSA,” said Pidgeon.

Last November, the Association of American Railroads urged U.S. Department of Transportation’s hazmat administration to increase federal tank car safety by requiring that all tank cars used to transport flammable liquids be built to a higher standard.

It also is calling for all existing cars to be retrofitted to this higher standard or phased out of flammable service, according to the Association of American Railroads website.

But the fear of explosion shouldn’t be the only incentive, according to activists.

“We’ve seen the spills happen with these kinds of rail cars,” said Joanne Kilgour, director of the Pennsylvania chapter of the Sierra Club.

“The spill in Vandergrift – 10,000 gallon is still significant,” she said.

“Even though there wasn’t an explosion, it shouldn’t have required an explosion and the loss of the life to retire outdated rail cars,” she said.

The recent requirement for notification of the shipping of Bakken crude is good for awareness but it isn’t going to change much, according to Stevens.

“If a train derails, it derails. What are you going to do? It doesn’t matter what is hauling,” Stevens said. “At the county level, our guys prepare for the worst and hope for the best.”