Tag Archives: U.S. Department of Transportation

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Emergency Readiness & Response, Hazmat notification

Merced Sun-Star editorial: Tell us when dangerous oil cars are rolling

Repost from The Merced Sun-Star

Our View: Tell us when dangerous oil cars are rolling

Editorial, August 15, 2014

Railroad tracks run up and down the valley like a spine, carrying everything from cans to cars, telephone poles to toothpicks. Many communities see 30, 40 or even 50 trains a day.  Some of those cars carry dangerous materials. Compressed gas and caustic chemicals move in black, cylindrical tank cars adorned with two markings – the red diamond with a flame and “DOT 111” stenciled on each car.

Not yet, but soon some of those rail cars will be hauling another dangerous material – crude oil extracted from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota. While it is no more dangerous than many other chemicals, there’s likely to be a lot more of it on the rails that bisect our communities. The railroads and state must make certain that we are aware of these movements and have a plan for dealing with any emergency.

California’s Office of Emergency Services estimates shipments of Bakken crude will increase 25-fold by 2016 as 150 million barrels are sent to refineries in the Bay Area, Southern California and soon to two being readied in Bakersfield. That could mean thousands of tank cars a year moving through Modesto, Livingston, Merced and beyond. Mother Jones magazine calls it a “virtual pipeline.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Bakken crude contains higher amounts of butane, ethane and propane than other crude oils, making it too volatile for actual pipelines.

In July, 2013, a train carrying Bakken crude derailed and exploded in the small town of Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 47 people. Less dramatic derailments, some with fires, have occurred in North Dakota, Virginia and Illinois. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports 108 crude spills last year.

“When you look at the lines of travel from Canada and North Dakota, you figure if they’re headed for the Bay Area or to Bakersfield, the odds are that you’re going to see shipments going down the Valley,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, who represents north Sacramento. So, he authored Assembly Bill 380, which would require the railroads to notify area first-responders whenever these trains are passing through.

Others are concerned, too. In July, the DOT issued proposed rules for safe transport, including increased cargo sampling, better route analysis, a 40 mph speed limit on trains labeled “high-hazard flammable,” and switching to newer, safer DOT 111 cars after Oct. 1, 2015. The new cars have double steel walls, better closures and heavier carriages. Currently, they make up about a third of the nation’s tanker fleet. California’s Office of Emergency Services has issued 12 recommendations, ranging from allowing better data collection to phasing out those old tank cars to better training for first-responders.

The railroads are already doing many of these things. Since the mid-1990s, BNSF has offered – at no charge – training for handling spilled hazardous materials and more extreme emergencies. But not enough local agencies have found the time to take the classes. A BNSF spokeswoman said the railroad would even come to town to conduct the training.

In May, the USDOT issued an emergency order in May requiring all carriers to inform first responders about crude oil moving through their towns and for the immediate development of plans to handle spills. Unfortunately, it contains a discomforting criteria: the order applies only to trains carrying 1 million gallons of Bakken crude, or roughly 35 tank cars. And to reach USDOT’s definition of a “high-hazard flammable train,” also requiring a warning, a train must have 20 tank cars.

Some perspective. In Virginia, one one tank car carrying Bakken crude exploded and flew an estimated 5,500 feet; a photograph of another explosion showed a fireball rising 700 feet from a single car. Our first responders ought to know when even one car carrying such material is coming through town. And that information must be shared beyond communities directly on rail lines because even our largest communities count on neighboring agencies to provide assistance during emergencies. When such cargo is moving, every emergency responder in the vicinity should be on alert.

Currently, the railroads share that information only if a local agency asks for it. That’s not good enough. Dickinson’s bill would make notification available on a real-time basis, without asking. But his bill mirrors federal orders on the size of the train; a dangerous loophole.

The incredible expansion of America’s oil resources is creating many positives – from more jobs to less dependence on foreign oil. But it’s happening so fast that we’re making up the safety aspects as we roll along. Federal rules don’t go nearly far enough to protect public safety in this new world.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Lake Champlain, Massive increase in crude-by-rail

The risk to Lake Champlain

Repost from The Burlington Free Press
[Editor: What do pristine California waters and Lake Champlain (in upstate New York) have in common?  Would you believe oil trains?  – RS]

The risk to Lake Champlain

 Mike Winslow, August 15, 2014

The sound of trains clacking along the rails that abut Lake Champlain has become more common with the dramatic increase in freight traffic attributed to fossil fuel extraction.

Each week approximately 60 million gallons of oil travel along the lake carried by 20 trains with up to 100 cars each. Nearly half of these shipments carry the volatile Bakken crude.

The U.S. meets 66 percent of its crude oil demand from production in North America with tremendous growth in outputs from Canada and the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota. In October 2013, U.S. crude production exceeded imports for the first time since February 1995.

Oil produced from the Bakken fields is light. That means it flows easily, but it also means it is more volatile and flammable.

As a result, the potential property damage and loss of life associated with rail accidents involving Bakken oil is higher than oil from other sources.

In January, two federal agencies issued a safety alert warning of these risks.

The alert was triggered by a series of devastating accidents. Federal Railroad Administration statistics suggest that on average, at least one car slips off the tracks every day. There have been six major derailments since the beginning of 2013.

The most infamous occurred July 5, 2013, in Lac Megantic, Quebéc. An improperly secured train rolled on its own, and 63 cars derailed near the center of town, leading to multiple explosions and fires, evacuation of 2,000 people and 47 deaths.

There have been unsettling precedents:

• October 19, 2013: 13 tank cars derailed in Alberta leading to evacuation of 100 residents. Three cars carrying propane burned following an explosion.

• November 8, 2013: 30 cars derailed in a wetland near Aliceville, Alabama and about a dozen were decimated by fire.

• December 30, 2013: two trains, one carrying grain and one oil, collided in Casselton, North Dakota. Twenty of the oil train cars derailed and exploded leading to evacuation of 1,400 people.

• January 7, 2014: 17 cars derailed in New Brunswick and five exploded leading to evacuation of 45 people.

• January 20, 2014: Seven cars derailed on a bridge over the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, though no oil leaked.

• More recently, 15-17 cars derailed in Lynchburg, Va., on April 30. Three fell into the James River and one burst into flames. There were no injuries, but 300-350 people had to be evacuated, and oil leaked into the James River. The state estimated 20,000 to 25,000 gallons escaped during the wreck.

Our region is no stranger to train derailments. In 2007, a northbound Vermont Railways freight train derailed in Middlebury, spilling gasoline into Otter Creek and leading to the evacuation of 30 streets in the vicinity.

Trains have also derailed along the Lake Champlain route. In 2007, 12 cars derailed near Route 22 in Essex, N.Y., the same stretch of tracks now carrying volatile oil.

Concern over the state of North American freight rail safety predates the increase in oil shipments.

In 2006 the Toronto Star ran a five-part series on rail safety. The newspaper noted, “Canadian freight trains are running off the rails in near record numbers and spilling toxic fluids at an alarming rate, but only a tiny fraction of the accidents are ever investigated.”

The greatly increased traffic in oil has further strained railroad infrastructure. According to an article in Pacific Standard Magazine, 85 percent of the 92,000 tank cars that haul flammable liquids around the nation are standard issue DOT-111s. They have been referred to as “Pepsi cans on wheels.”

These cars are built to carry liquids but lack specialized safety features found in pressurized tanks used for hauling explosive liquids. The industry has agreed to include additional safety features in any new cars put on the tracks, but since rail cars have an economic life of 30-40 years, conversion to the newer cars has been slow.

One relatively new risk is the predominance of “unit trains.” These are long series of cars all shipped from the same originating point to the same destination.

Often the cars will all carry the same product. It used to be that oil cars were mixed in with other freight cars bound for different locations. Unit trains are a greater risk in part because safety standards are based on the carrying capacity of a single car and don’t account for the greater volumes that unit trains can transport.

The National Transportation Safety Board, an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents, has called on the Federal Railroad Administration to change this standard.

Recently, an oil company submitted plans to build an oil heating facility in Albany, N.Y. The facility would be used to heat oil shipped via rail. The oil would then be transferred to barges and floated to refineries.

If permitted, a heating facility would draw increased transport of Canadian tar sands, which needs to be diluted or heated for loading or unloading, through the Lake Champlain region.

In contrast to Bakken field oil, tar sands oil is heavy. Cleanup of tar sands oil following accidents is extremely challenging. The oil sinks rather than floating, making containment difficult.

When a pipeline carrying tar sands oil broke near Kalamazoo, Mich., 850,000 gallons spilled. The resulting cleanup cost more than $1 billion (yes, $1 billion), and costs were “substantially higher than the average cost of cleaning up a similar amount of conventional oil,” according to a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

In November 2013, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation declared the proposed facility would have no significant environmental impacts.

However, public outrage led the department to reconsider that declaration, expand the public comment period and seek additional information from the proponents.

Still, the additional requested information touches only the tip of the facility’s impacts on the region. The facility should undergo a full environmental impact review that includes potential impacts on freight shipping throughout the region including along Lake Champlain.

In July, the Department of Transportation proposed new rules on rail safety. They include a phase-out of DOT-111s during the next few years, tightened speed limits, improved brakes and permanent requirements for railroads to share data with state emergency managers.

The federal department is accepting comments on the proposed rules until Sept. 30 and hopes to finalize them by the end of the year.

It’s a step in the right direction, but way too slow on getting rid of these risky cars. Delays in updating standards puts people, communities, Lake Champlain and other waterways at risk. The administration needs to act before another disaster like what occurred in Lac Megantic occurs here or elsewhere.

Train whistles echoing off the waters of the lake should elicit wistful thoughts of faraway places, not shudders of dread.

Mike Winslow is the staff scientist at Burlington-based nonprofit Lake Champlain Committee.

Rail concerns

A forum on rail transportation of crude oil along the western shore of Lake Champlain is planned for 7 p.m. – 9 p.m. on Aug. 24 at Plattsburgh City Hall.

For more information, contact the Lake Champlain Committee at lcc@lakechamplaincommittee.org or (802) 658-1414.
Benicia CA, Crude By Rail, Environmental Impacts, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Massive increase in crude-by-rail, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Positive Train Control, Public Safety, Valero Benicia Refinery

LOCAL OP-ED – Craig Snider: Three reasons to oppose crude by rail

Repost from The Benicia Herald

3 reasons to oppose crude by rail

by Craig Snider, August 9, 2014

WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED TO BENICIA IN 2003, we spent our first week in the Best Western on East Second Street. During our stay we met several workers visiting from refineries in Texas to assist with projects at local refineries. During breakfast, I mentioned to one of them that we had bought a house in Benicia and were waiting to move in. He replied, “I wouldn’t have my family living within five miles of a refinery,” implying that it was unsafe because of the risk of an accident.

We had already purchased our home and were pleased with the location of the town, the high-quality schools, the quaint downtown and the local arts community. At the time, I judged that the prevailing wind direction and rolling hills would likely buffer our home from the effects of any serious accident, such as the recent Chevron fire in Richmond, and that the many Benicia amenities outweighed any risk the refinery posed.

Now we are faced with the prospect of 100 tank cars of crude oil being hauled into Benicia every day. Valero insists this would be safe and warns that without a new facility to offload the crude oil, local jobs, company profits and charitable contributions would be at risk.

I have no doubt that, if necessary, crude oil could be transported by rail to various parts of the country safely and efficiently. We have the technological and engineering expertise to do amazing things these days, and such expertise could readily be applied to the crude oil transport business.

Some in our community scoff at the risk posed by crude by rail (it’s comforting to some that the Quebec derailment that killed 47 people and the many accidents that have since occurred were caused by human error and could have been prevented). Others are horrified at the thought of a similar accident here or elsewhere. They highlight the fact that this crude oil is more volatile and toxic than other types, that an accident here would wreak havoc on our lives, and they want to stop the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project in its tracks.

As I see it, there are three major reasons to oppose the project at this time.

First, simply put, hauling 100 tank car loads of volatile Bakken crude or toxic Canadian tar sands crude raises the risk of an accident relative to the status quo. Benicians already live in the shadow of a refinery; is it really necessary or desirable to add to this risk to satisfy Valero?

Second, rules governing high-hazard flammable trains need to be thoroughly vetted and approved before the Valero proposal can be approved. Between March 2013 and May 2014, there were 12 significant oil train derailments in the United States and Canada, including the Quebec accident. Crude by rail arriving in California was up 506 percent, to 6.3 million barrels, just last year. In fact, more crude oil was transported by rail in North America in 2013 than in the previous five years combined. Yet it wasn’t until the first of this month that regulations were proposed for dealing with this unprecedented increase in “High-Hazard Flammable Trains” (see Federal Register, Aug. 1, 2014, pg. 45,016).

Apparently the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (part of the U.S. Department of Transportation) expects to issue new regulations governing crude by rail sometime after a 60-day comment period that ends Sept. 30. Oddly, their federal notice includes a brief two-page “environmental assessment” that concludes there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with their proposals. Apparently we are to trust the railroad industry and their minders to do the right thing after they have steadfastly refused to institute train safety mechanisms, such as “Positive Train Control,” that would have saved 288 lives, prevented 6,500 injuries and 139 crashes in the past 45 years. At a minimum, the rules governing high-hazard flammable trains should be subject to a full environmental impact statement as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Such an environmental impact statement might determine that crude-by-rail terminals should be located a minimum distance from residential areas and that crude-carrying trains travelling through metropolitan areas be guided by automated systems that monitor speed, location and rail traffic, so that the potential for human error would be substantially reduced. Such systems currently exist, but have been largely ignored by the railroad companies. These measures need to be studied and decided upon before the Valero proposal is approved.

Finally, what’s the rush? Many would argue that fossil fuel use needs to be curtailed because of greenhouse gas emissions and the environmental havoc caused by ever-more-destructive means of obtaining oil (fracking, tar sands, etc.). Approving the Valero project gives tacit approval to these means, allowing our community to profit at the expense of other people and places. Maybe it’s time to just say no.

Craig Snider is a Benicia resident. He recently retired from the U.S. Forest Service, where he was regional environmental coordinator for the national forests in California from 2003-14.

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, DOT-111, Oil prices, Tar sands crude, Volatile gases

LOCAL OP-ED – Jerome Page: The triumph of human ingenuity

Repost from The Benicia Herald

Jerome Page: The triumph of human ingenuity

August 8, 2014 by Jerome Page

TIME TO TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT OUR STARTLING SUCCESS in solving our energy problems with oil — good old American Bakken crude along with a hefty swash of that Canadian tar sands crude. Canada being a very friendly neighbor, this seems a great deal on both sides of the border. And thanks to a fine railroad system, it’s just a simple straight shot from North Dakota and Alberta right up to our door here in Benicia, California! Providence be blessed!

And yet there are, as always, folks who not only want to examine that gift horse’s teeth but can be just plain ungracious — if not downright surly and disagreeable — about it. What could possibly be wrong with cheaper oil in copious quantities, without ever having to deal with folks who don’t even speak English?

But enough. I’ll step out of the Joe Schmoe character and comment just a bit on that question of what can, in fact, possibly be wrong.

From an Earth Island Journal clipping (June 29, 2014), a piece by Adam Federman, we read: “Since the Lac-Mégantic disaster (with its 47 dead) there has been a string of oil train collisions and derailments. Late on the night of November 7, a train carrying at least 2.7 million gallons of Bakken crude derailed near Aliceville, Alabama, resulting in dramatic explosions similar to those seen in Lac-Mégantic. Because the train exploded a few miles outside of Aliceville, no one was injured or killed. On December 30, a train carrying crude collided with another train outside of Casselton, North Dakota, releasing more than 400,000 gallons of oil into the surrounding land. At least half the town’s 2,400 residents were evacuated, though no one was injured. And on April 30, an oil train operated by CSX derailed in the city of Lynchburg, Virginia, sending flames and oil into the James River and forcing the evacuation of more than 300 residents. Last year more oil spilled in rail accidents — 1.15 million gallons — than the previous 35 years combined.” (Italics mine)

Then the following:

“Extra-flammable Bakken crude riskier to ship by rail than other oil, U.S. safety watchdog warns,” by Jeff Lewis, Jan. 2, 2014:

“CALGARY — U.S. authorities said Thursday crude oil shipped by rail from the Bakken shale in North Dakota across the United States and Canada ‘may be more flammable’ than other types of oil, as the latest in a string of explosive accidents focuses attention on the booming oil-by-rail trade.”

How about we ditch that “may be”! For example, another read on Casselton:

“‘There was a huge fireball’: Train carrying crude oil explodes after derailing in North Dakota,” by Dave Kolpack, Associated Press, Dec. 30, 2013:

“A train carrying crude oil from North Dakota’s oil patch derailed Monday near the small town of Casselton, setting off a series of fiery explosions. No injuries were initially reported, but officials were warning residents to stay indoors as the situation unfolded. Cass County Sheriff’s Sgt. Tara Morris says as many as 300 residents of Casselton may be evacuated.

“Morris estimates about 10 cars from a mile-long train caught fire and will have to burn out. She said it could take up to 12 hours before authorities can get close.

Next, “How crude-by-rail accidents may impact the U.S. oil market,” Reuters, Jan. 23, 2014:

“A spate of high-profile crude-by-rail accidents is making oil analysts consider how tighter rail safety standards could impact U.S. oil markets, by potentially crimping a mode of transport that has grown exponentially amid the shale drilling boom.

“Any regulation or industry-driven move to hastily sideline a fleet of some 75,000 older tank cars commonly used for shipping crude could roil U.S. oil logistics, boost costs for refiners, and even hit output from North Dakota’s giant Bakken field, oil analysts said.

“The scenario that many view as more likely — where older rail cars could be gradually retrofitted or retired — would be less disruptive but still raise transportation costs.” (And, of course, forestall greater dangers, but what the hell, what’s life without a little spice!)

“Tank cars known as DOT-111s are used to transport most of the 10 percent of U.S. oil production, or around 800,000 barrels per day, that is shipped by railroad. The cargoes have surged over the past half decade, offering drillers in fast-growing shale plays like the Bakken a quick and flexible way to send barrels to consumer markets without relying on limited regional pipelines.

“DOT-111 rail cars built before 2011, which have been involved in several accidents, are under scrutiny for safety issues that make them more likely to puncture in a derailment.

“Over the weekend, a train carrying North Dakota crude derailed in Philadelphia, although there was no fire or injuries.

“‘I view this as a potentially hugely significant rail risk,’ said Credit Suisse’s Jan Stuart, referring to how new crude-by-rail safety measures could impact Bakken-region oil logistics or production.” (That risk of course is financial, and when you’re talking financial risk, man you have an audience; human risk, risk to life and limb — not so much!)

“So far, the Department of Transportation has set a schedule for next year to draft new regulations, including updated tank car specifications, but it is facing pressure to move faster.

“‘Regulators have endorsed the new safety standards for newly built cars, but so far have not required any retrofitting,’ said Sandy Fielden of the RBN Energy consultancy in Austin. ‘If the existing fleet of older cars were to need retrofitting, it would be very disruptive.’”

And why in hell would we be wanting to do anything “disruptive” when the money is rolling in so beautifully! Is it that hard for people to focus on the crucial bottom line?!

“In the fast-growing Bakken, where pipeline capacity has not kept up with oil production, more than 70 percent of output that is approaching 1 million barrels per day now moves by rail, according to the North Dakota Pipeline Authority.

“Over half of the U.S. crude moved by rail hails from the Bakken, where the trend has allowed drillers to quickly send their barrels to refineries in the biggest fuel markets along U.S. coasts where they fetch higher prices, boosting profits.

“‘The most likely scenario is for regulators to gradually phase in safety improvements,’ said energy analyst Michael Wittner of Societe Generale. ‘That could increase transportation costs, but if there were a decision to replace older tank cars on short deadline, crude would be piling up in North Dakota.’” (Let’s not be disrupting the flow of oil — and cash.)

“Retrofitting the entire fleet of older DOT-111s would be costly and take up to ten years, the Rail Supply Institute, which represents tank car owners, said last year, in part because manufacturers are already struggling with a backlog of tank car orders. Newer DOT-111s feature safety improvements, but comprise only around 14,000 cars so far, according to the AAR.

“Sidelining older DOT-111s could depress Bakken oil prices at the wellhead as producers compete for insufficient pipeline capacity, eventually hurting production, Fielden said. Any fall in deliveries by rail could force some coastal U.S. refineries to go back to buying more expensive crude imports.

“If all older tankers were retrofitted, it could add between 20 and 40 cents per barrel to crude-by-rail costs, assuming a cost of $30,000 to $60,000 per car, according to a report this month from Turner, Mason & Company consultants.

“Should producers have to rely just on pipelines, Bakken deliveries would plummet to less than 600,000 bpd at the most, less than 60 percent of daily output, according to the state pipeline authority.

“Because of its rapid output growth and isolated location from fuel markets, only a small portion of Bakken crude is processed in facilities known as fractionation plants, which strip out volatile gases like propane and butane, known as light ends. The plants can require large up-front investment, and years to build.” (Whoa there, time and money again? Forget it!)

“‘Regulatory costs are going to go up, it’s just a question of how high and how fast,’ said Robert McNally, president at U.S. energy consultant Rapidan Group. ‘I expect officials will try to find a sweet spot where timely and adequate regulations … do not cripple Bakken economics.’” (Ah yes, a sweet spot that doesn’t interfere with profit!)

Just maybe in all of that there are some lessons for those of us living in Benicia, California about the priorities that should be guiding our decisions when it comes to bringing in Bakken and Canadian tar sands crude. Our neighbors to the east on that train route are obviously deeply concerned; why not Benicia?

Should an accident or major spill occur on that clearly precarious route down the Feather River Canyon, the damage to river, reservoir and water supply would be incalculable. And what of Sacramento and Davis and their obvious great vulnerability — have we no responsibility to our neighbors along that long trail from Alberta or North Dakota to Valero?

And, finally, of course, there is that bloody problem of the environmental costs of jacking up our use of not just more oil — bad enough in itself — but the most dangerously polluting stuff we can find. A bizarre example of man’s capacity to blot out the future in the pursuit of — just what?!

Jerome Page is a Benicia resident.