Category Archives: Crude By Rail

Two-person train crews necessary for safety, lawmakers say

Repost from Lincoln Journal Star

Two-person train crews necessary for safety, lawmakers say

By Zach Pluhacek | Lincoln Journal Star, May 28, 2015 1:45 pm
A BNSF Railway locomotive pulls cars of coal through Lincoln in January. FRANCIS GARDLER/Journal Star file photo

Trains need two-person crews to help prevent disasters like the 2013 derailment and explosion of a crude oil train that killed 47 people in Quebec, some Nebraska lawmakers argued Thursday.

The Federal Railroad Administration has signaled plans to require two-man crews on trains carrying oil and freight trains, which is the industry’s standard practice, but its proposed rule hasn’t been issued.

Rail lines would like to switch to a crew of one on most freight engines as they equip trains with positive train control, a new federally mandated wireless safety system that can force a train to stop automatically to avoid a potential crash.

“This is a risky development for public safety in Nebraska, particularly in light of the hazardous types of freight that are being hauled through our state,” said Sen. Al Davis of Hyannis on Thursday.

Nebraska is home to the nation’s two biggest railroads, Union Pacific, based in Omaha, and BNSF Railway, which is owned by Berkshire Hathaway in Omaha. UP operates the world’s largest railroad classification yard, the Bailey Yard in North Platte, and BNSF has extensive operations in Lincoln and the rest of Nebraska.

Davis sponsored a measure (LB192) this year that would have outright required two-person crews in Nebraska, but it failed to advance from the Legislature’s Transportation and Telecommunications Committee.

Instead, lawmakers passed a nonbinding resolution Thursday that doesn’t specifically call for two-person crews, but it urges the Federal Railroad Administration to adopt a rule that “ensures public safety and promotes the efficient movement of freight, while supporting interstate commerce.”

The resolution (LR338) was adopted on a 36-4 vote.

“These trains are some of the heaviest moving things on this planet, and just having one person in charge doesn’t seem to make sense,” said Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who cosigned the resolution.

But Sen. Tyson Larson of O’Neill argued human mistakes are often to blame when tragedy strikes. “Sometimes true safety does lie within automation,” he said.

Union Pacific opposes the resolution because it falsely implies trains are unsafe and ignores collective bargaining deals that have addressed safe train crew sizes for decades, said spokesman Mark Davis.

Two rail unions —  the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen and the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, which represent about 3,700 active members between them — support the resolution.

Cutting down on the number of crew members would almost certainly affect jobs and reduce the number of workers paying into shared retirement plans.

The more critical issue is what happens when a train derails or breaks down, said Pat Pfeifer, state legislative board chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen.

One crew member has to remain inside the engine at all times, so without a second person, there’s no one available on scene to help cut a crossing or take other emergency precautions.

Both unions are also backing a bill in Congress to require two-person crews.

“It’s about public safety; it’s not about jobs,” Pfeifer said.

Railroad President Greeted by Bomb Train Protestors in Chicago

Repost from DeSmogBlog

BNSF President Greeted by Bomb Train Protestors in Chicago

By Justin Mikulka, May 27, 2015 – 16:50

Today at the annual North American Rail Shippers Association, Carl Ice, president of rail company Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) had his keynote address interrupted by members of Rising Tide Chicago. The activists carried banners reading, “BNSF: Profits over Safety” and “BNSF: Bomb Trains Kill.”

BNSF moves significantly more oil by rail than any other rail company and much of that oil passes through the Chicago area.

In March, a BNSF oil train derailed and caught fire in Galena, Illinois. In May, another BNSF oil train derailed and caught fire in North Dakota.

“BNSF makes billions of dollars putting our communities and climate at risk,” said protester Kevin Oliver. “So we took this action to take a stand against the obscene wealth that is being generated at the expense of our safety.”

Oliver was correct about BNSF making billions of dollars for its parent company Berkshire Hathaway, run by famed investor Warren Buffett. Berkshire Hathaway purchased BNSF in 2009 and it has turned out to be an amazing investment, if you don’t mind the occasionally exploding oil train.

The success of the investment was summed up best by Jeff Mathews who has written books about Berkshire Hathaway.

“He [Buffett] stole it,” Matthews told Bloomberg. “He’s got to feel really good that he bought it when he did, because it’s a wonderful asset, and it’s done nothing but get more valuable in the time that he’s owned it.”

And that increase in value is directly related to the huge increase in moving Bakken crude oil in BNSF unit trains in the past several years. Trains that do not have modern braking systems, which is one of the issues raised by Rising Tide Chicago. And BNSF is certainly in no hurry to part with any of their profits to install modern braking systems.

As reported on DeSmog, BNSF and the rail and oil industries have lobbied extensively against requirements that the industry upgrade the oil trains to use a modern electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system.

And while the new regulations released earlier this month will require some oil trains to use ECP brakes by 2021 and all of them by 2023, the American Petroleum Institute has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Transportation challenging this requirement, which is likely to delay even that long timetable.

The length of time the oil and rail industries have been allowed by the new regulations to implement safer technologies even surprised the former chair of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Cynthia Quarterman. PHMSA is the agency responsible for the new regulations and Quarterman led that agency for most of the time the regulations were being developed.

“That was the biggest surprise, by far,” Quarterman said in an interview with Argus after the regulations were released. “The push-back for five years for most things, I thought it was a substantial push-back in terms of dates.”

Extending the timeline for the regulations has been a top priority of the oil and rail lobbyists and their partners in congress in their efforts to weaken the new regulations and protect profits.

Prior to release of the new regulations Quarterman told USAToday that she thought ECP brakes were a top priority when it came to improving oil-by-rail safety.

“The more I think about it, the more I think that the ECP brakes may be more important than the tank car itself,” Quarterman said. “Because it would stop the pileup of the cars when there’s a derailment or when there’s a need to brake in a very quick fashion.”

And it isn’t just Quarterman who believes in the safety benefits of ECP braking systems. In 2007, long before the oil-by-rail boom, BNSF was touting the impressive safety benefits of ECP brake systems according to this press release.

ECP brakes have the potential to reduce train stopping distances by as much as 50 to 70 percent over conventional air brake systems. ECP brakes utilize electronic signals to simultaneously apply and release throughout the length of a freight train. This differs from conventional brake systems in which each car brakes individually as air pressure moves in a series from car to car.

But since the existing highly profitable and known to be flawed fleet of DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars being used to move Bakken oil do not have ECP braking systems currently installed, BNSF and their allies at the American Petroleum Institute are now against ECP technology. An approach succinctly captured in today’s banner reading, “Profits over Safety.”

In 2006, the Federal Railroad Administration released a report on ECP brakes prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton which stated that the brakes are a “tested technology” that offers “major benefits” and could “significantly enhance” rail safety.

The question raised by today’s protest and the one that is really at the heart of the whole oil-by-rail discussion is how long will companies like BNSF get to continue to put profits over safety? The answer to that question is most likely the one given by former head of the National Transportation Safety Board Deborah Hersman. Hersman said that we’ve “seen a lot of difficulty when it comes to safety rules being implemented if we don’t have a high enough body count.”

So in all likelihood, the only way that there will be significant safety improvements in the oil-by-rail industry is when the next fatal accident increases the pressure on regulators and the industry to finally part with some of their profits to protect the public.

 

Firefighter battalion chief: Russian roulette on the railways

Repost from Chico News & Review
[Editor:  This article is well-written and documents gutsy analyses by a regional firefighter and County officials who understand that local safety is at the mercy of federal regulators.  Three years of Russian roulette – and more.  A “must read.”  – RS]

Russian roulette on the railways

Butte County train tracks are Bakken-free for now, but emergency responders fear a return of the volatile fuel
By Evan Tuchinsky, 05.21.15
Cal Fire Battalion Chief Russ Fowler says the Department of Transportation’s new rules regarding traincar safety are insufficient. PHOTO COURTESY OF CAL FIRE

What is ‘Bakken’?

The light crude oil known as Bakken comes from fracking a geologic formation of that name under North Dakota, Montana and Canada. Less dense and with less carbon, light crudes yield more gasoline than heavier crudes, but also are more volatile.

Trains crash. That fact hit home last week when a passenger train derailed in Philadelphia and also last year, on Nov. 26, when a cargo train derailed in the Feather River Canyon.

The risk of devastation multiplies when the derailed train carries volatile crude oil. A recent spate of those accidents has garnered national attention, too, prompting the U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT) to release new regulations governing the conveyance of flammable liquids. The measures have drawn near-unanimous opposition, though, and done little to assuage lingering local fears.

“My constituents have raised concerns and the Board [of Supervisors] is concerned,” said Butte County Supervisor Maureen Kirk, who represents Chico. “We’re hoping that some of the legislation and some of the discussion that comes forward will make even stiffer requirements on the transport of this Bakken oil.”

The DoT regulations came out May 1. Five days later, another oil train crashed, in North Dakota. By last Friday (May 15), both the petroleum industry and environmentalists had filed legal challenges to the DoT’s so-called “final rule.”

The International Association of Fire Fighters also has voiced objections. Representing more than 300,000 firefighters in North America, the IAFF protested a provision that allows railroads to keep the contents of their trains confidential—under the banner of national security.

Russ Fowler, battalion chief with Cal Fire Butte County and coordinator of the local Interagency Hazardous Materials Team, has additional concerns. DoT regulations phase out tank cars that are not up to the current safety standard, rather than pull them off the rails for retrofitting or retirement. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has argued that the alternative would result in increased oil-tanker traffic on highways.

Fowler says one particular railcar commonly used to carry volatile Bakken crude oil, the DOT-111, “just [wasn’t] designed for that product.” Since railroads have until 2018 to get those cars up to standard, “we have three years of potential Russian roulette on our hands if light crude oil is transported down the Feather River Canyon like it was done last fall.”

Cal Fire has communicated with BNSF Railway, Fowler said, and has been told no crude oil deliveries have come through Butte County this year. “I have no reason not to believe them,” he added, though he’s seen DOT-111s riding on Chico tracks.

Lena Kent, BNSF’s spokeswoman for California, confirmed by email that “we are not currently transporting Bakken crude in your county.” She also wrote: “We do provide information to the Office of Emergency Services in California.”

That’s in contrast with last year, when train cars carrying millions of gallons of the explosive oil, reportedly around one shipment per week, did make their way way along the Feather River Canyon. Experts tie the reduction of imports to a reduced demand for the fuel, a lighter type that’s similar to gasoline and thus extremely volatile.

While Cal Fire dreads the prospect of an urban crash, the Feather River Canyon presents a distinct set of frets.

Train tracks head into remote areas that are difficult for emergency responders to reach. Access roads don’t always run adjacent to the rail route—not even parallel in certain spots. Depending on where a crash occurred, spilled oil could contaminate the Feather River and Lake Oroville—a major source of water for California—or could start a forest fire should it ignite.

Even without a blaze or river release, “it would make an ugly, oily mess in the canyon,” Fowler said. “It would be a terrible environmental disaster.”

Butte County supervisors articulated such concerns to the California Public Utility Commission and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, before the DoT released its regulations. OES responded by saying the state is investing in “purchasing new Type II hazardous material emergency response units” and in “local training specific to … rail safety incidents.”

For Supervisor Doug Teeter, the board chair who represents the Ridge, that’s little assurance. He has a powerless feeling—believing “it’s just a matter of time” before an accident happens locally, yet knowing “as a county we have no control” over the rails.

“We’re at the mercy of the federal regulators,” he continued. “All we’re really getting is a little response on improved training and equipment. That is not nearly enough to handle a 100-car spill.”

Either in populated or unpopulated areas.

“We as a hazmat team plan for worst-case scenarios,” Fowler said. “Just because you plan for a worst-case scenario doesn’t mean you can mitigate the worst-case scenario, because there are things that can happen that are so catastrophic that it would overwhelm local resources until more regional or statewide resources could come in to help.”

Should legal challenges fail, and in the absence of local authority, a remedy to the DoT regulations remains: Congress. Teeter recently met with a representative of Sen. Barbara Boxer. Meanwhile, North State Congressman John Garamendi has introduced legislation to make light crude safer for rail transport.

Teeter encourages constituents to write congressional representatives and senators. He finds encouragement even in the controversial DoT regulations, which arose amid an uproar.

“Maybe now we’ll have a voice,” Teeter said. “Maybe something can happen.”

 

Benicia Herald covers Valero environmental delay

[Editor:  The Benicia Herald’s front page story  makes no mention  of the widespread criticism of the Department of Transportation’s inadequate new safety rules.  In fact, the article devotes 23 paragraphs (!) to the DOT’s trumpeting of the strengths of the new rules.  Nevertheless, the story serves as a thorough summary of DOT claims.   I hope my editorial adds some needed balance.  – RS]

News coverage: Crude-by-rail report delayed again

By Donna Beth Weilenman, 5/22/15

Long-awaited report pushed back to end of August by federal tank car rule

Principal Planner Amy Million said Friday the city would need an additional two months to finish the environmental report on a proposed project that would allow Valero to bring crude oil by train car to its Benicia refinery.

The Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR) of the Valero Crude-By-Rail project, the latest version of a study of the environmental impacts of the proposed extension of railroad tracks into the refinery’s property, was expected to be released June 30.

However, Million said because of a May 1 ruling by the federal Department of Transportation, the new anticipated release date is Aug. 31.

She said the decision to delay the document’s release came because of the announcement of new regulations that apply to the types of tanker cars that can be used to transport crude oil by train.

“We were looking at the impact of rail travel, and we were assuming the use of the 1232s,” Million said. The new DOT rule would change that to DOT-117s, she said.

Crude oil had been carried by DOT-111 tank cars, but much of the oil now is the lighter, sweeter crude from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota, which is considered more flammable.

Locally and nationally, public concern rose about the safety of crude-by-rail shipment after a series of accidents involving DOT-111 cars led to oil spills, explosions and, in the case of a runaway train that overturned July 2013 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, the death of 47 people.

Stronger tank cars, designated CPC 1232, have been introduced as a safer way to package and carry the sweeter crude.

However, some derailments, spills and fires have involved those rail cars as well. About 35 residents of Heimdal, N.D., were evacuated May 6 — just five days after the new rule was announced — when six tank cars caught fire after a BNSF train loaded with Bakken crude derailed two miles away. The cars were unjacketed CPC-1232 cars.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx issued a statement May 1 that new tank cars built after Oct. 1 must meet new DOT Specification 117 design or performance criteria, and that existing tank cars must be refitted with the same key components.

In Benicia, “The delay will provide the city with the necessary time to include additional analysis of the new regulations,” Million wrote in an announcement posted on the city website.

“The RDEIR will have a 45-day comment period, beginning Aug. 31,” she wrote.

During that period, the city will conduct public hearings to accept community comments on the document. Once the comment period closes, city employees and Benicia’s consultant, ESA, will complete a final environmental impact report.

That document will provide responses to all comments, from those made to the draft environmental report as well as the recirculated environmental report, Million said.

“The Final EIR and the project will then be discussed at subsequent public hearings,” she said.

Valero Benicia Refinery submitted its application for the project early in 2013, when Charlie Knox was the city’s director of Community Development.

Construction of the rail extensions is an industrial use, and the refinery’s property is in an industrial zone, he said in March 2013, when describing the project to The Herald.

Normally Valero wouldn’t have had to apply for a use permit for such a compatible endeavor, he said. But the cost of the project was estimated that year at $30 million, exceeding the $20 million threshold that triggers the use permit process, he said, and Valero wasn’t allowed to break the project into component parts so it could be approved and built without making a presentation to the Planning Commission.

In the subsequent years, the city chose to subject the project to a full Environmental Impact Report to meet requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

In his May 1 announcement, Foxx said the DOT’s new rule was developed by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, in tandem with Canadian authorities.

He said it focuses on safety improvements that are designed to prevent accidents, mitigate consequences in the event of an accident and support emergency response.

Elements of the new rule as cited by Foxx are an enhanced tank car standard; an aggressive, risk-based retrofitting schedule for the older tank cars that carry crude oil and ethanol; mandatory braking standards for certain trains to reduce potential severity of accidents; new protocols for trains carrying large volumes of flammable liquids; and new sampling and testing requirements to improve classification of transported energy products.

Among the new operation protocols are new routing requirements, speed restrictions and informing of local governmental agencies about those operations.

Lisa Raitt, Canada minister of transport, issued a similar announcement, saying the new tank car standards there would align with the United States standards.

“Safety has been our top priority at every step in the process for finalizing this rule, which is a significant improvement over the current regulations and requirements and will make transporting flammable liquids safer,” Foxx said.

“Our close collaboration with Canada on new tank car standards is recognition that the trains moving unprecedented amounts of crude by rail are not U.S. or Canadian tank cars,” he said. “They are part of a North American fleet and a shared safety challenge.”

In Raitt’s announcement, the minister said, “This stronger, safer, more robust tank car will protect communities on both sides of our shared border. Through strong collaboration, we have developed a harmonized solution for North America’s tank car fleet. I am hopeful that this kind of cooperation will be a model for future Canada-U.S. partnership on transportation issues.”

Foxx said other federal agencies also are working to improve safety in transporting flammable liquids.

The Department of Homeland Security, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) as well as the Obama administration are collaborating on safety strategies, he said.

In particular, DOE has developed an initiative to research and characterize tight and conventional crude oils based on key chemical and physical properties, Foxx said, and to identify properties that could make combustion more likely or more severe during handling and transport.

He said the improved standards for new and existing flammable-liquid cars would be a 9/16-inch tank shell, 11-gauge jacket, half-inch full-height head shield, thermal protection and improved pressure relief valves and bottom outlet valves. Existing tank cars must be retrofitted with the same components.

The new rule sets a three-year deadline to replace the entire fleet of DOT-111 tank cars for Packing Group I, which covers most crude shipped by rail. All non-jacketed CPC-1232s in the same service must meet the new standards or be replaced in about five years.

Braking requirements for high-hazard flammable trains (HHFT) include having a functioning, two-way, end-of-train device or a distributed power braking system.

High-hazard flammable unit trains (HHFUT), or trains with 70 or more tank cars carrying Class 3 flammable liquids with at least one tank car with packing Group 1 materials, must have electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking system by Jan. 1, 2021.

The rule requires all other HHFUTs to have ECP braking systems installed after 2023.

“This important, service-proven technology has been operated successfully for years in certain services in the United States, Australia, and elsewhere,” Foxx said.

The rule sets a 50-mph speed limit on all HHFTs in all areas. Any HHFT containing tank cars that don’t meet the required enhanced tank car standards are restricted to 40 mph in high-threat urban areas.

Railroads operating HHFTs must analyze their routes using at least 27 safety and security criteria, such as track type, class, maintenance schedule and track grades and curvatures. The railroad must select routes based on those findings, Foxx said.

In addition, the new rule is expected to assure that railroads provide state, regional, local and tribal officials with a railroad point of contact for information about routing hazardous materials through their jurisdictions.

Better sampling and testing programs for unrefined petroleum-based products must be developed, documented and employed, and products must be packaged according to those test results, according to the new rule. Information from those tests must be supplied to DOT employees upon request.

Foxx said the new rule addresses recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board, including those for improved safety features for tank cars carrying ethanol and crude oil, an aggressive schedule to replace or retrofit existing tank cars, better thermal protection and high-capacity pressure relief valves for tank cars used to carry flammable liquids, better-planned routes for trains carrying flammable products, and stricter inspection of shippers to assure flammable liquids are properly classified and documented.

A summary of the new rule is available at www.dot.gov/mission/safety/rail-rule-summary.

Forum: Valero report not likely to withstand further scrutiny

By Roger Straw, 5/26/15

THE CITY OF BENICIA issued an announcement on May 21, delaying its release of a revised draft environmental impact report on Valero Benicia Refinery’s proposal to construct an offloading facility for delivery of crude by rail. With this delay, the city will have spent more than two and a half years processing Valero’s proposal and responding to the objections of concerned residents, experts and nearby officials.

Valero’s application for a use permit came to city staff in December 2012. In May 2013, Benicia’s Community Development director issued a Notice of Intent and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, concluding that the proposal with mitigations was so benign as to not even need environmental review.

Following an outcry and organized opposition, the city commenced a full environmental review in August 2013. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was released, after several delays, in June 2014. That review received an avalanche of criticism, including expert local analysis, professional review and letters from residents and area governing bodies, as well as a highly critical letter from California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

After yet another lengthy delay, the city announced in February 2015 that, in response to the magnitude of public criticism, project consultants would revise the DEIR and release it by June 30 for recirculation and another 45-day public comment period. Now, according to the city of Benicia’s announcement last Thursday, the new two-month delay (until Aug. 31) will give consultants “time to include additional analysis of the new regulations announced on May 1, 2015 by the Department of Transportation to strengthen safe transportation of flammable liquids by rail.”

The city consultant’s analysis, seemingly favoring Valero’s proposal from the outset, will likely make the case that new federal safety standards strengthen environmental protections for this project and improve Valero’s chances for landing a use permit. This analysis, of course, will come under heavy fire because of the inadequacy of the new federal rules, and likely will not withstand the scrutiny of Benicia citizens, officials and regional authorities and stakeholders.

All along, leaders of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community (BSHC) have stressed that Valero’s proposal is fatally flawed as shown in a list of significant DEIR failures, including the longstanding lack of adequate federal safety regulations governing rail transport of high-hazard flammable liquids (see https://beniciaindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BSHC_Comments_on_DEIR.pdf — especially Section 2, #3, pp. 13-15).

More recently, BSHC has joined a chorus of national and international environmentalists and elected officials who are dismissive of the new rules issued by the Department of Transportation, which fail to adequately govern oil train routing, speed, braking systems and public notification, and leave entirely too many years for retirement and retrofitting of unsafe tank cars and the design and manufacture of tank cars to newer, safer standards.

BSHC and others have called for an immediate moratorium on all shipment of crude oil by rail, and a speedy transition to clean and renewable energy sources that will “leave the oil in the soil.”

Roger Straw is a Benicia resident and member of Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community.