Category Archives: Crude By Rail

The Canadian Government is Blowing Up Bomb Trains for Practice

Repost from Vice News

ViceNews header 2016-03-18
Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

The Canadian Government is Blowing Up Bomb Trains for Practice

By Hilary Beaumont, March 18, 2016 | 9:51 am

Two and a half years after a train carrying crude oil ran off the tracks in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec and exploded, killing 47 people, the Canadian government set a tanker on fire and pretended to run a train off its tracks as practice in case it happens again.

On July 6, 2013, an unmanned train carrying ultra-flammable western crude plummeted into the downtown of 6,000-resident Lac-Mégantic, where it erupted in flames and flattened everything in its path. The Lac-Mégantic tragedy spurred a debate in Canada and the US about the safety of so-called “bomb trains”, and reinvigorated the discussion about shipping oil across Canada.

Exercise Vulcan. Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

The debate has become a heated one, and largely comes down to whether to build large pipeline projects amid an uptick in the amount of volatile crude oil moved by rail. Both pipeline and oil by rail proponents argue their methods of transport are safe. Meanwhile, environmental groups argue both methods inevitably lead to spills or explosions, and that the oil should stay in the ground, while Canada should beef up its focus on renewable energy.

According to Transport Canada’s own data, crude oil moved by rail has increased dramatically in Canada over the past decade, from only four carloads in 2005 to 174,000 carloads in 2014.

In the case of Lac Megantic, an investigation showed a complex series of errors allowed the disaster to happen.

The goal of the recent train simulation, which used flammable liquid common in firefighter training rather than actual crude, was to improve emergency preparedness and public trust around the movement of crude and other dangerous goods by rail.

Exercise Vulcan. Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

Firefighters arrived on the scene of 11 smoking tanks that had derailed. They were taught to identify the contents of the tanks and decide when it was better not to intervene, as that could make the situation worse. If tackling the fire directly, the firefighters were told to apply foam and water spray to extinguish the flames.

It’s taken two-and-a-half years to start upgrading the procedures around emergency response to train derailments involving crude, and they’re not done yet. Exercise Vulcan, as the simulation was dubbed, was a test run of those new procedures, and Transport Canada hopes to use the training in other parts of the country in the future.

“Better late than never,” one industry expert told VICE News in reaction to Transport Canada running the train derailment simulation last weekend.

It’s too soon to tell whether Lac-Mégantic has sparked real safety upgrades in the rail industry, transportation industry consultant Ian Naish said. “They’re replacing tank cars, [but] they’re doing it slowly.

“Speed of the oil trains is a big issue to me,” he continued. “I’d recommend they take another look at the maximum speed at which a train should operate because the two that went off the rails in Gogama last year were operating at around 40 miles per hour, which is 60 or 70 kilometres an hour, and since all the tank cars failed, that obviously was too fast.”

A photo of the aftermath of the Gogama derailment. Photo via the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

Just over a year ago, a crude oil train exploded in a fireball and derailed near the town of Gogama in northern Ontario. No injuries or deaths were reported in the March 7, 2015 explosion. It took three days to extinguish the flames.

At the time, it was the second CN train to derail near Gogama in a three-week period. Both incidents resulted in spilled crude oil.

The tankers that derailed in both Gogama accidents were the same type of Class 111 tanks that ruptured in Lac Megantic. The Transportation Safety Board, an independent agency tasked with investigating transportation disasters in Canada, has warned for years that Class 111 tanks are unsafe because they aren’t reinforced and tend to break open when they crash.

“It will be very silly for everybody, not only Quebec — any province, and any state in the United States — not to learn from what happened in Lac-Mégantic. What happened showed so many voids in the system, and so much lack of important information.”

But it won’t be until after May 1, 2017 that the notorious Class 111 tank cars — which are most susceptible to damage when they crash — will no longer be able to carry crude. Phasing in more crash-resistant tank cars will mean the Class 111s will be off the rails “as soon as practically possible,” Transport Canada spokesperson Natasha Gauthier told VICE News.

After the disaster in Lac-Mégantic, Transport Canada says it introduced strict new rules, including a two-person minimum for crews on trains carrying dangerous goods, a requirement for railway companies on federally-regulated tracks to hold valid certificates, new speed limits for trains carrying dangerous goods.

In the US, though, there’s been pushback from the railroad industry, with one representative saying there is “simply no safety case” for two-person crews.

Exercise Vulcan. Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

Transport Canada also introduced more frequent audits, better sharing of information with municipalities, and increased track inspections. Plus, the agency amended the Railway Safety Act, researched crude for a better understanding of the volatile oil, and made it mandatory for some railways to submit training plans to the agency.

Since Lac-Mégantic, one improvement is that local first responders are now more aware of what dangerous goods, including crude, are travelling through their communities, Naish added.

And according to an engineering professor who witnessed first-hand the scene after the Lac-Mégantic explosion, while the railway industry is ramping up safety measures, the risk of increased shipments of oil by rail could balance those out, meaning it may not actually be any safer since Lac-Mégantic.

“Is it enough?” Rosa Galvez-Cloutier told VICE News when asked about the improved safety measures. “That’s hard to say. Zero risk doesn’t exist.”

Another major concern for Galvez-Cloutier is that when government and industry look at risk and safety, they tend do so project by project.

“Who is evaluating the big picture? Who is evaluating the whole thing?” She asked. “Government needs to put more interest and focus on the cumulative impacts of transporting dangerous goods.”

Exercise Vulcan. Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

That debate is especially hot in Quebec, where the Lac-Mégantic explosion occurred. A recent poll of Quebec residents found they aren’t as likely as the rest of Canada to trust either pipelines or oil by rail.

According to a study by the Fraser Institute published last August, pipelines are 4.5 times safer than rail for moving oil — the rate of incidents for pipelines is 0.049 incidents per million barrels of oil moved, while that rate is 0.227 per million barrels of oil for trains.

“It will be very silly for everybody, not only Quebec — any province, and any state in the United States — not to learn from what happened in Lac-Mégantic. What happened showed so many voids in the system, and so much lack of important information,” Galvez-Cloutier said.

When asked if he would rather have a pipeline or a train carrying crude through his backyard, Naish laughed and said “Well I’d rather not live in the neighborhood, personally.”

“In the ideal world, the rail lines and the pipelines would avoid all populated areas all the time.”

Exercise Vulcan. Photo via the Defence Research and Development Canada – Centre for Security Science

FAIRFIELD DAILY REPUBLIC: Valero taking oil-by-rail to feds; Benicia stays its course

Repost from the Fairfield Daily Reporter

Valero taking oil-by-rail to feds; Benicia stays its course

By Todd R. Hansen, March 18, 2016
Tank cars sit on the railroad tracks, near Cordelia Road and Chadbourne Road on January 1, 2016. Benicia's Planning Commission denied Valero's bid to build a rail offloading facility for crude oil, and now the company is seeking the opinion of the federal Surface Transportation Board. (Robinson Kuntz/Daily Republic file)
Tank cars sit on the railroad tracks, near Cordelia Road and Chadbourne Road on January 1, 2016. Benicia’s Planning Commission denied Valero’s bid to build a rail offloading facility for crude oil, and now the company is seeking the opinion of the federal Surface Transportation Board. (Robinson Kuntz/Daily Republic file)

BENICIA — More than four hours of staff and Valero testimony this week ended with the oil company asking the Benicia City Council for a delay and the city moving forward with its public hearing process.

Valero will seek an opinion from the federal Surface Transportation Board to determine if the city has any authority to require environmental impact mitigation for a proposed railway off-loading facility at its refinery.

The company wants to move crude oil on trains to its refinery in the Benicia Industrial Park. It has applied to the city for a use permit to construct the necessary off-loading facility.

Planning commissioners in February denied the use permit, stating in its resolution:

“(T)he proposed location of the conditional use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated and maintained would not be consistent with the General Plan as it would be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of the use, or to the general welfare of the city as well as uprail communities.”

Valero appealed that decision to the City Council, which started its public hearing process Tuesday. The hearing was continued to April 4 to receive comments from the public. April 6 and April 19 are also dates set aside as needed.

Valero representatives told the city it would take a month or more to submit material to the federal board, and that the decision-making process could take three to six months more.

Valero officials could not be reached Thursday. A message was left seeking comment.

Essentially, the company does not believe the city has the authority to impose conditions on railway matters, which typically falls under federal authority, according to city documents.

The city, while admitting it does not have any authority about what happens on the railways themselves, believes it does have planning and land-use authority over the refinery facility.

“The issue is where does (the railway pre-emption) start, and where does it stop,” said Amy Million, principal planner for Benicia.

Pre-emption, in this case, is basically a concept in which state and local laws are pre-empted in favor of interstate commerce regulations, which are governed under federal authority.

The Surface Transportation Board was given its authority in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995, which “pre-empts state and local regulation, i.e., ‘those state laws that may reasonably be said to have the effect of ‘managing’ or ‘governing’ rail transportation.’ ”

The act gives “the Surface Transportation Board exclusive jurisdiction over: (1) transportation by rail carriers and the remedies provided with respect to rates, classifications, rules (including car service, interchange, and other operating rules), practices, routes, services, and facilities of such carriers; and (2) the construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks, or facilities, even if the tracks are located, or intended to be located, entirely in one state.”

Transportation board spokesman Dennis Watson said he could not comment on a project that had not yet been received by the agency.

The proposal is for oil to be transported on 50-car trains, twice daily, using Pacific Union tracks, which would pass through Fairfield, Suisun City, Dixon and into Benicia.

The shipments would replace about 70,000 barrels of oil currently brought in daily by ship.

The project has generated a great deal of comment. The city reports it tallied 1,800 substantive comments on the Environmental Impact Report, of which 550 discussed hazards, 260 focused on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions, 80 on transportation, 60 on biological resources, 50 on hydrology and geology and 40 on noise.

VIDEO: Benicia City Council, March 15, 2016: Valero Attorney John Flynn surprises everyone, calls for a delay

This is a video clip of Valero’s presentation at the City Council meeting of March 15. The clip begins with a 7 minute presentation by Valero Environmental Engineering Manager Don Cuffle.  Attorney John Flynn follows, speaking for only 2 1/2 minutes, first dismissing local opposition, other attorneys and Benicia’s Planning Commissioners, and then asking Council to delay the hearings while Valero petitions the federal Surface Transportation Board (STB) for the agency’s backing on Valero’s legal argument, a process which could take three to six months.  (See also Marilyn Bardet’s analysis of Valero’s delay tactic.)

This clip runs for about 12 minutes. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, this clip begins at minute 1:56:14. and ends at 2:08:16  Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)

VIDEO: Benicia City Council, March 15, 2016: Benicia Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean

This is a video clip of the presentation by Benicia Planning Commission Chair Donald Dean at the City Council meeting of March 15. This clip runs for about 15 1/2 minutes.  Many thanks to Benicia videographer Constance Beutel for her Youtube video recording. (On the City’s longer and unindexed video, Chair Dean’s comments begin at minute 1:36:48 and run to 1:51:45. Note that the video archive of the entire meeting can be found on the City of Benicia website at ci.benicia.ca.us/agendas.)