Category Archives: Derailment

Diane Bailey: Valero’s Promise to Benicia: We’ll only have an environmental disaster once every 111 years

Repost rom NRDC Switchboard, Diane Bailey’s Blog

September 17, 2014

Valero’s Promise to Benicia: We’ll only have an environmental disaster once every 111 years.

Diane Bailey

Actually, that’s kind of worrisome, especially considering that if you don’t experience that disaster yourself, your kids probably will.  This is one of the many absurd elements showing Valero’s cavalier attitude toward public safety in the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its proposed crude by rail project, for which public comments were due this week.  The hazard analysis in this report is also a serious underestimate, according to the State among many others: The California Public Utilities Commission notes the serious failure of Valero to address the “potential for tragic consequences of crude oil tank car ruptures” from its proposed Crude by Rail Project.

casselton ND 12 30 13.jpg
Valero’s Promise to Benicia: We’ll only have an environmental disaster once every 111 years

This dangerous crude project is so riddled with problems that many communities up-rail are now voicing serious concern.  The City of Sacramento highlights the high concentration of people around the rail freight lines (“more than 147,000 City residents live within ½ mile”) serving the “Valero Benicia refinery [which] is one of two California refineries that are in the process of securing permits to build rail terminals to import Canadian tar sands and Bakken crude oils.” (emphasis added)  And the City of Davis suggests that the “highest levels of protection [be implemented] before disasters such as hazardous material releases and explosions occur [so that] we can avoid having such disasters in the first place.”

Benicians for a Safe and Healthy Community explain why the project is fatally flawed with 132 pages of concerns.  Valero’s crude by rail proposal is like so many other projects popping up all over the nation in a mad rush to access cheaper, extreme and dangerous crude oils, with little regard for public health or safety.  This project is a total disaster (based on NRDC, CBE and other comments) because it brings:

  • More Refinery Pollution: Bringing in extreme crudes like tar sands and fracked Bakken crude will only increase refinery pollution.  Valero’s Benicia refinery already releases 70 percent more toxic chemicals than the average for California.
  • Toxic Plumes Along Rail Lines: This thing called “crude shrinkage” happens during transport, where entrained gases escape, leading to a 0.5 to 3 percent loss of crude oil.  It’s a big problem for volatile crude oils like Bakken, and coupled with the high benzene levels found in some North American crudes (up to 7%), it creates a serious toxic plume around rail lines.  For instance, we estimate over 100 pounds per day of excess benzene emissions from the Valero proposal in the Bay Area (or 1800 times more than the draft EIR reports).
  • Extreme Crudes are Dangerous: Valero and other oil companies pretend that they can mix extreme crudes like tar sands and fracked Bakken into the ideal “Alaskan North Slope look-alike” crude, which sounds great, except that it doesn’t work that way in reality.  Both Bakken and tar sands carry their dangerous properties into any crude oil blend making it more volatile, toxic, and corrosive.
  • CBR Terminals at Refineries Amplify the Hazard: Valero proposes to site its crude by rail unloading facility within 150 feet of a number of very large refinery tanks that store highly flammable and potentially explosive material.  If a derailment occurred at the terminal, it could set off a chain reaction of fire and explosions at the refinery.  And there have been three derailments in Benicia outside the Valero refinery in the past year; luckily those trains were carrying petroleum coke, not crude oil.
  • Risk of Catastrophic Accidents All Along the Rail Route:  Valero’s “Barkan report” that estimates a release only every 111 years from the proposed 100 daily tank cars carrying crude is absurd for many reasons.  Most egregious is that it fails to consider recent data, like the six major crude oil train accidents over the past year that have resulted in massive fireballs and destruction, including 47 casualties in Lac Mégantic. The safety risks to tens of thousands of people living around these freight rail lines remains grave.

The oil industry has been promoting “look-alike” crudes that attempt to mimic conventional crude by blending extreme bottom of the barrel crudes.  The mile-long trains laden with these extreme crudes are a Trojan horse that puts millions of Californians at risk and threatens to undo several decades of environmental progress.  We need a moratorium on all new crude by rail projects, including Valero-Benicia, until the state can assess the cumulative impacts of these projects, make sure environmental impacts are fully mitigated and assure communities that they will be safe.

Guy Cooper: I hope you like trains a lot…

Repost from The Martinez Gazette

Martinez Environmental Group: Do you like trains a lot?

By Guy Cooper, September 14, 2014

Hope you like trains a lot.  (Kudos to the Fugs, 1965!)

I just did a presentation as part of the Martinez Environmental Group Community Forum held here in town Sept. 8. My focus was on some trends and projections for crude-by-rail (CBR) nationally, statewide and locally. Then it hit me that there were aspects and implications I had not fully appreciated.

Of course, the safety record doesn’t look good. A 2013 spike in CBR traffic nationally led to consequent spikes in accidents and spills.

trainsalot

In fact, more CBR was spilled in this country in 2013 than in the previous 40 years combined. The sheer volume shipped can mask what is actually happening. A projected 7.7 billion gallons of crude is expected to roll into our state annually by 2016. That makes a mockery of the rail industry’s oft touted 99.99 percent safety record, a record based on volume shipped.

Shipping that much volume into the state allows for the spilling or otherwise loss of over 766,000 gallons a year without even breaking a statistical sweat. You bring it, the accidents will come. The rail companies are actually having accidents about once a week now. Two locomotives derailed in Benicia Monday. Third derailment there in the last 10 months. Hey, stuff happens.

I did my walk in the Marina Park this morning. Saw two freight trains go by, one from the north, one from the south. The one from the south had five or six locomotives pulling about a hundred hopper cars. From my vantage, I couldn’t tell if they were loaded. The train easily spanned the entire Carquinez trestle. We’ve seen the same thing lately with 100-car trains of ethanol heading through downtown.

It struck me. Just how many trains do go through downtown Martinez on a given day, or at least take up room on the Union Pacific (UP) and BNSF rail corridors that bracket Martinez? The Amtrak guys at the station told me they have 42 trains a day.

Forty-two! That’s almost one every 30 minutes. All but two of those travel the UP rails to Sacramento through Benicia, Suisun and Davis via the Union Pacific tracks that will also carry most of the crude oil trains into the Bay Area. Add in the freight trains. Amtrak couldn’t tell me anything about them, said they’re unpredictable. Well, I saw two within the space of an hour.

Add in the projected oil train traffic. We do know that one unit train (100- cars) of Bakken crude travels the BNSF line from the east along the Highway 4 corridor, over the Muir trestle into Franklin Canyon every seven to 10 days. I don’t know what other trains use that route. If all of the regional refinery proposals are allowed, we could also see a unit train a day travel through downtown on its way to the Phillips 66 refinery in Santa Maria near San Luis Obispo. WesPac in Pittsburg wants a unit train a day. Valero in Benicia wants 100 cars per day. Add ‘em up and you’re looking at 20 trains, 2,000 cars, 60 million gallons a week impacting our region, kludging up the rails, slowing other freight and passenger traffic, not to mention complicating the mix with highly volatile and toxic cargoes.

Each unit train is over a mile long, weighs over 28 million pounds and carries about 3 million gallons of oil. Remember, for each one coming in, there has to be one going out. I think that’s one of Newton’s laws of motion, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, so double the number of unit trains: 40 a week by 2016.

Add in 294 AMTRAK trains per week, and a conservative estimate of 28 other freight trains a week (4/day). Total: 362 trains per week, each blowing its whistle three of four times at each crossing. Every 30 minutes.

So I hope you like trains a lot.

Union Pacific investigates Benicia derailment

Repost from The Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: Here’s the story on the derailed train engines last Sunday.  Thanks to Jim Kirchhoffer for spotting it and bringing it to our attention.  Tony Burchyns of the Vallejo Times-Herald did an excellent job of investigative reporting (see below).  Tony’s article set the accident in context, providing background on the two other recent Benicia derailments, one on 5/17/14 and another on 11/4/13.  Do the math: that’s 3 derailments in 10 months!  …The story was also covered in the Benicia Herald.  – RS]

Union Pacific investigates Benicia derailment

Two locomotives came off the tracks Sunday near port
By Tony Burchyns, 09/09/2014
Union Pacific Railroad is investigating what caused two of its locomotives to come off the tracks in Benicia on Sunday, a spokesperson for the rail
Union Pacific Railroad is investigating what caused two of its locomotives to come off the tracks in Benicia on Sunday, a spokesperson for the rail operator said Tuesday. (Tony Burchyns-Vallejo-Times-Herald)

BENICIA >> Union Pacific Railroad is investigating what caused two of its locomotives to come off the tracks in Benicia on Sunday, a spokesperson for the rail operator said Tuesday.

The locomotives were being used for switching operations and were moving rail cars near the Benicia port when each had one wheel set come off the tracks at about 2:30 a.m., Union Pacific spokesman Aaron Hunt said. The engines were attached to each other when the derailment occurred, he said.

Both were re-railed several hours later and moved to Union Pacific’s maintenance yard in Roseville, where an internal investigation was launched to determine what caused the derailment, Hunt said. He added the findings would be reported to the Federal Railroad Administration.

“Fortunately there were no injuries and there was no damage to our track infrastructure,” said Hunt, adding he did not know how fast the locomotives were traveling.

Benicia police got a call from Union Pacific at 2:38 a.m. Sunday reporting the incident, but there was no request for assistance and no emergency response by the city, Lt. Scott Przekurat said.

Hunt said that because the derailment happened in the railroad’s automotive yard along Bayshore Road — where finished automobiles that arrive by boat are transported by rail to other places — there was no impact to motorists or other people in the area.

On May 17, two rail cars carrying petroleum coke derailed near the Valero refinery. Prior to that, three rail cars carrying petroleum coke came off the tracks on Nov. 4, 2013.

No hazardous materials were spilled in those incidents, but the derailments have raised eyebrows in light of the Valero refinery’s plan to bring in up to 70,000 barrels of crude oil daily on Union Pacific tracks.

Asked whether the locomotives involved in Sunday’s incident could be used to move tanker cars, Hunt said they were “switching locomotives” and are not the same as those used to move trains from city to city.

“Safety is our primary focus at Union Pacific,” Hunt said. “We invest time, human power and substantial capital to minimize derailments across our 32,000-mile network.”

Latest derailment: CN train derails east of Whitecourt, Alberta

Repost from WhitecourtStar.com

CN train derails east of Whitecourt

By Bryan Passifiume, QMI Agency, Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Nobody was injured after eight cars of an eastbound freight train derailed east of Whitecourt, Alberta. Four of the cars tipped over, spilling their loads of gravel on the ground. CN Spokesperson Emily Hamer confirmed that no hazardous materials were involved. Chance Hansen photo | Submitted
Nobody was injured after eight cars of an eastbound freight train derailed east of Whitecourt, Alberta. Four of the cars tipped over, spilling their loads of gravel on the ground. CN Spokesperson Emily Hamer confirmed that no hazardous materials were involved. Chance Hansen photo

Nobody was injured after a CN train derailed east of Whitecourt, Alta.

According to CN spokesperson Emily Hamer, the eastbound freight train ran into trouble just after 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 9 near Cherhill, Alta., about 100 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

Eight cars filled with gravel left the tracks in the incident. Four of the cars tipped over, emptying their loads on the ground around the tracks.

None of the cars involved in the derailment contained dangerous goods.

This is the second derailment this month on CN tracks in Alberta. On Sept. 3, 15 cars filled with grain left the tracks near Hondo, northwest of Edmonton. In July, five cars along the same stretch of track carrying crude oil toppled over east of Whitecourt. Nobody was injured in either of those incidents.

The CN Sangudo subdivision, a 240 kilometre railway line stretching from Edmonton to Fox Creek, sees several trails daily hauling crude oil, hydrochloric acid, sand, gravel and sulphur.

No indication was given on when the line would re-open.