Category Archives: Tank car retrofit

Bakken Crude, Crude By Rail, Derailment, DOT-111, Explosion, Hazmat notification, Massive increase in crude-by-rail, Rail inspection, Tank car retrofit, Train braking systems, Train speed

Chicago Sun-Times editorial: Old tank cars put Chicago at risk

Repost from The Chicago Sun-Times

Old tank cars put Chicago at risk

Editorials, July 31, 2014
This July 6, 2013 file photo shows a worker, wearing protective gear moving though the wreckage of the oil train derailment and explosion in in Lac-Megantic, Quebec (AP Photo/Ryan Remiorz, File, Pool)
This July 6, 2013 file photo shows a worker, wearing protective gear moving though the wreckage of the oil train derailment and explosion in in Lac-Megantic, Quebec (AP Photo/Ryan Remiorz, File, Pool)

America’s drilling boom means more freight trains are snaking through Chicago carrying oil, which can erupt into fireballs if the tank cars derail. A new federal proposal to make the cars safer should be enacted as quickly as possible, and any changes in the final rules should enhance safety, not weaken it.

On July 23, U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx proposed phasing out tens of thousands of tank cars called DOT-111s that date back to the 1960s and that too easily rupture or get punctured in derailments. In the past six years, oil has spilled in 10 major derailments, many of them fiery. In the worst, 47 people died last year in Quebec. In April, 30,000 gallons of crude oil leaked into the James River amid a blazing derailment near downtown Lynchburg, Va.

Because more than 40 oil-carrying trains pass through metropolitan Chicago every week, the safety proposal is critical. Mayor Rahm Emanuel called it a “very important step to reduce the risk of catastrophic disasters in our cities.”

The weaknesses of older tank cars, which include about 78,000 of the 92,000 now in use, have been known for 25 years. But now there’s a new reason to worry about them. A boom in American oil production, largely due to hydraulic fracturing — or fracking — that extracts petroleum from places where oil pipelines don’t go, has led to a surge in oil-carrying freights. Nationwide, the number of oil carloads jumped from 9,500 in 2008 to 434,000 last year. Trains carrying crude often are longer than 100 tank cars and can carry more than a million gallons.

In May, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued an emergency order requiring railroads to notify local officials before trains carrying large quantities of crude pass through. Now, the department has proposed a range of additional safety options, including requiring new or retrofitted tank cars to have thicker shells, more effective brakes and roll-over protections. Tank cars that don’t meet the new standards would be phased out after two years if they carry the most flammable fuels, including ethanol and most grades of crude oil.

Foxx also is calling for speed limits on trains transporting the fuels, especially through highly populated areas, and testing of the liquids they carry.

The proposals will go through negotiations, including a public comment period, before the final rules come out. Not everyone will agree: Industry representatives, for example, think the proposed speed limits are too low and environmentalists think they are too high.

Fortunately, industry players, including the Association of American Railroads and the American Petroleum Institute, agree tank cars need to be safer. They have offered their own safety enhancements, which don’t go as far as those proposed by Foxx. For example, they want a three-year phase-out period instead of two and would select a design used on tank cars built since 2011 as the new, safer standard.

The final rules should take into account legitimate concerns of business and environmentalists, but the government shouldn’t significantly water down the safety proposals nor let negotiations drag on, putting off the day crude shipments get safer.

We don’t want to see any disastrous fireballs along the many rail lines running through Chicago and its suburbs.

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

New DOT crude-by-rail rules could cost $2.6 – $6 billion

Repost from ArgusMedia.com
[Editor: Significant quote: “An estimated 59% of all crude produced in North Dakota left by rail, according to state figures.  It is too soon say to say whether or not the new DOT rules could impact Bakken output, the state’s director of the Department of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms said.”  – RS]

New DOT crude-by-rail rules could cost $2.6bn-$6bn

24 Jul 2014

Houston, 24 July (Argus) — The Department of Transportation’s proposed rules to overhaul tank cars transporting crude and ethanol could cost $2.6bn-$6bn to implement, according to the agency’s analysis.

The cost estimates are based on various combinations of the proposed speed limitations and rail car specifications, calculated over a 20-year period. The least expensive combination, at $2.6bn, would pair newer-model jacketed CPC-1232 cars and train limits of 40mph in designated high-threat urban areas. The most expensive solution, at $6bn, would be to pair cars with a design standard proposed by DOT and a system-wide train speed limit of 40mph.

Without the new rules, DOT agency the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) expects about 15 mainline derailments to occur in 2015, falling to about five per year by 2034. The US could also experience over the next 20 years an additional 10 safety events of higher consequence, with nine having environmental damages and injury and fatality costs exceeding $1.15bn each, the DOT predicts. One future accident over the next 20 years would cost over $5.75bn.

Under the proposed rules, DOT-111 tank cars would no longer be allowed to move crude and ethanol. The cars have been proven to have insufficient puncture resistance, weak bottom outlet valves in accidents and vulnerability in fire and rollover accidents, the DOT said.

Thousands of tank cars used to carry crude and ethanol would be removed from service within two years unless they are retrofit to comply with new design standards under the proposal announced yesterday. The phase-out program would be faster than the three-year program adopted by the Canadian government earlier this year.

The proposed changes range widely in cost. Voluntary rail routing would cost $5.5mn to implement, while new materials classification rules could cost $16.2mn. The three proposed tank car retrofit options would cost $2.5-3mn to implement, and yield benefits estimated to be worth $432.5mn-$3.5bn. The least expensive of the speed restrictions, 40mph in high-threat urban areas, would cost only $27.4mn to implement, while 40mph in areas with 100,000 people would cost $260mn to implement. The most expensive by far would be the $2.9mn implementation of a 40mph speed limit for ethanol and crude trains in all areas.

Retrofit costs for tank cars could cost anywhere from $1,200 for a bottom outlet valve handle to $23,000 for a full jacket to be added to the car.

The DOT estimates a total of 334,869 tank cars are in service, with 42,550 in crude service and 29,708 in ethanol service. Of existing tank cars used to haul crude, 22,800 are non-jacketed DOT-111s, 5,500 are jacketed DOT-111s. There are an estimated 4,850 of the newer model jacketed CPC-1232 cars and 9,400 non-jacketed CPC 1232 cars in crude service.

New cars may have to be built with thicker outer shells and equipped with electronically controlled pneumatic braking systems and rollover protection. Cars built in accordance with design rules voluntarily adopted by the industry in 2011 may have to be retrofit, depending on the standards DOT ultimately settles on.

The agency also is considering three speed limits for crude trains that contain tank cars not built up to the new standards. The first would require a 40mph speed limit across the network, the second a 40mph speed limit in high-threat urban areas and the third a 40mph speed limit in areas with a population of 100,000 or more. Cars built in accordance with DOT’s new design standards will be allowed to operate at 50mph in all areas.

The rules further would require shippers show a rigid written sampling and testing program for mined liquid and gases is in place and make information available to DOT on request.

The rulemaking package is now open for a 60-day public comment period. DOT is requesting feedback on three options for enhancing tank car standards.

An estimated 59pc of all crude produced in North Dakota left by rail, according to state figures. It is too soon say to say whether or not the new DOT rules could impact Bakken output, the state’s director of the Department of Mineral Resources Lynn Helms said.

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.”

Bakken Crude, California Regulation, DOT-111, Dunsmuir CA, Federal Regulation (U.S.), Lac-Mégantic, Lynchburg Virginia, Tank car retrofit, Union Pacific Railroad, Valero Crude By Rail

Benicia Congressman Mike Thompson has long record of concern over hazmat rail safety

[Editor: In an exclusive interview, the Benicia Herald details the historical background on Thompson’s response to the catastrophic derailment and spill in Dunsmuir, CA in 1991.  Note that Thompson is reported to have met with Valero and other area refinery and train safety officials.  He has proposed legislation that would involve federal intelligence oversight to guard against security threats on hazmat tank cars.  – RS]

Repost from The Benicia Herald

Congressman on Crude-by-Rail plan: ‘Make sure it’s done safely’

May 25, 2014 by Donna Beth Weilenman
MIKE THOMPSON. watchsonomacounty.comMIKE THOMPSON – watchsonomacounty.com

When it comes to looking at the dangers posed by transport of hazardous materials, “it’s not just Benicia,” U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson said Friday in an exclusive interview with The Herald.

And it’s not just since the opening of the Bakken oil fields made a light, sweet and more combustible crude oil available domestically, particularly by rail delivery.

Nor has Thompson been following these developments only since the the deadly train explosion last year that killed 47 in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, Canada, or the April 30 derailment in Lynchburg, Va., that poured 30,000 gallons of crude into the James River.

His interest was sparked nearly a quarter century ago, and it’s why he said the proposed Valero Crude By Rail project “must be done right.”

In 1991, the small California resort town of Dunsmuir experienced its own toxic spill when a Southern Pacific train derailed nearby, spilling 19,000 gallons of a soil fumigant that killed more than a million fish and millions of other animals, from crayfish and amphibians to insects and mollusks.

Hundreds of thousands of trees were killed as well, and the chemical metam sodium left a 41-mile plume from the spill site to where the river enters Shasta Lake.

The disaster still ranks as California’s largest hazardous chemical spill. Many species still haven’t recovered from the spill, though fish populations have returned to normal.

At the time of the spill, Thompson was a state senator. Dunsmuir, in Siskiyou County, was in his district.

As a result of the devastating spill, he drafted legislation, Senate Bill 48, that became Chapter 766 of California’s Statutes of 1991. The bill founded the Railroad Accident Prevention and Immediate Deployment (RAPID) Force, which cooperates with existing agencies to respond to large-scale releases of toxic materials after surface transportation accidents.

The statute also ordered the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop a statewide plan in cooperation with the state fire marshal, businesses that would be impacted by the requirement and agencies in the RAPID Force. For a time, it also raised money through fees to supply responders with necessary equipment to tackle such emergencies.

Under the statute, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, CalFire, the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services made interagency agreements so resources could be managed efficiently in preparing for or acting during an emergency.

That RAPID plan has multiple policies and directions to any agency or business in the event of a railroad accident, so the damage to public health and the environment is minimized.

Hazardous materials (hazmat) teams were formed, and regional training centers were established to provide certificate-level education, specifically in hazmat railcar safety and other specialist training to emergency responders.

“My legislation set the standard for railroad safety,” said Thompson, Benicia’s representative in the House. “It included grant money so safety officials would have the equipment for spill cleanup.”

More than a year ago, Valero Benicia Refinery applied to extend Union Pacific rail lines on its property so crude could be brought in by rail. This isn’t additional oil; it would replace some of the oil that currently is brought in by tanker ships or other methods.

A draft Environmental Impact Report on the project is due to be released June 10.

But trains already bring hazardous materials through other areas of the San Francisco Bay Area.

Thompson said he has met not only with officials from Valero, but other area refineries about rail delivery of oil.

“They’re here,” he said about the refineries. “Their employees live in the community.”

That doesn’t mean the safety factors aren’t being reviewed, he said. One is the design of the oil containers that are drawn by locomotives.

Though BNSF Railway has announced it’s seeking contractors to provide tanker cars that exceed federal safety standards, that’s an unusual step for a railroad company to take because of how contracting with a railroad works.

Normally railroads don’t own their own cars, according to rail officials for both BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad: Customers either lease or own them, then contract railroad lines to move their products.

Thompson said he has had conversations about construction of those cars, with one person telling him that if rail cars are carrying products that can harm people or the environment, they should be strong enough to fall off a cliff and not break.

It isn’t practical to armor a car or make its walls so thick it can carry little inside, he conceded. But he added, “They do need to be as safe as they possibly can, to protect public safety and the environment and wildlife.”

The Association of American Railroads and its Tank Car Committee has issued a statement saying that it petitioned the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) in 2011 to strengthen the standard, non-pressure tanker car, called a DOT-111.

Those cars make up 228,000 of the 335,000 active fleet tank cars, and AAR’s statement said about 92,000 DOT-111s carry flammable liquids, including crude and ethanol.

When no federal action was taken on its request, AAR itself adopted higher standards for reinforcing flammable liquid-carrying tank cars that are ordered after Oct. 1, 2011.

AAR then reiterated in 2013 its request for the federal government to enact stricter regulations, and has said the oil companies that contract with railroads have resisted spending money on the stronger rail cars.

“There’s always pushback,” said Thompson, referring to any new or strengthening of regulations or raising of standards, and not just concerning tanker cars.

As for Valero’s specific Benicia project as well as crude delivery by rail in general, Thompson said, “I want to make sure it’s done safely, so damage is minimal, if not nonexistent.

“There is risk in everything,” he said, noting that there are risks as well when trucks, ships and pipelines transport oil.

He cited as examples such ship spills as the Exxon Valdez in Alaska and the Shell Oil pipeline break that sent oil into the Gulf of Mexico in April. He described how he went to inspect the latter incident.

He said he’s also met with area train safety officials, who told him about the safety detectors designed to spot irregularities on the rails.

“We walked the track,” he said.

But there still are questions whether such transport is safe enough, and Thompson said he’s submitted to rail safety officials questions posed by Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson.

As a member of the U.S. House, Thompson said he has also authored an amendment to a recent bill that also addresses rail safety.

He cited an example of one of his “walk the track” visits, when he saw rail tanker cars that were parked on a siding.

The cars were illustrated in graffiti.

Thompson said he has discussed this with federal rail safety officials, not as a vandalism problem, but as evidence of a lapse in security.

His legislation requires intelligence experts to be involved in looking at refineries, too, so that shipments by rail are secure against such violent activity.

While some refinery staff members have told Thompson that safety is being handled internally, without the need for federal involvement, he countered their objection by telling them about the tagged tankers.

“If there’s time to put graffiti on them, there’s time to put a bomb on them,” he said.