Railroad lobbyists winning again, in FRA rulemaking

Buffett's BNSF helped lead fight to delay train safety technology

Railroad lobbyists winning again, in FRA rulemaking

November 3, 2015    Roger Straw    Benicia Independent

From an email from Dr. Fred Millar
[Editor:  Millar refers here to an excellent series of articles in the Washington Post, “Deadline for train safety technology undercut by industry lobbying“, “Rail-safety deadline extension hitched to must-pass bill on transit funding” and “Senate passes transportation funding stopgap bill and rail-safety extension“.  Dr. Fred Millar is a policy analyst, researcher, educator, and consultant with more than three decades of experience assessing the risks associated with transporting hazardous materials.  – RS]

By Fred Millar, October 28, 2015

 

This week’s excellent Washington Post reports by reporters Halsey and Laris outlined US railroad lobbyists’ ability to secure a three-year delay in implementing the key railroad safety equipment demanded on the original 2015 deadline by Congress in the Rail Safety Act of 2008.  There is a parallel and highly related story, so far unwritten, on how the railroads and allied interests relentlessly gain even more decisive and long-lasting ways to advantage profits over safety.

Even when Congress roused itself to demand more safety as in the 2008 RSIA, the seemingly permanent Reaganite legacy of “starving the beast” of government regulatory agencies grinds on to render the regulations pitifully weak.  Now the timid and under-staffed Federal Railroad Administration is quietly piddling away the once-in-a-generation opportunity from the 2008 law to impose a significant modern safety improvement regime [already seen in many industries] on the mighty railroads.

The public and Congressional alarm at several high-profile fatal rail disasters that led to the 2008 Rail Safety Improvement Act prompted Congress to include a strong mandate on the Federal Railroad Administration to impose a 20^th Century type of Risk Reduction Program regime on the railroads.

This surprising loss by railroad lobbyists in Congress – although they secured some weakening amendments – led to strenuous railroad efforts to prevent the FRA from crafting any strong regulations.  The out-gunned FRA effectively suffered a regulatory failure of nerve, and buried the rulemaking process out of sight for four years, gaining only a weak-tea and partial consensus from railroads and rail labor in FRA’s own ad hoc Working Group of industry insiders.  A couple of ill-attended public hearings drew no public attention.

The resulting proposed rule in 2015 had two major safety-weakening features: first, it gave the railroads a new secrecy pot to hide railroads’ own safety risk information from discovery in court proceedings on railroad negligence.  Trial lawyers, citizens and some officials alarmed about the appalling secrecy already granted to railroads, for example in their decisions to route ultra-hazardous crude oil trains through major cities, filed comments opposing this new secrecy grant.

More importantly, FRA proposed to impose on the railroads only “a streamlined version” of a modern Risk Reduction Program regime.  The comprehensive and robust one mandated by Congress would have required significant new efforts by FRA to approve and oversee railroads’ Risk Reduction Programs, and to ensure compliance.  FRA staffers no doubt felt they were not up to that task, so punted the responsibilities —  to each covered railroad to create its own safety regimes and to decide how to measure their own effectiveness, with no federal guidance.

As FRA then-Administrator Joseph Szabo declared shortly after the Lac-Mḗgantic Quebec crude oil train disaster killed 47 in July 2013,  “The movement of this product is a game changer,” [referring to] the sharp rise in trainloads of volatile crude oil from North Dakota and other places. “We have to rethink everything we’ve done and known in the past about safety.” 

Undermining the most significant Congressional rail safety mandates we may ever see is hardly the new beginning we need.

Please share!

 

 

Letters to the Editor on Crude by Rail by Grays Harbor Residents

Updated: add'l letter added at end

Grays Harbor poor choice for locating crude oil terminals

BY LARRY THEVIK  Aug. 21, 2015    Special to The Olympian 

The dangers of oil trains have understandably dominated headlines about proposed oil terminals in Washington state. As a long-time crab fisherman out of Grays Harbor, I’m very concerned about another risk that has so far gotten far less attention yet deserves equal time in the public spotlight: the consequences of a major oil spill for our local economy, environment and way of life.

Grays Harbor is an essential fish habitat for many species and a major nursery area for Dungeness crab. The tribal and non-tribal average crab catch value, based on state and tribal estimates, is $44 million a year. The annual economic benefit is $80 million to $150 million, depending on the multiplier used.

In 2014 Washington residents took an estimated 4.1 million trips to the Washington Coast spending $481 million, according to a Surf Rider Foundation study. More than one-third of those visits were to Grays Harbor County to enjoy all our coastal waters have to offer.

The state is expected to soon release for public comment a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the first two of three crude oil terminal proposals in Grays Harbor.

No crude oil presently moves through Grays Harbor. Yet, if the terminals are built, oil tanker and oil barge traffic is expected to increase vessel visits by 450 percent, adding 750 oil-vessel bar transits annually. The Grays Harbor shipping channel is narrow, shallow, subject to strong current flows, and has limited staging area for ships and tugs.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife stated, “Grays Harbor is an area particularly sensitive to the adverse effects of oil spills.” The introduction of such huge volumes of oil transport and oil vessel traffic in an area not suited to them in the first place is inviting disaster. Grays Harbor is simply a poor choice for oil terminals.

Between trains, tanks, ships and barges, up to 115 million gallons of oil will be in Grays Harbor at any one time. We know from disasters like the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico and Exxon Valdez in Alaska that one major oil spill can be devastating: contaminating coastlines, killing fish and wildlife, destroying livelihoods and ruining property values. The damage can last for decades, even generations.

One major spill is one too many. The proposed oil terminals threaten not just Grays Harbor, but our state’s entire coast, a place cherished by millions. Those who care must engage in the DEIS comment process to tell our state leaders to put our waterways, our jobs, and our communities ahead of oil companies’ relentless pursuit of expanding markets and profits at our peril.

Larry Thevik has fished Grays Harbor and the coast for 45 years in pursuit of salmon, halibut, tuna, prawns and Dungeness crab. He is vice president of Washington Dungeness Crab Fishermen’s Association.

Margin of safety is thin

via The Daily World

I am new to this area, so at the risk of sounding redundant, I’d like to address the problem with railroad tankers in general that are carrying crude oil every day and will be here unless we do more to stop it.

 
These antiquated DOT-111 tankers were built in the 1960s and are less than a half inch in thickness; 7/16 of an inch to be exact. There are approximately 200,000 of them out there and approximately 78,000 of them still hauling crude oil.

Safety flaws were vehemently pointed out in the early ’90s but fell upon deaf ears.

These railroad tankers are no joke. They are old, weak, poorly designed and are coming to our county unless we do something to stop it. Poorly designed vessels such as these cause people to die and communities to wither.

 
Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has compared the car to “a ticking time bomb.”

The CPC-1232 is an upgraded car but certainly not by much. It still has the same thickness as the DOT-111, so no improvement there. It was one of the 105 cars in the CSX train derailment in Lynchburg, VA., April 2014 and ultimately spilled 30,000 gallons of Bakken crude oil into the James River. That same type of tanker apparently was leaking crude oil as it came across Idaho into Washington in January of this year.

 
There is a new tanker being built in Mexico which has a thickness of 9/16th of an inch. U.S. railroad corporations are not giving any indication they will even consider spending money to upgrade. Unless forced to by Congress to scrap the DOT-111 tanker, it will live on.

 
At this point railroads are being asked to upgrade but not forced to. So there are no new and improved rail tankers coming down the pike any time soon.

 
One can safely assume that the two 7/16 inch shelled tankers I spoke of are the ones that what will be carrying the crude through Grays Harbor County if big oil is allowed here. We will be living with them and their volatility every day. I don’t want to live here having to hold my breath because it really is a case of when (a spill or explosion will happen) not if.

 
This is my reason for writing today. Please voice your opposition before it’s too late.

Remember that Big Oil doesn’t know us as a community and doesn’t want to know us. They just want what we have. And in this case, it’s our backyards.

Joan Morabito

Ocean Shores

Update: this letter was published by the Daily World on 8/18/15 but not posted on their website

Editor:

I am writing to congratulate the City of Aberdeen on adopting a six month moratorium on crude oil storage, affirming the enormous risk and little gain associated with oil storage and transport in Grays Harbor. The Port of Grays Harbor is a poor choice for shipping Canadian tar-sands crude oil or US Bakken crude oil. The proposed crude oil trains would travel through Aberdeen and the terminals would be sited within the population center of Hoquiam, creating substantial risk from fire or explosions Tank overflows on average occur every 3,300 tank fillings causing several explosions and fires.  There is also the risk of spillage, accident, and fire with any train-to-tank transfer, which could occur at any of three locations within the city of Hoquiam.  The potential for disaster is real.

The Port is built on landfill in a tsunami alert zone, whose land and waters are battered by serious storms and subject to flooding.  The pilings supporting the terminals are unlikely to withstand a tsunami resulting in nearly certain tank rupture, fire, and explosions spreading to the entire complex.

Where is the gain to the communities of Grays Harbor?  The three companies who plan to build facilities to receive, store and ship crude oil from Hoquiam would create tank farms with over a 110 million gallon capacity. Initially, there would be jobs constructing the tank farms, but once completed, those in the longshore industry predict a net loss because the current more labor intensive work of handling commodities in the Port would be replaced by the largely automated work of unloading and loading oil.  There are other important economic impacts to consider, including the effects of steadily increasing heavy, slow and over one mile long 100 car trains, each carrying approximately 2.9 million gallons of volatile crude. Such long slow trains would interrupt the flow of traffic to businesses, homes, and schools, and would interfere with emergency responses.

Fishing and tourism industry are major components of the Twin Harbor’s economy.  The risk is high for leaks during transport, and spills during loading and unloading, contaminating our waters and devastating these industries for many years.  How can we run the risk of losing our thriving seafood industry jobs for a mere handful of crude oil jobs?

The chemical fumes (vapors and gases) vented from the oil storage tanks with floating lids, as well as fumes emitted during the loading and unloading of trains and tankers will impact Hoquiam and Aberdeen and  surrounding towns affecting citizen health and  diminishing property values. Exposure to this air pollution includes increased risks of cancers, stroke and heart attack, asthma, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and neuro-developmental and behavioral disorders in children.

I wish also to welcome Renewable Energy Group, the new owners of Imperium Renewables, with the sincere hope that they will hold as a priority the long-term welfare of the persons, economy, the bay and the beautiful surroundings of Grays Harbor.

Kathy Schaefer

 

Oil train insurance minimums in question

 

Photo by REUTERS Wagons of the oil freight train that derailed and crashed in Lac Megantic, Quebec are seen on July 9, 2013

Oil train insurance minimums in question

By Donna Mahoney     Business Insurance   7/28/15

 

A little more than two years have passed since an unattended runaway train from the now-bankrupt Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway Co. derailed and crashed, spilling oil that caught fire in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, and killing 47 people.

Within the past two years over a dozen trains transporting crude oil have derailed in North America. And while there are still no U.S. regulations regarding minimum insurance coverages for these trains, Canada's government in July approved the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, which consists of a new liability and compensation program requiring the rail industry and crude oil shippers pay for minimum levels of insurance ranging from $25 million to $1 billion.

The regulation also requires a supplementary shipper-financed fund that provides compensation to victims and funds for environmental cleanup for railway accidents involving crude oil that exceed the amount of insurance held by the railway.

Railway safety experts say this amount of insurance is insufficient for the damage some spills could cause.

“The railroads can get up to $1.5 billion in insurance, but that is not enough,” said Fred Millar, and Arlington, Virginia-based oil and energy safety consultant. The cost of the Lac-Mégantic disaster is already estimated at $1.5 billion, according to reports. 

Every week, 49 trains with over 1 million gallons of crude oil pass through Chicago. In Albany, New York, it's 44 trains and in Cleveland, 55, according to U.S. crude oil shipment reports released in March.

One of the concerns of a crude oil train derailment is the risk of the oil catching on fire, especially in a highly populated area, Mr. Millar said. “Most citizens have no idea of the risk imposed on them or that railroads do not carry the amount of insurance necessary to cover a catastrophe in a highly populated area,” he said.

The U.S. Department of Transportation reminded railways on July 22 to obey last year's order “to report the weekly frequency of shipments of 1 million gallons or more of Bakken crude, the routes they use and the counties through which they pass.” Illinois, New York and Ohio have said have not received a report from one of the railways in over a year, according to news reports.

 

CP Rail Reluctant to Transport Crude; Risks and Aging Rails Ignored?

Flames erupt from the scene of a crude-oil train derailment Feb. 16 near Timmins, in Ontario, Canada.

Crude-oil train wrecks raise questions about safety claims 

LA Times  By Ralph Vartabedian          03/12/15

Four accidents in the last month involving trains hauling crude oil across North America have sent flames shooting hundreds of feet into the sky, leaving some experts worried that public safety risks have been gravely underestimated.   

 The industry acknowledges that it needs to perform better....

...Critics, however, say the industry's position misses the point. All it is going to take is one major accident to change the entire calculus.

Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board and among the top safety experts in the country, believes the government has misjudged the risk posed by the growing number of crude-oil trains.

"We have never had a situation equivalent to 100 tank cars end to end traveling through local communities," Hall said. "This is probably the most pressing safety issue in the country. The industry has turned a deaf ear."....   

    more here

 

Dangerous Trains, Aging Rails

By MARCUS STERN    MARCH 12, 2015   New York Times

….explosions have generally been attributed to the design of the rail cars — they’re notoriously puncture-prone — and the volatility of the oil; it tends to blow up. Less attention has been paid to questions surrounding the safety and regulation of the nation’s aging network of 140,000 miles of freight rails, which carry their explosive cargo through urban corridors, sensitive ecological zones and populous suburbs.

Case in point: The wooden trestles that flank the Mobile and Ohio railroad bridge, built in 1898, as it traverses Alabama’s Black Warrior River between the cities of Northport and Tuscaloosa. Oil trains rumble roughly 40 feet aloft, while joggers and baby strollers pass underneath. One of the trestles runs past the Tuscaloosa Amphitheater. Yet when I visited last May, many of the trestles’ supports were rotted and some of its cross braces were dangling or missing.

The public has only one hope of finding out if such centenarian bridges are still sturdy enough to carry these oil trains. Ask the railroads. That’s because the federal government doesn’t routinely inspect rail bridges. In fact, the government lacks any engineering standards whatsoever for rail bridges. Nor does it have an inventory of them.

The only significant government intrusion into the railroads’ self-regulation of the nation’s 70,000 to 100,000 railroad bridges is a requirement that the companies inspect them each year. But the Federal Railroad Administration, which employed only 76 track inspectors as of last year, does not routinely review the inspection reports and allows each railroad to decide for itself whether or not to make repairs......  more here

Rail’s apprehensions

Canadian Pacific’s board expresses reluctance to stay in crude-by-rail business

Gary Park

For Petroleum News Bakken  March 13, 2015

Canadian Pacific Railway has disclosed that its directors are reluctant to continue transporting crude oil - an idea that was swiftly quashed by the Canadian government, but was reignited by two more derailments of crude trains.....    more here