Each week 15-20 trains carrying highly volatile oil from the Bakken fields in North Dakota roll through downtown Spokane. In the past 22 months there have been several explosive derailments in North America, the last five since Valentine’s Day. The worst oil train derailment killed 47 people and destroyed 66 of 69 buildings in Lac-Megantic, Quebec in July 2013 – a small Canadian town of about 6,000 people.
In last week’s blog, I wrote about the new U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and Washington State law regarding oil trains. In this week’s blog, I want to write about key pieces missing from these new rules, and some other needed solutions.
After an almost two-year process, new federal regulations from the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding oil trains were finally released on May 1, and a new Washington State law adopted ten days ago. The new DOT regulations provide: Standards for oil tanker railcars and timeframes to phase out older tanker cars; requirement of electronic controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking systems for longer oil trains; and train speed limits. The new state law provides for additional track inspectors and regular inspections of rail crossings on private property.
While these are good steps to protect the public, serious concerns remain about the potential for a catastrophic explosion in a high-population area.
One concern is the explosiveness of the oil being carried on the trains. There is a conditioning process that can reduce the volatility before transporting it, but it takes time and expense, so oil producers don’t want to do it. There was hope that there would be a provision to address this issue in the new federal regulations, but the Obama administration decided to defer to new state regulations in North Dakota, where the tanker cars are loaded. Federal regulators are now taking a “wait and see” approach to gauge the effectiveness of North Dakota’s rules.
The new North Dakota regulations require the conditioning process for all tanker railcars, but industry experts have raised doubts about particulars of the rule. They claim that the regulations to limit explosive vapor pressure in tanker cars do not take in to account how the oil behaves during transport, especially when tanker cars are filled to near-capacity. Tests conducted by one firm showed the pressure in nearly-full tanker cars can build to more than twice the allowed limit while in-transit.
Another concern is that railroads transporting oil can’t get enough insurance. An article last year in the Wall Street Journal claims that even the big railroads are only able to get coverage up to about $1.5 billion. But estimates of damages and liability from an oil train derailment in a high-population area range from $4 to $6 billion. That’s important, because under current law it’s difficult to sue railroads for damages. As long as railroads can prove they complied with federal standards, it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win compensation for liability or negligence.
I would like to see a liability fund setup for railroads, similar to one the nuclear-power industry has. In that industry U.S. Power companies contribute to an insurance fund, currently totaling billions of dollars. These funds would compensate the public and partly indemnify the industry in case of a nuclear accident. The same could be done for the railroads.
The new speed limits on oil trains are better, but remain a real concern. The speed limit is now 50 mph, reduced to 40 mph in densely populated areas.
Safety advocates believe that speeds of 40-50 mph are too high. In several recent explosive derailments, the trains were going much more slowly. In the most recent fiery derailment on May 6 in North Dakota, the train was traveling at 24 mph. A train that derailed in West Virginia in February was only going 15-17 mph. One study has shown older DOT-111 tanker cars have ruptured and exploded at a speed as little as seven mph, and newer CPC-1232 tanker cars at fifteen mph.
In addition, the criterion DOT uses to define densely populated areas seems like the wrong yardstick for explosive oil trains – even Spokane in not considered a high-population area. It makes more sense that population criteria should be determined by the number of people living and working within a one-half mile radius of a potential blast zone. Then train speeds could be set depending upon the potential number of people in the zone. For example, 30 mph for a blast zone containing at least 500 people, 25 mph in a zone of 5,000 people, and so on, down to 10 mph in the most densely populated areas.
These speed limits could be temporary until there’s better data from future oil train derailments. This would allow experts to measure the effectiveness of new and retrofitted tanker cars, and the ECP braking systems. Officials should also wait to see how well new state regulations in North Dakota are working for reducing volatility in the Bakken oil.
Once we have proof of safer oil trains and adequate insurance coverage, speed limits and population thresholds could begin to be raised incrementally. But we should also require the temporary speed limits remain in areas where first responders have not yet been trained.
This will make railroads and oil producers cry foul, and these measures may snarl rail traffic somewhat, but it will also give both industries incentives to adopt the new regulations rapidly, instead of fighting them in courts (oil producers have already filed for regulatory relief from the new DOT rules).
There is an under appreciation of risk regarding explosive oil train derailments. Spokane’s Fire Department estimates that up to 20,000 people could be in danger in an oil train derailment downtown. Last month, Spokane Mayor Condon admitted that city emergency responders weren’t prepared for an oil train crisis.
Railroads claim that more than 99.9% of hazardous trains arrive safely, but even one explosive derailment in a high-population area is unacceptable. If there is a catastrophic derailment that results in hundreds or thousands of deaths, the public will demand that drastic steps be taken quickly. It shouldn’t take a tragedy to implement these temporary steps now.
Domestic oil production will lead to energy independence, which is vital to both our national security and economy, and it will create lots of Washington state jobs. However, public safety must trump all other considerations.
Although the government, railroads, and oil producers are starting to take action, it’s essential they keep moving forward quickly. Up to now, there has been a significant lack of leadership from regulators and lawmakers. Oil producers and railroads spend millions each year on lobbying and elections, which could be one explanation for the timid actions by policymakers to date.
But this isn’t the time for bureaucratic half-measures or legislative pussyfooting. Finger-crossing and finger-pointing isn’t the leadership we need to deal with this potentially dangerous issue. Reducing oil train speeds and redefining population criteria is an expeditious and effective temporary solution to help prevent a catastrophic explosion and protect the public.
It’s evident the railroads won’t do this on their own, so DOT should issue emergency regulations and take these steps now. If DOT regulators won’t do it, Congress should pass legislation requiring it as soon as possible.
Links to past blogs related to this subject
Oil Trains – New Rules for Oil Trains – Too Little, Too Late:
http://www.commonsensecentrist.com/new-rules-for-oil-trains-too-little-too-late/
Oil Trains – A Picture Emerges: http://www.commonsensecentrist.com/oil-trains-a-picture-emerges/
Oil Trains – A Real Concern: http://www.commonsensecentrist.com/oil-trains-a-real-concern/
Link to video on Oil Trains: http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000003639391/a-danger-on-the-rails.html