As explosive oil train derailments increase, concerns and questions are growing. People want to know what can be done to prevent a potential tragedy in a high-population area.
Part of the concern is a lack of local and state oversight. Interstate commerce is controlled by the federal government as per the U.S. Constitution. Consequently, the states and local governments have very limited authority over railroads and can do little to prevent accidents. In addition, current federal regulations for railroads are weak and make it difficult for injured parties to sue them for negligence or liability. Critics claim this gives railroads less incentive to make safety its top priority.
Railroads are required by law to transport hazardous materials, including crude oil. This is because it’s considered the safest form of shipping with more than 99.9% of hazardous trains arriving safely. Consequently, railroads have a “common carrier” status with the federal government which precludes them from turning down shipments as trucks and barges can. This designation leads railroads to oppose more stringent regulations, because they “have to” carry riskier freight.
Work on strengthening oil train regulations has dragged on for over two years. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) issued proposed regulations in July 2014, but they are not yet final or in effect. The railroad lobby is a strong one, and critics of DOT claim that its management is too susceptible to lobbying pressure and political influence.
An editorial in the Spokesman-Review last year captured the situation perfectly, “Spokane and communities across the Northwest are at the mercy of a lumbering federal bureaucracy. We can draw up disaster plans. We can conduct drills. But other than that, we can just cross our fingers and watch the trains go by.” Even sadder, this editorial appeared on May 2, 2014. Almost another year has gone by with little done by the DOT.
Fortunately, the issue is finally starting to get more attention and some action at the federal level. On Monday, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced urgent recommendations regarding oil trains; and late last month, legislation was proposed by U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington State. Both of these actions are overdue, but steps in the right direction.
The NTSB announced urgent recommendations to retrofit all oil railcars, including newer models. Cantwell’s bill is entitled the Crude-By-Rail Safety Act, and it also aims to require changes to the tanker cars, and several other safety provisions.
Most tanker railcars used today are the DOT 111 model, which are being replaced by the newer 1232 model. The newer 1232 cars have thicker steel hulls, 9/16 inch versus 7/16 inch on the older cars. However, the NTSB reported that in four recent derailments this year, 28 of the 1232 railcars also split open and burned, leaving questions about the safety of the new cars.
The NTSB is recommending that all oil railcars be fitted with thermal blankets that will wrap around the cars to protect them from the intense heat should a fire occur during a derailment. These blankets are already being used to transport liquefied petroleum gas. Cantwell’s bill also requires the blankets, and calls for a rapid decommissioning of the older tanker cars.
The NTSB is also recommending that each car be fitted with relief valves to prevent pressure from building up in cars during transport and in case of fire in a derailment. Proposed DOT regulations are also calling for rollover protection for fittings and valves on the tops and bottoms of the cars.
Another complicating factor is that railcars are rarely owned by the railroads. The tanker cars and their contents are owned by the oil producers or independent railcar companies. Typically, the railroads only own the engines and the tracks, and depend on railcar owners to have safe loads. This situation has led to friction between the railroads and oil producers as each tries to shift blame and financial responsibility to the other. The oil producers blame the railroads, stating that derailments are the problem; and the railroads blame the oil producers for unsafe tanker cars and the volatility level of the oil.
While the railroads are pushing for safer cars, the oil producers claim they are moving as fast as they can and need more time to phase in newer cars as they retire the older cars. The NTSB report stated that the tank car industry’s timeline to phase out older oil railcars by 2020 is too long. Canada has ruled that the older 111 railcars cannot be used after May 2017.
Part of the frustration for the tanker car industry is that it asked the DOT for an improved oil railcar design over three years ago, but hasn’t been given one. Understandably, this group wants some guarantees that if it is going to be required to replace existing tanker cars with new ones – at considerable cost – that new cars be much safer, satisfies all regulators, and be functional for many years.
The NTSB recommends that if the oil railcars can’t be replaced more quickly, then the speed of the oil trains should be significantly reduced until they can. But the railroads object to slowing trains, because it significantly snarls rail traffic and creates scheduling problems.
The proposed DOT regulations have asked for comments on reducing operating speeds for oil trains to 30-50 mph. If railcars meet specifications for enhanced tank cars (thicker steel, rollover protection, and electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes), higher speeds would be allowed. Tanker cars not meeting enhanced standards would have slower speed limits. The rail industry doesn’t like the ECP brakes because of costs and believes them to represent regulatory overkill. Some safety experts believe the ECP brakes are crucial to minimizing dangerous railcar pileups in derailments.
Many oil train safety advocates believe that speeds of 30-50 mph are too high. A train that derailed in West Virginia in February was only going 15-17 mph. A 2014 derailment in Virginia was traveling 24 mph. One study has shown older 111 tanker cars have ruptured and exploded at a speed as little as seven miles per hour, and the newer 1232 railcars at fifteen miles per hour.
Safety advocates are calling for speeds as low as 10-20 mph in high-population areas. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) reports that its trains slow down to speeds of 30 mph or less through the downtown Spokane corridor.
Another key component to improve safety is reducing the high volatility level of the Bakken oil. There are procedures that can reduce the volatility in the oil, but it takes time and costs money, so oil producers are balking. Senator Cantwell has made reducing volatility part of her legislation, and calls have been made to include a provision for it in the upcoming federal regulations.
But the oil producers opposes a national volatility standard, “We have a safe system today and we are now pushing to have zero incidents,” said Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute (API). Gerard admonished officials not over-regulate its industry, “We just can’t arbitrarily come in and start reconfiguring the balance that we have already achieved.”
Another factor is the condition of the train tracks and track inspections. A dramatic 1991 derailment in Spokane was caused by a bad piece of track. Cantwell’s bill requires better inspection of rail infrastructure.
The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) reports that it has spent almost $500 million on track upkeep and improvements in the area from Spokane to the Columbia River the past three years, and replaced all the rails on Spokane’s train bridges in 2014. The BNSF stated that it has improved rail safety through more frequent track inspections, and its employees inspect the section through the downtown Spokane corridor daily.
Another concern is a lack of training for emergency responders, and lack of equipment to deal with a derailment fire. As recently as two weeks ago, Spokane mayor David Condon said that the city’s emergency responders were not prepared to react to an oil train crisis. In a preliminary report last fall from the State of Washington, “Sixty-two percent of local fire districts along oil train routes say their firefighters don’t have the necessary training or equipment to respond to tank-car derailments.”
Cantwell’s bill would require comprehensive emergency response plans, and training for first responders of a spill or explosion. BNSF has said that it has specially trained teams to respond to derailments and fires, and has spill and fire equipment in several different locations in the region.
Although states have little authority over railroads, the Washington State Department of Ecology has issued a report calling for a permanent funding source for response and prevention programs. The state legislature is working on a bill and looking at imposing a tax of four to ten cents a barrel for this funding. But the legislation is not certain to pass due to fighting between the parties.
In doing my research of oil train accidents, a picture emerges. It’s a picture of bureaucratic timidity, reluctant leadership, and finger pointing.
Until very recently, it seems that lawmakers and regulators have been more concerned about politics and industry lobbying, than public safety. DOT’s foot-dragging is inexcusable. It’s also hard to figure why it has taken so many disastrous derailments to get the NTSB to issue a report, or for someone in Congress to introduce a bill; or why our state legislature dawdles.
Maybe they all have been waiting for the railroads or oil producers to figure it out. However, anyone who has been closely following this issue can see that both industries are doing their best to shift blame and avoid responsibility. They are more proficient at downplaying the seriousness of the issue and protecting their own interests. To date, the preponderance of evidence indicates that they have put profit ahead of safety.
The current situation represents a significant lack of leadership from our lawmakers and regulators. While there is no doubt that energy independence is crucial to our national security and exceedingly beneficial to the economy, public safety – especially given the potential of catastrophic consequences on such a significant scale – must trump all other considerations.
While it seems like the government, the railroads, and the oil producers are starting to wake up to the urgency of this situation, it’s essential they keep moving forward expeditiously. Most important, it’s imperative for all of them to know – that even one catastrophic derailment in a populated area is totally unacceptable.
Links to past blogs related to this subject
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