Get ready a crude awakning as energy companies get the regs relaxed to ship oil by rail (bomb trains) almost everywhere.<\/p>\n
While a second\u00a0oil-by-rail boom\u00a0<\/a>is well underway in North America, both the\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0and Canada are taking steps that ignore or undermine the lessons and regulatory measures\u00a0to improve safety since the oil train explosions and spills of years\u00a0past.<\/p>\n Canadian oil-by-rail now is operating\u00a0at record levels<\/a>, which are predicted to double by 2019. Favorable economics\u00a0have led to a recent rise in oil-by-rail movements\u00a0in the U.S<\/a>. as well, with more Bakken oil moving by train to East Coast\u00a0refineries.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in September the Trump administration finalized\u00a0its rollback\u00a0<\/a>of a regulation requiring an updated braking system for oil trains, known as modern electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP<\/span>) brakes, in a highly questionable regulatory process\u00a0detailed on DeSmog<\/a>\u00a0last\u00a0year.<\/p>\n In North Dakota, the Department of Mineral Resources\u00a0now plans to\u00a0reverse a regulation<\/a>\u00a0which required even the minimal stabilization of\u00a0oil transported by train, with \u201cstabilization\u201d referring to a process that removes some of the natural gas liquids that make Bakken oil so explosive.\u00a0That move doesn’t bode well for avoiding earlier scenarios in which rail operators dubbed oil trains as \u201cbomb\u00a0trains.\u201d<\/p>\n In September Canada committed to\u00a0phasing\u00a0out some of the unsafe older rail tank cars\u00a0ahead of schedule<\/a>, but a derailment earlier this year shows that this step is far from\u00a0foolproof.\u00a0On June 22, a train carrying Canadian oil that derailed in northwestern Iowa was using the newer\u00a0DOT<\/span>-117R tank cars, the same ones being phased in as\u00a0the new standard. The derailment still resulted\u00a0in the release of an\u00a0estimated 230,000 gallons of tar sands oil<\/a>\u00a0into local\u00a0floodwaters.<\/p>\n And while track defects are the\u00a0leading cause of train derailments<\/a>\u00a0(which, of course,\u00a0lead to fires, explosions, and spills),\u00a0the Trump administration has hit pause on efforts to\u00a0regulate rail wear<\/a>, which makes unlikely the possibility of new rules on this issue while Trump is in\u00a0office.<\/p>\n On September 24,\u00a0the\u00a0U.S.<\/span>\u00a0Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA<\/span>),\u00a0the regulatory agency that oversees the transport of oil by rail,\u00a0announced its final decision to undo the regulation\u00a0requiring modern\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0braking systems for oil trains. But its statement explaining the rationale\u00a0for the rollback was misleading.<\/p>\n First, however, it should be noted that the current head of\u00a0PHMSA<\/span>\u00a0is\u00a0Howard \u201cSkip\u201d Elliott,\u00a0<\/a>who retired from his position as a rail executive at\u00a0CSX<\/span>\u00a0before taking the job as federal\u00a0regulator of the industry he just\u00a0left.<\/p>\n This line from the agency’s\u00a0announcement\u00a0<\/a>gives the appearance that new research provided\u00a0justification for the\u00a0decision:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>The updated\u00a0RIA<\/span>\u00a0[Regulatory Impact Analysis] incorporated new findings from\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0brake testing conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration, which were reviewed by the National Academy of\u00a0Sciences.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n However, as\u00a0detailed on\u00a0DeSmog<\/a>, the\u00a0entire process used to justify this regulatory reversal was deeply flawed. This was simply a case of the rail industry not wanting to pay for the safety\u00a0that upgrading its fleet to\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes would provide. It was not a decision based on \u201cnew findings\u201d that somehow reversed the many years of research proving\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes are superior to the current air brake system (which dates back to the 1860s).<\/p>\n All of this should come as no surprise. As\u00a0DeSmog reported<\/a>\u00a0in 2015,\u00a0shortly after\u00a0PHMSA<\/span>\u00a0proposed these regulations, Mathew Rose,\u00a0CEO<\/span>\u00a0of oil-by-rail giant\u00a0BNSF<\/span>, said\u00a0that \u201cthis rule [ECP<\/span>\u00a0braking requirement] will have to be changed in the\u00a0future.\u201d<\/p>\n To review why the Trump administration’s repeal of an\u00a0important oil train safety measure is a political, rather than evidence-based, decision, just turn to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA<\/span>), but\u00a0under previous\u00a0presidents.<\/p>\n As\u00a0DeSmog reported<\/a>, in 2006, Joseph Boardman,\u00a0FRA<\/span>\u00a0administrator under George W. Bush, explained why updating trains with\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes makes perfect sense<\/a>: \u201cECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes are to trains what antilock brakes are to automobiles \u2014 they provide better control.\u201d Boardman also is on the record saying that\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0braking \u201coffers a quantum improvement in rail\u00a0safety.\u201d<\/p>\n In 2015, under Barack Obama’s administration \u2014\u00a0when the rail industry began its push to repeal\u00a0the new\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0braking rule \u2014\u00a0Matt Lehner,\u00a0FRA<\/span>\u00a0communications director at the time, told\u00a0DeSmog:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>ECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes are a proven technology that will reduce the number of train derailments and keep more tank cars on the track if a train does derail. Delaying the adoption of\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0brakes seriously jeopardizes the citizens and communities along our nation’s freight\u00a0network.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n North Dakota’s\u00a0move, which would\u00a0undo\u00a0a vapor pressure requirement for\u00a0Bakken oil prior to\u00a0rail transport, demonstrates how much sway the rail industry has in the state at this\u00a0point.<\/p>\n This\u00a0vapor pressure standard, nominally intended to stabilize volatile oil on trains, requires\u00a0the transported oil to have a Reid Vapor Pressure lower than 13.7 pounds per square inch (psi). Higher vapor pressure in a rail tank car, like in an aerosol can, increases the likelihood of explosion if the unit is damaged or punctured during a derailment or\u00a0crash.<\/p>\n However, as\u00a0I wrote<\/a>\u00a0in 2014, North Dakota’s\u00a0rule was\u00a0essentially\u00a0meaningless.<\/p>\n The majority of oil train accidents \u2014 including the one in\u00a0Lac-M\u00e9gantic, Quebec, that killed 47 people\u00a0\u2014 have involved oil with a vapor pressure lower than the North Dakota standard of 13.7 psi. Therefore, the state’s regulation did very little to improve safety for oil trains in the first\u00a0place.<\/p>\n But now the rail industry\u00a0is saying that oil vapor pressures usually only exceed 13.7 psi in the winter, and because of that, vapor pressure\u00a0testing shouldn\u2019t be required year\u00a0round.<\/p>\n Yet the industry has always maintained that\u00a0the volatility of Bakken oil was never a problem. In May 2014, The Wall Street Journal ran a story with the headline: \u201cBakken Shale Oil Safe for Rails, Industry Group Says<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n And while a half dozen state attorneys general and a coalition of environmental groups separately\u00a0have called for<\/a>\u00a0a\u00a0national standard for vapor pressure<\/a>\u00a0on oil trains, the Trump administration has done nothing on this\u00a0issue.<\/p>\n What North Dakota is doing now won\u2019t change oil train safety\u00a0one way or the other. But, again, the move\u00a0highlights the complete lack of\u00a0industry consideration<\/a>\u00a0for stabilizing oil, a trend DeSmog has\u00a0documented<\/a>\u00a0many\u00a0times\u00a0<\/a>over the\u00a0years<\/a>.<\/p>\n As a result, the second oil-by-rail boom now ramping up will occur with the same void of safety rules\u00a0as the first and with the same\u00a0dangerously volatile oil \u2014 from Texas to North Dakota to Canada \u2014 filling the mile-long \u201cbomb\u201d trains crossing the\u00a0continent.<\/p>\n Washington State Governor Jay Inslee is a vocal advocate for improving rail safety and earlier this year put the final nail in the coffin of\u00a0what would have been the nation’s\u00a0largest oil-by-rail terminal<\/a>,\u00a0proposed for Vancouver, Washington. When Inslee\u00a0commented\u00a0on the recent rollback of the\u00a0ECP<\/span>\u00a0braking regulations for oil trains,\u00a0he told\u00a0Oregon Public Broadcasting<\/a>:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>One thing you can trust about this administration, they\u2019re going to sell out your safety for special\u00a0interests.\u201d<\/p>\n Considering the string of fiery, explosive, and deadly incidents during the first\u00a0oil-by-rail rush, North America should expect the same performance from the oil and rail industries the second time\u00a0around.<\/span><\/p>\n Main image:\u00a0<\/span>An\u00a0empty westbound oil train rounds Horseshoe Curve, near Altoona, Pennsylvania.<\/a>\u00a0Credit:\u00a0<\/span>Roy Luck<\/a>,\u00a0<\/span>CC<\/span>\u00a0BY<\/span>\u00a02.0<\/a><\/p>\nRegulator’s\u00a0Statement on Modern Braking Systems\u00a0Inaccurate<\/strong><\/h3>\n
North Dakota’s Safety\u00a0Rule That Did Almost Nothing for\u00a0Safety<\/strong><\/h3>\n
Trust the Trump Administration on This One\u00a0Point<\/strong><\/h3>\n