Train - hazardous cargo "accident"

[3930dave]

It looks like NTSB is starting to realize how many lives are at risk every day with these trains. they are considering updating
standards for the cars hauling this high test oil:

Rail cars used to ship oil called 'unacceptable'

a small excerpt:

"The NTSB has been urging replacing or retrofitting the tank cars since 1991, but the most recent federal effort to write tougher regulations for new cars didn't get underway until 2011. An initial public comment period closed in December, and regulators are currently at work writing proposed new standards, Cynthia Quarterman, head of the Transportation Department's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, told the panel. She said she expects her agency to propose new tank car standards before the end of this year, but refused to be pinned down under questioning by lawmakers on when those rules might become final.

"Right now, there is so much uncertainty that people aren't going to make investments in safer cars and they're going to keep running these crummy cars and killing people," Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., complained. "

The problem has been known since 1991? CorporateGovernment at it's best.....

If it was a problem in 1991, what was the anticipated result of accidents with Bakken crude ? Despite citizen's generally low opinion of govt, the reality is that govt readily has access to the best scientists (or anything else, for that matter) that money can buy. They knew.

So, obviously, the assessment was, and is still: Collateral Damage - Acceptable.

What is it going to take ? An "accident" that kills 200, 500, or 5000 people, before this decades old known problem finally gets some action ?

From the article:

Ed Hamberger, president and CEO of the Association of American Railroads, said the industry has strongly urged the government to set new tank car standards.

"We believe there needs to be a safer tank car," he said.

When the CEO of the railroad association is calling for upgrades, I'd say the govt is running out of reasons (other than the obvious unspoken one) for not passing the legislation.

Rgds, D.

 

[bcp]

From what I've seen and read, the tank cars are owned by a leasing company and leased to the shipper, not owned by the RR.

And the Bakken crude is much more flammable and explosive then "normal" crude oil, but shippers have been classifying it the same, so it can travel as "non-hazardous" crude.

Exclusive: BNSF to move into tank car ownership with safer oil fleet | Reuters

BNSF Customer Notifications - Marketing News: DOT Hazard Class, Packing Groups and Authorized Tank Cars

http://image.email.bnsf.com/lib/fef...roper Classification of Flammable Liquids.pdf

 

[3930dave]

From what I've seen and read, the tank cars are owned by a leasing company and leased to the shipper, not owned by the RR.

And the Bakken crude is much more flammable and explosive then "normal" crude oil, but shippers have been classifying it the same, so it can travel as "non-hazardous" crude.

Exclusive: BNSF to move into tank car ownership with safer oil fleet | Reuters

BNSF Customer Notifications - Marketing News: DOT Hazard Class, Packing Groups and Authorized Tank Cars

http://image.email.bnsf.com/lib/fef...roper Classification of Flammable Liquids.pdf

Bolded - yeah, that was what I was alluding to... Big Oil hasn't "allowed" the legislation to change yet. I didn't know the specifics of those arrangements; I didn't need to (but thanks for spelling it out ), since the conclusion is pretty obvious.

I'd like to see Big Oil hit with something like $50MM for every death caused at each of these "accidents". That might get things moving along....

Rgds, D.

 

[3930dave]

And the Bakken crude is much more flammable and explosive then "normal" crude oil, but shippers have been classifying it the same, so it can travel as "non-hazardous" crude.

I can't see that even a 2'nd rate lawyer would have trouble arguing that was Premeditated Criminal Negligence.

Rgds, D.

 

[Gator6x4]

Has anyone besides me been watching and monitoring the Keystone Pipeline fight. The oil that will be transported through the Keystone Pipe Line is coming, either by pipeline, rail or tanker truck. America is addicted to fossil fuels. I would rather see the oil moving through a pipeline than by rail or highway. A real cat and dog fight is going on over the pipeline.

 

[3930dave]

Has anyone besides me been watching and monitoring the Keystone Pipeline fight. The oil that will be transported through the Keystone Pipe Line is coming, either by pipeline, rail or tanker truck. America is addicted to fossil fuels. I would rather see the oil moving through a pipeline than by rail or highway. A real cat and dog fight is going on over the pipeline.

I agree Gator, I'd sooner see oil moving through a modern pipeline than anything else. Relatively speaking, truck is subject to probably higher requirements and inspections than the other 2, but I just can't see further loading our decaying road systems with the amount of truck tonnage that would be needed. And, in many parts of Canada, the roads are already plenty congested enough.

Big fight going on, but even if you were born today, I wouldn't expect to get off Oil in a lifetime - it does have to flow.

For a couple of reasons, I'd like to see something like this done:

For each Province or State that the pipline flows through, there are teams of dedicated pipeline inspectors. They are govt employees, but these departments are fully paid for (openly, thru charges to the Oil co's) by the Oil Companies.

ALL inspection reports are made public, immediately, and are subject to external audit.

I think there would be some value to this process (w/o sticking the taxpayer with the bill), and might help mitigate some of the serious opposition to the pipline. I like clean air and water myself, but I do wonder how many rabid protesters use no oil in their day to day lives.

Rgds, D.

 

[Cub 7274]

Both CN and CP here in Canada have applied a $350 surcharge to each outdated tank car used to haul crude

 

[3930dave]

Both CN and CP here in Canada have applied a $350 surcharge to each outdated tank car used to haul crude

That's a start. I suspect that Cx are the ones who pay cleanup costs in the event of a spill, so the risk cost should be passed back to them who are dragging their feet on this.

Rgds, D.

 

[crazyal]

The fact is it's a catch 22. Most tanker car owners are not going to invest in new cars knowing that they could be out of compliance once the new rules come out. But they are also not going to be quick to phase in new cars if the rules add too much cost to a new car. Personally I'm waiting to see the new rules but doubt that much can be done to improve the safety. That Lac Megantic accident was a train moving at high speeds derailing in a city.

What sort of container would of held up to that kind of impact? At best I think that the low speed derailments that usually don't have tankers that leak will stand a better chance of not having a leak. After all we are talking about almost 100 tons in a vessel rated for only 100psi. Any impact that dents the car and reduces the volume will rupture the car. Adding a second layer of steel isn't going to do much in a high speed derailment without a serious amount of volume of space between the two layers of metal. I don't see a new car holding 1/2 to 2/3 the amount of the current cars yet being the same size as going over well and I'm not sure if the size of the cars can be increased. I think that's why new rules haven't came out yet.

 

[3930dave]

On an Ag site, this link deserves a thread of it's own.... but I'm going to drop it in here as it well illustrates how skewed this whole rail story is and also because this thread has what I think of as a rail savvy following.

Grain backlog prompts BMO to loosen farmer loan terms - Business - CBC News

Can you imagine the frustration of these grain farmers !

Between corn going into gas tanks, and these grain shipments effectively blocked, you don't even have to own a tinfoil hat to wonder about food "shortages".

To put this move into context for non-Canadians - for one of the Big 5 Canadian banks to volunteer to make these concessions..... well, let's just say that I plan to ask a lawyer if H E double hockey sticks has frozen over !

Rgds, D.